 Take a roll call and we'll get started. Commissioner Cameron. Good morning. I'm here. Commissioner Brian. Here. Commissioner Zunica. Here. Good morning. And commissioner Stepans. Good morning, everyone. I'm here. We'll just pause on that for a second. Yeah. Today. First, I just want to establish that we are recording this meeting and is being conducted using remote connectivity. That's afforded to us through an executive order that governor Baker issued way back in March that allows public bodies like ours to be able to, to meet. Using. Remote technology and we've been able to take advantage of that. Even today during the middle of this. Massive snow storm and allowed us to be very nimble and meeting. We've been very appreciative of that. Today is December 17th. It is now a 1003. And for our original commissioners. Today is public meeting number 330. And I suspect that that rings a little bit of. Some sentiment or particularly. Those of you who were here from the very start. I would just like to make on some initial remarks. It would be an understatement to say 2020. Has been a remarkable year. And one full of changes. Today marks another milestone. I'm sorry. Excuse me. I wanted to restart because I want to get this right. My apologies. A little technical issue for me that I brought up a statement that didn't include what I want to say. I would say, and again, it would be an understatement to say 2020 has been a remarkable year and one full of changes. We have seen. We have navigated the impacts of the relentless. Reach of this virus. And we have to pause today and reflect that over the course of the last nine and a half months. We have lost 300,000 of our fellow Americans. And now over 11,000 in the Commonwealth. To this devastating virus. We have expressed our gratitude and continue to express our gratitude for those on the front line. Our medical heroes. Pharmacist grocery delivers all of those who are at the tellers and the cashiers, the truck drivers, the postal service men and postal service women. And of course, all of our first responders. We thank them today. We know that their work will have to sadly continue well into 2021. And we wish them. Safety and their well-being be secure. And we thank them for allowing us to be able to operate so safely from home. But today I can shift gears now. Today marks another milestone for the MGC. I think that we all knew that this day would come when we would have to bid farewell. To one of the MGC's pioneers commissioner Bruce Stevens. And today marks Bruce's final scheduled. Public meeting as a commissioner. Here at the Massachusetts gaming commission. In a moment you'll hear from my fellow commissioners. Two of whom have served with Bruce for the past eight years. They may decide to express their sentiments privately, but they have the opportunity today if they would like to express their sentiments. But they, they do share publicly will undeadly share the impact that Bruce has had during his tenure as a steady. Com presence on this body. Bruce you are always a champion for the residents and small businesses of the Commonwealth. And you've brought to your work at the MGC a keen understanding of the communities in western Massachusetts. And a commitment to the betterment of our Commonwealth. Over the course of this pandemic. I have been so appreciative of Bruce's leadership. As we have navigated an unprecedented crisis. I'm so grateful for Bruce's leadership. More, but more than anything. And I believe I can say this with great confidence. I am grateful for his. Caring demeanor. And personal investment. In every one of the MGC's employees. And stakeholders. And I know how much they're going to enjoy working with him and benefit from his expertise in highly regulated. Industries in the Commonwealth. The CCC's gain belt comes at a cost to us at the gaming commission. Your appointment, Bruce, however, is indeed a true win-win for the Commonwealth. The MGC will look forward to welcoming a new commissioner to our ranks in 2021. But I know that can speak for all of us when I say that Bruce will always hold a place here at the MGC. As an honorary member of our team. For that. Thank you. Commissioner Stevens. And I will start with commissioner Cameron. If you would like to comment now. I sure. I do want to let everyone know that commissioner Stevens has agreed to come back to visit us in January as well. And I would like to thank him for that. And I would like to thank him for a little, another send off. But today is his first formal, his last formal meeting with us. Commissioner Cameron. Yes. And commissioner Stevens, you know, it's, it's, I don't have to say goodbye, which is such a nice thing. Because I know we will be lifelong friends. And I will see you many, many times in the future. And that, that friendship is, is really. It's a really good thing. I would say crying, but certainly having some tense moments with the commission. And the chairwoman. Judd Stein said it well. And she said, you're calm, steady leadership. And I learned to appreciate that early on because that certainly was a different style. And, but which we had to learn to appreciate, learned how to work together, learn how to build this commission. at all, when I met Bruce, his kids were little girls, they are now high school and middle school young ladies. I have such a better appreciation for Western Mass and some of the nice restaurants out there due to Commissioner Stevens. Just the whole journey has been magnificent. I know this is a great opportunity for Commissioner Stevens, I'm really happy for him because I know he'll add great value to that new commission much newer than ours and they are still building. So I think the experiences here will only add to, you know, to really add value to the new commission. So again, I am not saying goodbye because I know there'll be many more opportunities to get together. So thank you and good luck with the new position. Commissioner Zuniga, I know this is your lunch buddy. So it may be hard for you to say public words, but would you like to comment? I will, I will, I'm here and I'm gonna miss out my lunch buddy for sure. I'll be brief in order to get to the business application because I know there will be other opportunities as Commissioner Cameron was saying as well as the chair to have a proper send off that includes some funny stories and other things. But I believe that this appointment is really a reflection on all the work, fantastic work that Bruce has done in his tenure here and in his experience before. A lot to mention here. If I may say so, I think it's also a reflection on the agency and the respect that the agency has with our appointing authorities, with the public at large. And that comes from all the work that all of us not, and I don't mean commissioners, I mean all employees. The new commissioners, everybody that has come and has been with us. I think it reflects on that as well. The things that now kind of these benefits and the Commonwealth at large benefits are precisely the things that we're gonna miss here in Bruce. Of course, we'll miss his great contributions. Of course, not everything was unanimous, but that's part of the deal. We're gonna miss very much his perspective, his collaborative approach. He's the meaner as Kathy was saying. His desire to create consensus and that's very important in the work we do. He's disarming humor and of course, his friendship. So congratulations and as Gail says, we'll be in touch. Commissioner O'Brien. Thank you. To reiterate what everyone else has said too, I absolutely gonna miss having Bruce next door when we go back into the office. He was one of the first faces that I met when I came down and just like everybody else said, a nice quiet, calm, steady presence. I felt like I got to have an office next door to my big brother who just that much further ahead in the commission and feeling kids and dogs and everything else. I likewise, I'm confident I'm gonna continue that friendship after he leaves the commission. I think maybe save the story in detail for another day, but anyone who doesn't know the story of how Bruce ended up running for city council in Springfield should really hear the story. It's classic Bruce, but I think it's very fortunate that it happened because I think it started him and committed him to public service. And I think public service has benefited and continues now to benefit from an incredibly intelligent, thoughtful and just fundamentally decent man who is continuing in public service. I think the cannabis commission and the Commonwealth will benefit from that. I know we will miss him dearly, but again, we will keep in touch, I'm sure. And I've said it to him already, but congratulations, Bruce. Commissioner Stevens, I know that we have further sentiments that the executive director will share on behalf of the team, we'd love to hear from you now if you'd like to comment now. The stage is yours anytime today that you want. I'm humbled by my colleagues' comments and yours, Madam Chair. I know we have some other people who have dialed in who are anxious to get to the business of the agenda. And I was fully expecting a roast more than some complimentary thoughts from my colleagues, but I'm happy to have us just kind of move ahead with the agenda, and if it's okay, I'd be happy to say something that's for meeting with us. You know what? We will allow you at any time to share your sentiments. So Karen, why don't we, I guess we'll turn then first off to item number two, which our secretary, Commissioner Stevens, will have you lead on. Thank you. Sure, thank you, Madam Chair. My colleagues in your packet, you have the minutes from the November 3rd, 2020 meeting. First of all, let me say a big thanks to Sharab Adard, who I know is also winding up her tremendous tenure with the MGC. She has been a great colleague to work with. And I know that she is working very hard to get some back meetings all caught up, and I'm gonna have a chance to review those and make sure that they're in the appropriate hands for review at a future meeting. But I just wanna thank her for her good work and really working hard over these last few weeks to get caught up. So she doesn't leave this for someone else. But in your meeting package, you have November 3rd, 2020 meeting minutes. I would move their approval as always subject to any corrections for typographical errors or any other non-material matters. Second. Thank you. Did everyone have a chance to review them? Yeah, and of course it's the hearing for them. Any comments, suggested edits? I'll set, then I'll do a roll call vote. Commissioner Cameron. Aye. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Zunica. Aye. Commissioner Stemmins. Aye. And I vote yes. Shara. Five-zero. And I am going to miss saying that to you. Real quickly, on behalf of all of us, Shara, thank you so much for your work you pivoted during the remote world. So well and have been a partner to support me throughout technical challenges. Folks don't know that Shara is sometimes a little scribe to me to remind me of things. So I have very much appreciated all of her support. I also know Shara has a very exciting opportunity. She also is going to stay with the state in the Commonwealth. And so again, our loss, but win for the Commonwealth. So we'll proceed. Thank you. And I think then it's a good segue to item number three, Karen, for the administrative update. Thank you, Madam Chair. So before getting into the official agenda item, I did want to briefly comment on behalf of the NGC staff about the departure of Commissioner Stemmins. First of all, Bruce, congratulations on your appointment. But above all, I'd like to thank you for all you've done as a leader in this organization over the last eight and a half years. I would like the public to know just how beloved Bruce is by the entire team here. Bruce has a special way of connecting with members of the staff in all different divisions and on a personal level. I routinely saw him checking in with different people in the organization, working to make their jobs better and furthering the mission of the agency. One of those people, a gaming agent, Supervisor Eric Cantel wrote Bruce a note that I will see ced on upon joining this departure. And I received permission from him to share it today because I thought it was important to communicate how the staff, the heart and soul of the organization felt about you, Bruce. And that reads, Dear Bruce, I wish you all the best in your new position. From the beginning, you made everyone in the room feel welcome. I will miss your calm, your confidence, your poise, your assurance. You exuded such knowledge and commitment to the MGC. I want you to know you'll be greatly missed and virtually impossible to replace. Please frame the certificate for winning the first poker tournament. All the best to you and your family, sincerely Eric. So Bruce, it has been my honor to work for such a good and decent man. We will all miss you very much. And to the people that work at the Cannabis Control Commission, you are so lucky. So I just wanted to say a few words. As Kathy mentioned, we'll have more time to talk to you about your thanks we have for you and your new position going forward with the staff. First item on the administrative update is the staffing update. So as Kathy mentioned today, not only do we have the departure of Bruce Stebbins, but also we are recognizing the departure of our paralegal, Sharad Hadar, who's been so instrumental in making sure that these remote public meetings are successful. Sharad worked in the IEB before going over to legal and I still remember interviewing for her position and I'm sure she knocked that out of her part. So it's no surprise she has been stood up by the OHHS. So before turning it over to our boss to say a few words, I would like to say thank you, Sharad, for all you've done for this organization. We're going to miss you very much. So I'll turn it over to Todd just for that staffing update. Well, thank you Karen and good morning to everyone. And hello, Sharad, I appreciate the opportunity to publicly offer a farewell message. And Sharad, it's always difficult to say goodbye to a person who's been such a positive presence and a fixture in one's life for so many years. And this is certainly the case for me when it comes to you. However, any sorrow I may be feeling is certainly tempered by the knowledge that you're getting a chance to pursue a really great career opportunity and undertake an interesting new challenge. I'll always be grateful to you and admire the tremendous time and effort you invested in really understanding every aspect of your job so that you can produce a really first class work product. There's certainly no one who works harder than Sharad does. And she's been responsible for many areas that may be considered the sausage-making end of our legal duties, meaning we all ultimately see a really nice finished product, but don't always realize the incredible effort that went into getting it there. This often involves largely unheralded or celebrated work, but work that is important nonetheless, really important and legally significant. For example, there's a tremendous amount of energy that goes into producing the written minutes of these commission meetings, which Shar has done and done well for quite some time. Not only does it require careful attention to detail, but the ability to synthesize into a few written pages, what is often hours of complex policy and legal discussion. And Sharad has also overseen the regulation adoption process. And what some may not fully appreciate is that when the commission moves to vote a draft regulation through the process, it involves navigating a complex maze of legal requirements that includes the preparation and filing of a wide array of legal documents with a variety of different authorities, all on a very rigid time schedule. It's not a process that's for the faint of heart, but Sharad has been able to traverse this difficult terrain tremendously well over the years, oftentimes under some really exceptional circumstances. The list goes on, but those are just two examples of the contributions you've made to this agency that I for one will always really appreciate. So thank you for your tremendous diligence to the position, but more than that, thank you for being such a thoughtful, conscientious and valuable contributor to the commission. And of course, thank you for being a friend. Miss so much about having you here as part of our team, but you can know that as you depart, you've left this place a better place than you found it. And I wish you and your beautiful family only good things moving forward. So thank you and I wish you a fond farewell and hope to keep in touch. Thank you. Wow. Thank you very much. So I do just want to say thank you so much for the E-card. That was really nice of everybody. And thank you to Katrina for making that happen. So I also just want to say, Todd, thank you for being one of the best bosses I've ever had and experience that I've had at the gaming commission has helped me really grow professionally and personally. And I get to take that with me. So that is, that's invaluable. And I still want to, you know, once things get back on track, I still would like to meet up and celebrate milestones with the commission and all that. And I'll be, I'll be right down the street. So, and if anyone needs me, I'll, um, I'll forward my personal phone number and email. So I can keep it. So thank you so much. Great. Thank you so much, Sarah. Okay. So next on the agenda item, the three B is the onsite casino update. As you are aware on December 8th, Governor Baker announced COVID-19 order 57, which took effect on November 13th. That order enhanced some restrictions, including gathering limits. However, did not impact the current casino operations. That order, not furthering limiting, further limiting casino operations specifically is consistent with the recent case of derosure versus the governor, which was issued on December 10th. And so, I think that's a good point. And I think that's a good point. The SJC upheld the governor's use of emergency powers, exercise under the civil defense act to prevent the spread of the coronavirus. That case did note that. Uh, casinos are highly regulated by the gaming commission. Massachusetts only had three casinos and the high level of regulation. Uh, less than the risk of the spread of COVID-19. At that stuff. And so, we're still in the process of getting rid of the coronavirus. Clearly the pandemic and the restrictions are getting near some, but we know especially now that we still need to require a high level of compliance by the licensees. And cooperation by casino patrons. This is not the time to let up. We need to hang in there a little while longer. Uh, as the public health experts are advising. happening at the casino. OK, thanks, Karen. Good morning, Chair. Good morning, commissioners, and good morning, Commissioner Stebbins. Generally, since the last update that we gave two weeks ago on December 3, there's continued to be broad compliance with the COVID health and safety measures by the three licensees, as well as by the patrons. We're now in week six of the required early closing period. Prior to the week six, all three licensees were on a 24-7 schedule. And now, as you know, they are closing nightly no later than 9.30 PM, and hotels remain closed at Encore and MGM. I worked on site at Encore last Friday and walked to the casino floor at around 5.30. I saw firsthand from the time you got into the elevators in the garage, the signage, the markings on the floor for distancing security protocols as you entered the casino floor. I went in and out a few times to several security stations and noticed the consistent protocols coming through. The sanitizer throughout the property, the plexiglass, where it was supposed to be at the slot, dividing the slot positions, and at the table games, chairs removed at slots and table games, allowing the distancing, mass compliance by staff and patrons throughout, no one walking around with beverages. So generally, those were my observations and have been the reports that we've gotten over the past couple of weeks. I'd like to ask Bruce Band to give you some specifics of what his team has been observing over the past couple of weeks. Yes. Over the past several weeks, we've kind of observed that casinos really haven't exceeded capacity limits. They've all remained actually below 50% at all three properties. Bottle necks like elevators and things have not been an issue. Security's done a good job of keeping the separation. There's always my new problems, but they've taken care of those quickly and correctly. The casinos have been keeping up with having the patrons keep their masks on and keeping the separation in any line or anything like that, especially with promotional giveaways, which tend to be problematic. And they've done an excellent job with that. The closings at 9.30 have been going well. They've been getting the patrons out in a timely fashion. And overall, they've done an excellent job with all the protocols. OK, great. So if there are no questions about those general measures, I did want to report on the reported positive COVID cases that we have been notified of from the casinos. It's no surprise that we would see positive cases being reported consistent with what is happening in the Commonwealth and the nation. As you know, the casinos are required to notify the IEB whenever they become aware of an employee who has tested positive for COVID-19. They also notify the Board of Health and their respective community. They've taken that responsibility seriously and responsibly. And as part of that discourse with an affected employee, they have consistently mobilized to temporarily close and deeply affected spaces where that's appropriate. They've conducted their own contact tracing through discussions with the employee and through utilizing the significant surveillance tools that they have. Follow all CDC and DPH guidelines in their personnel policies around COVID leave and testing before returning to work of an affected employee. They have measures that are part of their plans for stringent back-of-the-house training and signage and hygiene and mass compliance and distancing. And they are taking steps on a continuous basis to ensure that the employee population follows all of those health and safety guidelines. So to date, over the past approximately six months since the requirements to notify went into effect on June 23rd, we have been notified of a total of 80 positive cases arising in casino employees. It is notable that employees have largely indicated that they believe they contracted the virus outside of work, usually reporting that they believe they contracted it from a household member. But this number, this 80 number is across all three properties and dates back to the past, over the past six months. I'd like to try to give some context to the 80 number. So over the past six months since reopening, and since they've been reporting, the number of active employees across all three properties has ranged from approximately 4,400 active employees to approximately 6,300 employees. And that range is attributable to, you know, the reopening happened, then amenities were added, hotels were opened, Encore opened its hotel, MGM opened on a restricted basis. And now, you know, there was the 24-7 operating period, now we're back to the 930 closures. So all of those changes affected employee staffing. So that's why I'm giving the range. Notable again that while on property, employees remain masks subject to the sanitization rules. Also, we have seen no concerning trends in employee population concentration of any outbreaks in any on-site areas of the casinos. So generally, we thought it was important to report that number to you now, and we'll try to answer any questions that you might have about that. Questions, fellow commissioners, Commissioner Cameron. Yeah, just a comment. Certainly that number is concerning. We, you know, anyone that contracts this virus, you know, we're concerned about, and these are casino employees. But I think the important part of your report was this vigilance with compliance, meaning that both, you know, all of our licensees are in fact really vigilant about the compliance measures that are in place. So it seems to me that they are taking it very seriously, although it is concerning that some employees have contracted the virus. Other questions or comments or observations? Commissioners. Yes, if I may, a great report. Thank you. I guess we'll continue to have this, like we have been doing in recent weeks, and what you suggest is important in your report is to look at trends or look for trends that may be worrisome given all the efforts that we have and that we know are in place. So thank you for that report, and we'll stay tuned. Loretta, if I could just add, you're also confident in the protocols that the licensee takes once they understand an employee has been, is contagious or has contracted the virus? So they do follow CDC guidelines. They have COVID leave policies, and all of the reporting that's been done to me is that those policies have been implemented consistently with every report that they have. There also are instances where the positive person lives with another casino employee who is not at the time positive, consistent with the public health guidelines, personnel policies, place that person on COVID leave as well, the other household member on COVID leave as well with the testing requirement before return. So every notification I get is accompanied by that kind of detail if impacted in that way. So it appears by all of the reporting makes it apparent that they're taking their responsibility on these communications with the employees and with their reporting obligations seriously. Thank you. Any further questions for Loretta on this part of your report? I don't have a question, more of a comment in line with the other comments that have been made, which is what one of the things that I've been most interested in each time we get this number update is the contact tracing and the indications consistently appear to be primarily if not universally community spread as the reason for the positives. And I am pleased with what appears to be the effectiveness of the rules and the compliance that we put in place and the compliance by the licensees. Even as cases are going up statewide, it does seem to be consistent that those measures have been relatively effective in terms of making sure there isn't continued spread. And the policies Loretta, you just talked about in terms of supporting the employees to make sure that that continues has enabled the casino industry to continue forward during all of this. So I thank you for it. I'm interested to hear the numbers every time you come forward with it. Thank you. Loretta, do you wanna continue? Sure. So next I wanted to report to you that on December 4th, the IEB issued a notice of non-compliance to Encore relating to over service of alcoholic beverages to patrons on three instances on August 2nd, August 29th and September 4th. This was the first notice of non-compliance regarding alcohol to Encore. And although the notice issued in early December and I'm reporting this to you now, each instance was addressed in real time in August and September by the IEB with the casino and measures were put into place at the time. All three instances shared a common fact pattern and involved over serving alcohol to a patron who in each instance should not have been served. In the August 29th instance, our investigation established that the signs of intoxication would have been observable when the last drink was served to the patron. He was served his last drink at 3.09 in the morning. This was obviously 1.24. Our operations were in effect and the soon thereafter fell after getting up from his seat at a slot machine, hit his head and was tended to and evaluated by casino first aid before being escorted to safety. The other two instances violated a rule that is codified in the internal controls and the rule states that no more than three drinks can be served to a patron in one hour. In one instance, four drinks were served in an hour. In another instance, five drinks were served in an hour. In the August second instance, the individual appeared intoxicated after the service of the last drink and he was aggressive to a server and disruptive at the cage. In the September fourth instance, the individual also appeared intoxicated after the service of the last drink. He confronted another patron, refused at that point to comply with the mass policy and ultimately was placed under arrest by the GEU for disorderly conduct. So the beverage license is tied to the gaming license and the commission has always put a high priority on enforcing adherence to the rules around the service of alcohol. There's mandated training, specific internal controls, monitoring and reporting all built into the enforcement mechanisms and for obvious public safety reasons. And the issue takes on an additional dimension in the midst of this pandemic because public health also depends on patrons adhering to the masking, distancing and hygiene measures that are put into place. Obviously intoxication can interfere with a person's compliance with those safety measures and puts people like security and our GEU members at a heightened risk when they are then called on to interact with those individuals. So over services unacceptable at any time and at this time as well, the IAB wanted to go on record with the formal notice of non-compliance so that if this happens again, a monetary fine would be available. As you know, the notice of non-compliance is a prerequisite to a fine. So as I mentioned, measures were put into place right away. More comprehensive measures were directed by the IAB and multiple measures were put into place on Encore's own initiative. And I would like to ask Bruce Bande and Senior Enforcement Council, Kate Hart again, to talk about Bruce, to talk about what measures were put in place right away and Kate to talk about where we are now with the measures in place. If I could ask you. When we have an incident like this, we complete our review for we know all the facts and my staff and myself meet with the compliance director on site, we give them all the information and the facts and let them start to take action to correct this as soon as possible. They usually start to do some retraining on the tips, training and do disciplinary action with the employees and then start to put in additional steps to correct the problem. And I will have Kate continue with her section. Good morning. Good morning Kate. Nice to see everybody. So as Loretta mentioned in the notice, we did specify several recommendations and they can be broken down into four primary categories. The first being training, the second being internal controls. There were some recommendations around physical improvements and also we asked for specific information about discipline. And I will review what's been done by Encore and what they have agreed to do, pursuant to the information in the notice. First with respect to training, there have been additional training pieces put into place by Encore at this point. They're in the process of implementing additional training measures specifically mandatory monthly quizzes to test several levels of staff who are responsible for alcohol service or who may come into contact with patrons who are consuming alcohol. These include cocktail staff, front of house restaurant personnel, butlers, pit bosses and above level managers, slot supervisors, beverage managers and also restaurant managers. And in addition, Encore has taken the step of having your assistant director of beverage certified as a tips trainer. So tips for those of you who may not be familiar with that acronym is training and intervention procedures for servers of alcohol. This is a certification you can receive when you were someone in the service industry who serves alcohol. So Encore now has on site an assistant director who's actually a trainer for this program, allowing them to implement refreshers of tips for training without having to send parties off site necessarily. So that was a proactive step taken by Encore with regard to training. We also asked that in addition to this enhanced training that there be enhanced communication between the service staff and Encore has taken steps not only to make sure that service staff had been retrained on how to communicate when they're crossing over shifts or handing off shifts so that if someone is taking over service of the patron, they're speaking with the server who has provided perhaps alcohol to that patron prior earlier in the evening. And that pairs with the internal control in addition to servers making observations and communicating them to their fellow staff. It's important that pit bosses and floor managers are also aware in making significant observations about responsible service of alcohol and potential over service. And to that end, Encore has agreed to implement an internal control that would require pit bosses and floor managers to make hourly rounds of their areas of responsibility and to make observations not only of patrons who are consuming alcohol but to communicate with table games dealers as well. We realized that table games dealers in their position have a unique perspective on patrons and their consumption of alcohol. So we think that's a valuable perspective. So that internal control will be forthcoming. The third area identified in the notice was physical improvements that may help with responsible service of alcohol and monitoring of alcohol service. And there has been several physical improvements made and some in the future which Encore is undertaking at this point. So regarding physical improvements, there are now watch boards. These are in the form of white boards with markers at each service area that servers can note down the description and location of a patron and may have a particular concern about regarding over-service of alcohol. And this allows it to be communicated to other members of the service staff who are on their shift. In addition to this, which is a fairly basic method of communication, Encore is undertaking at this point to investigate how to digitize this communication so that it can happen more quickly and efficiently across service areas around the gaming floor. And the last area identified was discipline in review of the response to the notice, Encore has completed a thorough and appropriate disciplinary review across all three of these incidents. As Bruce Vann shared, this is something that it's done oftentimes prior to the issuance of a notice and Encore has shared the details of this disciplinary review with the IAB pursuant to the request made in the notice of non-compliance. That's a brief summary of the four areas of primary recommendation that were in the notice. And if there are questions, I'm happy to answer them and would also note that Jackie Chrome is on the call as well and she's been aware of this and communicating with the IAB in response to the notice. Thank you, Kate, thank you, Bruce. Questions? Good morning, Jackie. Questions for Kate on Loretta on this issue? I have one. Yes. You just laid out all three of you an extensive, what appears to be an extensive plan of actions to rectify this serious issue. In your opinions, did the licensee take these issues seriously enough and they're doing everything it sounds like to make sure something like this is not reoccurring but are the actions appropriate in your opinions? And it sounds like to me that they are but I'd like to hear from the experts. I don't think there's any question by any of us that's been involved in this matter that the licensee has been very responsive and has shares our view that this is not acceptable behavior and that considerable efforts have to be made to minimize any chance that this is a recurring thing. And the licensee knows its operation better than anybody and some of the measures were identified by them and were put into place well before the notice issued. One of the significant measures that I discussed at some length with groups was putting some responsibility through the internal control with the pit boss, the slot supervisors and the floor people which is a change and we think that that also will be an effective measure. But by all accounts, we think that there's been a comprehensive response, a responsible response from the licensee. Thank you. Commissioners, lean in or wave if you would like to. Sure. Madam Chair. Oh, Commissioner Stevens, thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Just a quick question, I guess for Loretta or Kate, correct me if I'm wrong, but the drink limitation is something that is somewhat unique when it comes to the issuance of an alcohol license and that we've spelled it out specifically that no more than three drinks in an hour, all of our licensees have agreed to that, that serve alcohol. Just confirming, is that the case? That's right. That is consistent across all three properties and essentially it's a part of the beverage license agreement which is tied to the gaming license. So that is the limit across all three licensees, yes. Okay, obviously, a couple of these instances kind of became disruptive instances on the gaming floor and it appears they were all addressed with licensee staff and GEU appropriately. I think it goes without saying that our licensees are still seriously committed to making sure that somebody who has perhaps been over-served and hopefully that case won't come up again because there are some impacts from this notice some non-compliance, but I think they're all committed to making sure that nobody ever leaves the property having been over-served and I think a couple of our licensees have made even rides or something available to make sure that people are getting home safely. In fact, they are over-served and do leave the property but I think a combination of this notice and non-compliance, all the steps that they've taken as well as what they've offered to do for their patron's safety, I think hopefully will be enough that we won't have too many of these incidents again. Right, and I do note that the last incident was the beginning of September and again, reporting to you now on it, but there has been some passage of time since this over-service issue. It hasn't repeated since the beginning of September. Loretta, though, just to clarify, and I wanna get to Commissioner Zuniga. I noted Commissioner Cameron set a plan of action, but again, after the good work of our gaming agents under the Leadership of Bruce Band and our GEU on the initial, back in August, measures were, corrective measures were immediately put in place. They just have been improved and enhanced over time and that plan of action continues and will be fully implemented given your investigation. Is that fair? Yes, that's well said. That's exactly accurate. Okay, all right, Commissioner Zuniga. Well, I was actually gonna ask precisely that question or along those lines. Also, thank the team at K. Loretta for the thorough report. It sounds like there's quite a bit of measures that are already in place and some that might evolve as you yourself alluded to whether digitizing some information or the licensee themselves, identifying additional measures in collaboration with Bruce's crew. So look forward to additional updates on this matter, but thank you for the report. Commissioner Browne. I just had one question, which when it comes to, Kate, you mentioned that there's gonna be some level of training or increased training for the table games dealers in terms of identifying, over-serving. When I was hearing about this in more detail recently, Bruce Bann pointed out there is a rotation schedule for the table dealers and so they're not, it's not static. They're not stationary necessarily seeing this person become more inebriated as the night goes on. Is part of the training going to be sort of as the table gets passed off to the next dealer? If there's anybody they think is on the cusp where they've noted anything, does that then get conveyed to the next dealer? So table games dealers weren't one of the categories specifically identified in the response as subject to the mandatory monthly quizzes about responsible alcohol service. The table game dealer interaction came more in line with having the internal control reflect pit bosses and floor managers to make hourly rounds. We want them specifically to interact with the table game dealers because the cocktail servers are moving to multiple patrons and in multiple areas of the floor. The table game dealers rotate with perhaps less frequency and will have a more consistent interaction with the group of people at their table. So we've wanted the pit bosses and floor managers to take advantage of that perspective in addition to what they may get from the watch boards and from specific cocktail server staff. So apologies if that was unclear. No, no, that clears it up. But I guess my question is still out there which is as part of that, should there also be efforts made that when the pit bosses are checking in, if they say, look, I'm watching, you know, player seven at that table that that gets conveyed to the dealer that comes in? Certainly. And I think apologies. I think that is the general spirit of trying to enhance communication in the shift handoff between the service staff and any personnel who are on the gaming floor and these watch boards, as I said, are, you know, an initial effort. And certainly, Encore has identified some more efficient ways to make sure that information is communicated more broadly across all areas of the gaming floor. I was just going to ask you. Everything going on at the table gets passed off when people relieve each other from a patron's play to anything else going on, if the patron's problematic or anything. So that would get passed off when they make a switch. Great, thank you. You're welcome. And just so that I'm clear, Bruce, is that memorialized in the internal controls? I will make sure it is because that has not been submitted yet at this point. Okay, thank you. Are there any other comments or questions? I just want to first say that I was very pleased to hear about the vigilance of our eyes at the casino floor that are through the eyes of our gaming agents as well as our GEU. They intercepted this activity and they did make recommendations and worked with the licensees to put in place important measures at that time. I want to thank the investigative team under first really it was a crossover under Karen and then Loretta and with a good work of Kate to be thorough. Loretta noted the dates of these matters. We always want to be cognizant of timing. I also want to be cognizant of the fact that this is a significant notice for our licensees that must be taken with care because it is significant to their record. And so today marks a serious note for Encore and I am looking forward to being able to have reports from IEB about how these measures have been implemented, enhanced and then tested. So I'm sure that we will get follow-up reports in the future. I also am quite confident because I have confidence in the folks at Encore that they will take this notice today with the very seriousness that all of our team has taken it. So I think that the test buys ahead to make sure that all these measures work. Of course, not only are we always concerned about this but not only for the patron safety but as Commissioner Stebbins alluded, a patron who somehow inadvertently gets behind a steering wheel. Complicated, of course, that the stakes are too high for non-compliance with the COVID-19 measures. And so this is an extremely important conversation to have today for us to really hear the full compliment of measures being taken with respect to over-serving I thank you Loretta and team for today's thorough report. I don't want to put you Jackie on the spot but you are here and of course, if you would like to chime in Loretta, does this is the proper time for Jackie to chime in or would you prefer? No, I think this is perfect. Okay, Jackie again. So thank you, Commissioner Chair. We absolutely share your concern that over-service is never acceptable anytime and I can reassure you that we cut people off on a daily basis. Many, many people get cut off. So it's something that we are watching. I think with any incident you learn and you grow and I think that's what happened here, what we've realized is that we need to increase communication primarily between our gaming departments and our beverage departments. That's what we're trying to put in place now to really add another layer of protection. Thank you. Commissioner, is any further comments, questions on this matter? I know Loretta you have a third item, I believe. I do, so shall I jump right into that chair? Sure. Okay, so the other matter arose on the night of Sunday, December 6th at Mystique, a restaurant located at Encore. Mystique is operated by the Big Night Entertainment Group as a vendor licensed by the Commission to conduct the business with the casino. And Mystique has been authorized to operate as a restaurant under the state's restaurant guidelines. So on the night in question, Sunday the 6th, there was larger than usual attendance at the restaurant and restaurant management explained that this was due to a late afternoon Patriots game and what management termed and industry night for professionals in the hospitality industry. And that type of event, which was on that night largely reservations-based was authorized under the restaurant guidelines. The IEB did a comprehensive review of the surveillance footage of the evening and of course we are familiar firsthand with the layout of the restaurant itself. And I mentioned the layout because the configuration of the restaurant I think comes into play in some of the issues that they had on the night in question. So there is a dining room in the restaurant with typical dining tables, but the area in question has a bar which this bar had appropriate plexiglass separations and bars are allowed under the state guidelines so long as prepared food is served. This part of the restaurant also has a long narrow high top table with bar height chairs at it that is located directly behind the guests who are seated at the restaurant's main bar. What unfolded here is the evening progressed is that the setting looked less like a typical dining sit down restaurant setting and more like an informal gathering. Some guests did not remain seated at their dining spot and rather they walked around the area socializing with other guests who were seated at these two bars. Some guests were unmasked and walking around with their beverages. Some unmasked guests were walking right up to servers and not maintaining the six foot distance. The passageway between these two bars that I described was a narrow area and on that night it was a high traffic area and they did not maintain a single direction flow of traffic in that area that night. So there was not strict adherence to the mass requirements and there was not strict adherence to the six foot distancing requirements. In the continuum of behaviors this was not a wild overcrowded party. In fact, it was not a matter of being over capacity or having an over capacity crowd. It was people walking around unmasked visiting with one another in close contact with one another and with staff in more of what you describe as an informal social gathering setting. Now it is worth noting what the restaurant did that night. They recognized that this was not an ideal situation and they closed the restaurant early. The lights went on at around 8.30 and the last guests were leaving by 9.10. As of Monday of this week, the 14th management on its own volition closed the restaurant until further notice expected sometime in 2021. The decision by management to close on their own really makes moved any corrective action that the IEB would otherwise have taken. It was a responsible measure that they took at this difficult time. So the management also, I should note they were very cooperative with both GEU and the gaming agents. They made their management teams available to us and assisted in making the surveillance footage available efficiently and thoroughly. And again, I thought it was important to report this activity to you. It's not the type of activity that we have been seeing or that can be tolerated. Given the actions that were taken, which I think were responsible actions, the only thing that the IEB would expect with the eventual reopening of Mystique is that the reopening be subject to the IEB review and approval, give the IEB the opportunity to assess any health measures that are still required at the time of reopening, especially around the configuration issues. So those are my prepared remarks on Mystique. And I know we have folks on this call, myself and others who can try to answer any questions that you might have. Commissioner Loretta. Commissioner O'Brien. My question is more, you've made comments about how the configuration and maybe the high-top table versus regular tables or booths may have contributed to this. I'm assuming, but just want to make sure that's been conveyed to Big Night Entertainment in terms of coming back to IEB in 2021 potentially to reopen to make sure those concerns are part of what's addressed. I mean, it's conveyed publicly now when we will certainly be having follow-up conversations with them about their plans. Absolutely. Commissioner, Loretta, though, in terms of that, they, the arrangement that they had was in compliance with the state guidelines. It's just, I think, in this case, would you say the fact that many of these individuals knew each other, so the interaction maybe provided by a high-top, the ease of getting off from a high-top stool was because they knew each other. We hadn't had any reports on that activity happening prior to that night, correct? That's right, and that may be a factor that attendance was higher on that night and that the folks there did know one another as opposed to, you know, separate parties coming in. I do have some question about that narrow area between the two bars. It appears that the tables themselves, edge-to-edge, may be six feet apart, but when you have the chairs and the way the chairs are utilized at the bars, you have a less-than-ideal situation there regardless. So I think we'd want to take a closer look at that. Thanks for the clarification. It was a follow-up question for Commissioner O'Brien. Commissioner O'Brien, did you have another question or comment? No, but other than to say that given your comment again, that this may be technically in compliance, the fact that the reality on the ground is leading to some concerns, it may be as the spring unfolds and we have, you know, not normal, but getting close, you have more attendance and I'd like to see it fixed, flow-wise, structural-wise, et cetera, so that we're eliminating what we've seen as a potential problem. Absolutely. Thank you. Follow-up question as well. It sounds like the staff in this particular restaurant is not as vigilant as the staff in the casino with regard to encouraging or mandating the masks worn properly and the distancing. So it would seem to me that additional training to that staff may be in order before they reopen as well so that they understand that they need to be really vigilant with those compliance measures. You know, that's a good point, Commissioner, because we have felt that on the casino floor that employees at all levels, it's been a talk-to-bottom approach and that employees at all levels have been made to feel empowered to, you know, do their part to see that these measures are enforced. So, you know, that is a good point about the restaurant employees as well. Commissioner Zunica? Commissioner Stebbins? Okay, he's outside. Commissioner Stebbins, are you outside? Oh, you know, just to say I appreciate GEU and the IEB's work on this, you know, certainly Commissioner Cameron makes a good recommendation about making sure that that operator's staff are brought up to speed with what they should feel free to be able to do in talking with patrons. You know, overall, it's just disappointing the behavior of these patrons has, you know, led to this decision to shut down the restaurant in 2021 and in fact, the livelihood of all their employees. And, you know, that's disappointing. But I have to compliment them on seeing that the event was getting out of hand and that they tried to take appropriate actions and do it quickly to close the restaurant and move everybody out. Can I also just point a clarification, though, I'm about to excuse me. Again, I think I heard you clearly, but I just want to reiterate that this decision to close one, I do applaud them for recognizing and closing early to Commissioner Stevan's point, but they've also decided to close all together and as Commissioner Stevan points out, that does mean it affects the livelihood of those who were working there. But it was their decision to take that step. At this point in time, you might have had corrective actions in mind, but you had not in any way delivered a message to this vendor that closure was going to be required or recommended. So absolutely not. The decision was theirs. We were really still in a, you know, fact-finding mode when they informed us about this. It came, the formal notification came on Monday, but I think they had notified GEU and Bruce even earlier than Monday that they were thinking about that. So they did that on their own. And, you know, I understand they are a group that is a prominent group in this region. And, you know, I'm sure they, you know, more, as I said, approached the whole thing very responsibly. And, you know, this was a decision that they came to on their own. We didn't request and we never talked to them about measures or signals that there would be any kind of mandated closing at all. Anything further? Extensive report, excellent thorough investigations and again, with all the right considerations in mind at this very challenging time. So, yes. Thank you, Chair. And, you know, again, we in the IEB know that we're still in a very critical period in this pandemic. There's light at the end of the tunnel, but not a time to let our guard down now. So thank you. That's so well put, Loretta. Thank you. All right. Then I believe Director Wells in my right that we can move on to item number four, or do you have anything to close with? That is correct. Go ahead hit the item number four, Madam Chair. Okay. Well, we are shifting gears to some historic import. It's hard to believe it's historic because it wasn't that long ago, correct. But we will now hear from Director Mark VanderLinden researching responsible gaming on Encore's construction report. I've been looking forward to this, Mark. Thank you. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, missionaries. Good morning. I, too, have been really looking forward to this. I'm joined by Dr. Rachel Volberg, who is the principal investigator on this project, as well as Rod Metammity, who is a senior research manager at the UMass Donahue Institute. Before I turn it over to them, I just wanted to say a few words. The Expanded Gaming Act directs the MGC to develop an annual research agenda in order to understand the social and economic effects of casino gambling and the Commonwealth. The Commission selected the UMass Amherst School of Public Health and Health Sciences and the UMass Donahue Institute to carry out key aspects of this research agenda. Together, they form the SIGMA project or the social and economic impacts of gaming in Massachusetts. Since 2013, our partnership with these two highly respected institutions has produced over 40 reports and publications and provided residents of Massachusetts with a first of its kind gambling oversight system that provides neutral information on decision making, early warning signs of changes connected to gambling and the Commonwealth, and information to inform the services to prevent and mitigate gambling-related harm. The present report on the construction of Encore Boston Harbor adds to this body of research and contributes greatly to our understanding of the economic impacts of the casino industry in Massachusetts. The study that you're about to hear about provides detail to the $1.6 billion of direct costs associated with building the casino. It measures the economic ripple effect across the state and reports on key aspects of the construction workforce. So why is it important? The Expanded Gaming Act was passed in large part to stimulate job growth and benefit the local and state economy. Rod Metamedy will provide in detail and describe the success of this project in accomplishing those two goals. I will turn it over to him in just a second. Before I do so, I wanted to just do a call out to the individuals that without their participation in collaboration, this simply would not be possible, including Suffolk Construction who provided an enormous amount of collaboration and providing the data to our research team. Our research review committee, who we always have at least a couple rounds of feedback on the report before we're satisfied that it is final and not least of which is Encore Boston Harbor and specifically Jackie Crum who is joining us today. Their collaboration on making sure that the data is complete and accurate is really important. And actually following Rod's presentation, I hope Jackie will also say a few words just about the construction for perspective on this is pretty in depth. So with that, I will turn it over to you, Rachel and Rod. You can, if you want to unmute yourself. Yep. Can everyone hear me? Great. Yes. Madam Chair, commissioners, I hope you'll indulge me for just a couple of minutes to say farewell to Bruce Stevens. I first met Bruce in 2012 when our UMass based Amherst based team began exploring the possibility of competing for this project that we were successful in getting and began in 2013. But I think the real way that Bruce managed to get into my mind this morning was that in every subsequent meeting where we presented after that first meeting in 2012, Bruce never failed to remind me how thoroughly we terrified him with our knowledge of Section 71 of the Expanded Gaming Act. So Bruce, it's been such a pleasure working with you and I hope you'll come back to Western Massachusetts and visit us frequently. And I know that the Cannabis Control Commission is looking forward to you, not least of whom is probably Julie Johnson who is their director of research. Thank you. Thank you, Rachel. I want to add, I think, Commissioner Zuniga might have been equally afraid of Section 71 as I was, but it's been a pleasure working with you and your entire team. It's been an incredible opportunity. So thank you. Thank you. So the presentation we have today focuses on the economic impacts of the construction of Encore Boston Harbor. And as Mark has already indicated, Section 71 of the Expanded Gaming Act ensured that these impacts of the construction of the new casinos in Massachusetts could be identified. And I just want to emphasize the uniqueness of that particular section of the Expanded Gaming Act which is truly a unique and one of a kind in the United States. So the report that you'll be hearing today is the final one of three that our economic team from the UMass Donahue Institute has completed to help understand the spending, employment, and economic impacts of the construction phase of the casino industry in Massachusetts. Going forward, we will be turning our focus to fully understanding the operational impacts of the casino industry in the Commonwealth as well as assessing the impacts of COVID-19 on the casino industry. So I just wanted to make just a few brief remarks and I'm going to turn it now over to Rod Motammity who will be presenting the report this morning. Rod? Morning, everyone. I'm going to do the screen share now. Morning. So let's see here. Okay. Can everyone see the slide correctly? I have two monitors so I'm never quite sure what screen you're seeing. So... We're seeing the slides. Okay. Not the notes. Not the notes. Right. All right. All right. So thank you, everyone. I'd like to thank again the commission and Director VanderLinden for inviting us to present today. As you've heard, over the past many years, the people of Massachusetts have heard much about the potential arms and benefits of expanding gaming and the business of doing so. We on the Sigma team are honored to have been able to study so many aspects of this project over these years, some of which more controversial than others, but I think today is perhaps one of the least controversial aspects of the game expansion, which is the construction. I think it's clear that spending hundreds of millions, or in this case, a couple billion dollars, to build something new will undoubtedly create income and employment for many. That was known prior to the fact. Our objective with this study is to put a finer point on where and to whom these benefits accrue. So before I really get into the results of the study, there are a few details that I want to cover. The first is to clarify what exactly it is that we study. We didn't evaluate the full investment, the 2.1 billion dollars, but rather the 1.6 billion dollars of that. Total investment includes things like, if you see those license application fees, the land purchases, pre-opening expenses, and perhaps most notably furniture fixtures and equipment, which are basically the things that one would see filling the space, the gaming machines, the tables, TVs, couches, beds and bedding, pots and pans, etc., etc. We didn't include those things because typically they are purchased on contract from out-of-state vendors and thus don't typically create direct impacts in Massachusetts. However, insofar as local businesses will clean, maintain, repair or replenish any of those supplies, we'll capture that in our operations reports that are forthcoming. The next two points are housekeeping. Director VanderLinden already mentioned the fact that Suffolk Construction Company was our data provider. As their role as the construction manager for the project, they oversaw all the contractors and subcontractors and payments and so forth. So we worked with them, obviously with the guidance and encouragement of Jackie and her colleagues at Encore. I would like to take a moment in my admittedly limited time to single out Emily Earle at Suffolk, who helps me with data collection there. She was my main contact. She was nothing but helpful through both the birth of her first child and all the COVID disruptions. So with all of the power of Section 71, with all of the regulatory authority of the NGC to compel action on behalf of the licensees, at the end of the day the success of the SEMA project comes down to individuals making a choice to stand up and be helpful. And so I want to acknowledge Emily and others for making that choice and being helpful to us. And lastly, just again another housekeeping point, our data was current at the time of data delivery. As a result, it's a snapshot in time. The data came to us after the conclusion of the construction project. So we don't expect any major changes. But even with MGM, we saw that there were some small modifications as things were audited and so on after the data came to us. In that case, it was low single-digit percentages and so they made no material impact on our findings and we don't expect there to be any difference in this case. So I shall not bury the lead any more than I already have. Here are the things that I believe are the key findings of our report. I'll expand on each of these points as I go through my presentation but I want to highlight them here so we can come. The first is that most of the construction spending stayed in Massachusetts and most of the spending in Massachusetts went to companies in the Metro Boston area. The area was also home to most of the construction workers. Next, 13% of the contracts by value went to companies that met at least one of the diversity criteria of being either a woman minority or veteran home business enterprise. And the data suggests that the construction workforce that was used was representative of the state's construction workforce in terms of race, gender, and veteran stats. And lastly, after accounting for the ripple effects that Director Vander Linden alluded to of economic impacts as they move around through the economy and leakages out of the economy through imports, commuting, and so on, we found that the $1.6 billion of construction spending created $2.6 billion of total economic activity and the related income and jobs that would be needed to produce that economic activity. So as I said, we'll go through all of this in a bit more detail but I think that's where the key findings are. A key driver of the geographic distribution of the contracts and the workers and thus as a result the impacts of the economic impacts is just the location of Angkor-Bossenhardt. So located where it is off of Route 99 in Everett right across the river from what seems to me the ever-expanding Assembly Row area of Somerville. One would expect that given where it's located the economic impacts would be proximate to the construction site. And we saw that with the construction study of Clanwich Park Casino and MGM Springfield where the economic benefits grow with proximate to construction site. So this map further illustrates the distribution of contracts around the state. Note that businesses in five counties didn't receive any contracts of Franklin County, Berkshire County and the three counties of the Cape and Islands. So of the $1.6 billion in construction spending $1.1 billion stayed in Massachusetts. That's a of the total 1.6, 27% went to Suffolk County, 15% to Middlesex and then Norfolk and Plymouth excuse me Plymouth make up most of the rest. At a smaller more disaggregated level 28% of all Massachusetts-based spending went to the host and surrounding communities. So that's roughly $447 million. Almost 90% of that amount went to Boston went to businesses in Boston. But that isn't as out of whack perhaps as it would originally seem. A lot of that is due to the fact that Suffolk Construction Company is located in Boston. And as the prime contractor and construction manager for a $1.6 billion construction project one would imagine that a lot of money would cycle through there. So if you remove the effects of Suffolk it's really more like a hundred something million dollars went to Boston. And after that ever it was the next highest with 32 million dollars. So roughly 75% of the construction spending was awarded to companies in Massachusetts but the remaining quarter did go out of state. The vast majority of the money that left Massachusetts remained within United States only 4% of the total construction spending with the 4% of the project for the size is like $70 million. There was 36 other states in addition to Massachusetts that received some construction spending some contracts though it's proportionally pretty small. Rhode Island was the next highest state after Massachusetts though it only had roughly $96 million with the contracts which is only 4% of what Massachusetts received. Beyond that Connecticut and New York are the only other states that received over $50 million with the contracts. So you take the top four Massachusetts Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York that's 85% of contract value is just in those four neighboring nearby states. So again the rest of those you know states that you see there while there are contracts there they are proportionally rather small to the size of it. We also looked at the destination of the spending the companies buy their diversity or location criteria. Again this is of the ownership we'll get to the workers in a little bit. What we found was that 20% roughly or $355 million of contracts by value went to companies that met the global criteria and together 13% went to companies that met at least one of the diversity criteria that's a $208 million in total. For those of you who are interested in doing some quick arithmetic every 1% is $16 million. So that's 1% to the VBEs at $60 million 2% is $32 million and so on. But it's a 13% total of $208 million for the companies that again that met at least one of the diversity criteria. And my recollection is that this is pretty in line with and perhaps better than on course as stated goals. So now taking a shift to talk about the workers we talked about something the stuff on the business side now we're going to take a look at the worker side. What we estimated from our calculations is that roughly 6,700 individuals likely cycled through the sites at some point over the construction time. Again it could have been for an hour it could have been for months but at some point cycled through the site. And these individuals sorry was someone and I just want to make sure that you we hear you clearly when you lean into the microphone and it just occasionally I'm using a headset I think it's moving around let me try that but we are hearing almost like 99% of what you're saying but every word matters so thank you sure let me see if I can fix this microphone and they use the mock turtle collar here to see if I can nail down the microphone a bit better is this better? Okay Where was I? Oh yeah 5.2 million hours so we think the so the data suggests that that's about the total number of hours worked which is considerable. Due to the nature of construction we didn't expect the average hours worked per worker to be super high the way the trades work is you cycle on and off the site as needs dictate right the electricians don't come on until there's a building envelope for them to work in the plumbers don't come on or the finished carpenters don't come on until they're needed and they cycle off on the finish average hours worked was about 760 hours per worker which is 1940 hour weeks so just under five months that was about the average if you take those hours and you convert them to full-time equivalents so you divide them by 2,080 hours that works out to 2,500 FTD so that's what we thought total compensation for workers on this project was just under 250 million dollars I'd like to note that compensation differs from wages in that it includes the value of benefits the average worker received about 36,500 dollars in compensation on this project for an average hourly rate of 47 dollars and 89 cents to give you some context the national average compensation rate for a construction worker is 35 dollars and 83 cents so about 12 dollars less however we know that Massachusetts living costs are higher and thus wages tend to be a bit higher so I searched for state-level average compensation by industry that data isn't readily available but I was able to find average wage data by industry which suggests that Massachusetts construction workers earn a 30% higher wage than the national average so if you scale up national comp by 30% you get 46 dollars and 58 cents which is a couple of dollars lower than what we see here so this isn't an exact outcome but at the very least it suggests that these workers were paid again at different levels again at the very least in line with state norms if not a little bit if not a little bit more we found that workers residing in Everett and the surrounding communities earned slightly lower average hourly compensation rates than the average for all workers this finding aligns with what we saw for the host communities as well in MGM Springfield and the PPC construction projects and given how different these places are from each other the labor sheds their local economies and so forth we think the most likely explanation for this compensation rate observation is that the labor for the most common trades things like iron workers electricians pipe fitters etc can be found locally while the only reason you would bring a worker from farther away was because they possess specialized knowledge or skills that couldn't be procured locally and thus those folks would justify higher pay so because we saw this same kind of ringed outcome in both the you know in Plainville and Springfield and Everett we don't think it's a community specific thing we think it's more of a structure of where you would source workers from for these projects and again the most you know common trades and skills you can find locally and you have to look further field for more specialized trades and thus pay people more so within the Commonwealth as we mentioned early in the presentation half of the workers resided either Middlesex or Suffolk counties after those two counties you see the workers are spread relatively evenly across eastern Massachusetts and then they drop off pretty quickly as you gain more distance of the roughly 3300 workers who reside in Middlesex and Suffolk counties most live in the host and surrounding communities so 62% of those or roughly 2000 lived in the host and surrounding communities of roughly 327 workers our estimates suggest resided in Everett itself so I want to talk a little bit about the race and ethnicity of the construction workers used on the Encore Boston Harbor project versus their sort of comparison groups and I want to take a little extra minute to walk through this because the findings here are a little bit more nuanced than they are elsewhere in the report and this it kind of boils down to the data we had and the data we didn't have so there are some things we can say with high confidence and that is taken as a whole the workers used for the Encore Boston Harbor construction project are representative of construction workers as a whole in Massachusetts in terms of gender race and ethnicity as I said in the beginning so for sorry and veteran status so for gender and veteran status it's right on the money seven percent of Massachusetts construction workers are women and seven percent of all hours on this project were done by women seven percent of construction or sorry six percent are veterans and six percent on this project were veterans the data actually suggests that the construction workers on this project were actually more diverse than construction workers as a whole for the state we found that the workers on this project were 61 percent white whereas 75 percent of workers in construction occupations for the state are white so a more diverse group where we have low confidence in our findings is comparing the workers on the project who are from Everett to people from Everett who are in construction occupations generally and that's where the data limitations really came into play so the publicly available data for occupation by race by town has very high margins of error somewhere in the vicinity of 20 to 25 percent and so with margins that big it's hard to make any claim definitively because at the lower end or the upper end of those error bounds you could get widely different sort of conclusions if you take the census data at its face it says that 60 percent of people who live in Everett who are in a construction occupation are white the data for this project shows that 54 percent of the workers were white so again if you take the census data at a state's value the workers on this project were actually more diverse than their peer cohorts however I have provided the Everett's working age population as just a context we don't expect the working age population to be representative of the mix of any particular any particular occupation but what we see here is that Everett is a white minority city and at the very least the data suggests that the construction occupations are not representative at least in terms of race and ethnicity of the population as a whole so the occupation as a whole construction occupations as a whole or is not represented of the city as a whole so there is some work to do there and those occupations and again as best we can tell the data seem to suggest that the workers from Everett were at least representative of those in construction occupations but it's inconclusive I do want to point out to switch back to our high confidence things about the broad representativeness of the group of a project this size you might think seven percent female participation six percent veteran participation you know 39 percent minority participation those sound low although they are representative but again of a project this size we're talking 391,000 hours of work for women almost 298,000 hours of work for veterans and almost 1.4 million hours of work for minorities so when a project has 5.2 million hours of work six or seven percent is a lot of work so it is worth applauding at least those opportunities and one last thing I would point out on this topic before we switch gears is to the commissioners in your evaluation of this report when you get to this section if you feel that it requires more context or explanation please let us know so switching gears now to the economic impact analysis we've talked about how money flowed to businesses how workers were hired and where they were and now we're going to switch gears and figure out how that all ripples out through the economy we've said to you in these presentations before that we use a model from a company called Regional Economic Models Incorporated that's based in Ambrose, Massachusetts we think they make a model that has a lot of advantages for us for this project we have divided it up into the six regions you see here we chose these six regions for two reasons one is that they aggregate up to the three gaming regions which obviously is useful and two they represent existing commuting and economic linkages in the state so those are the regions that you're going to see results for in this presentation and in the accompanying report so here you see the employment impacts so after doing our economic modeling we found that statewide the construction of Encore, Boston Harbor created or supported an average of 2,500 jobs per year which peaked at roughly 3,350 jobs in 27 interestingly that was also the peak year of construction employment impacts for the NGM Springfield construction project as well so clearly that was a good year to be a construction worker in Massachusetts I think we've talked about what direct indirect and induced mean before but by way of refresher direct is the things that are quite literally directly attached or attributable to the project so you don't have construction workers themselves indirect is the business to business chain the vendor to vendor construction project buys some concrete the concrete vendor then needs to buy some cement and some trucks the truck vendor then needs to buy some steel etc that's the indirect chain the induced chain is largely consumption but it also includes investment in government spending but it's mostly I am now employed I have a paycheck I go by childcare services or a restaurant meal those businesses then pay their own employees who then make their own purchases and so forth what you'll see I think of notes here is that the indirect jobs are proportionally pretty small compared to the others and the reason for that is in a construction project in a state like Massachusetts the supply chain very quickly leads the state we don't make cement we don't make rebar we don't make wires we don't make you know windows and doors we don't you know and so all of that stuff that you need for construction projects largely going to be imported and so that's indirect business to business supply chain very quickly exits the state and thus the impacts disappear for Massachusetts of the total jobs roughly two-thirds were in construction and then the next four in the top five are healthcare and social assistance retail trade state and local government and accommodation and food services so basically the next four are essentially things that are supported by consumption more people have jobs the paychecks get spent and it goes to largely consumption based goods with the exception of state and local government which just tends to fluctuate with general economic activity next we're going to talk about the dollar impacts so here we have total economic activity otherwise known as output or revenues or business sales and then we have net new economic activity also known as value added or gross product I'll get into the next slide about how these things differ from each other but for the purposes of this one I just wanted to reiterate a couple things here again we can see the ramifications of the geographical distribution of contracts and workers because those things are concentrated in Metro Boston due to the location of the casino the impacts tend to be concentrated there as well Metro Boston is further aided by the fact that it's the economic hub of the state so transactions or economic activity that happens anywhere a small piece of that might cycle through Metro Boston anyway so it's sort of further aided in that way the annual average column will give you a good sense of what to expect or what the impacts were in a typical year whereas the cumulative column shows the economic activity over the five-year analysis period so in my last slide I just want to walk the audience through what is total economic activity what isn't that new economic activity how do we get from one to the other so I'm just going to walk through this from left to right so we start with 1.6 billion dollars of constructions right off the bat we lose half a billion because that leaves the state to buy things from elsewhere so we start with 1.1 billion dollars in state through those direct and indirect effects that we just talked about through supply chains through consumer effects and so forth we get an additional roughly 1.5 billion dollars of economic activity we wind up at 2.6 billion dollars however in order to produce that 2.6 billion dollars we need to use up other things nothing is made from nothing so for example to make a car you use up steel you use up plastic you use up wiring you use up legal services you use up marketing services it's not accurate to say what is the total value of things that this economy created if you count both the car and the steel because the car is sold at such a price that includes the value of everything that went into it so in that same logic to say oh we're going to count all of the things that were used up and producing all this economic activity and count all the new economic activity we're essentially counting things twice so what to get from total to net we subtract the things that were consumed in production so that's roughly a billion dollars worth of things and that's how we get to 1.6 billion dollars of net new economic activity or 1.6 billion dollars of gross state product or value added or whichever term you're more familiar with they're all the same and so that's it as a final point I'd just like to draw the audience's attention to the bottom link on this slide there you'll be able to find the report accompanying this presentation shortly after this meeting ends and you'll also be able to find any other reports that this beyond that I'm happy to stay on would would you mind pulling your power point down so that we can restore our ability to see each other's faces please thank you so that's um very comprehensive and exciting where do we begin commissioners with questions observations it's very exciting Commissioner Zuniga yeah thank you thank you um my name's Sharon and thank you um Ron and Rachel for the for the great overview I have two um two perhaps comments one one question and a comment I know this was not part of the analysis Rod but there was a close to another billion dollars being in costs that was part of the initial investment some of which was for regulatory costs that supports frankly some of our jobs and and the licensing fee goes to the state coffers that also supports a number of things we'd be fair and I know this not part of this analysis uh necessarily but we'd be fair to say that some of it might mirror some of the same uh trends that you outline a relative to the direct cost in terms of use as well as where they went meaning that you know the locality sure um I can provide a little bit of context for that I'll start with one thing you actually didn't ask me about and that's land acquisition costs we exclude those from economic impact analyses essentially as a practice because a transfer of an assets is not an economic impact right so if I buy a stock share from you all I've done is just moved a thing back and forth that doesn't induce new economic activity again land acquisition we treat the same way for economic impact models so that being excluded the rest of it yeah in fact especially things that went to regulatory costs and so forth the government services tend to be labor it tends to be the acquisition of labor and the provision of services that are provided by individuals so the employment return on money that goes to fund government services tends to be very high so you would see a pretty significant employment return on those those things which is actually what we saw in the operating impact study we differ language park casino we actually found that the share of their tax revenue that goes to local aid and thus into local government spending actually creates larger economic impacts than the casino's own contained economic activity so that is a reaction that we would see there in terms of the other procurement yes it would create these same economic induced and indirect effects but just likely in other states so where are those so Nevada for example that manufactures most of the gaming devices in the country there's going to be a lot of indirect and induced activity generated there by buying you know thousands of slot machines and so forth but a lot of those tend to leave the state because we just don't manufacture those things here was that about what you're going for commissions in here yeah yeah thank you that's that's a great context and a good reminder about the land acquisition costs then the other thing that I would just like to comment on is something that struck me as you were going through the presentation and that is on the finding about a representative aspect of the population in terms of minority women and veteran status that is in line with with what you know the state has but I would just note and I think it should be noted that that came through a lot of hard work it was it didn't happen by chance there was a lot of efforts by many here but we're also you know jail and commissioner Stevens and many others as well as a lot of stakeholders in these acts as an opportunity committee to try to always ensure that those those results endure it so thank you for for noting it I just wanted to emphasize the work that you took I'm not not the least of which also the licensee Suffolk and and everybody at Angkor it's it just took a lot of you know hard work commissioner Cameron yes thank you by a follow-up question to commissioner Zuniga's question I intended to to ask about the seven percent seven percent in particular with women because again we know how hard that build the life that work campaign I mean all of that was it was as commissioner just pointed out such hard work and such a such an accomplishment but then the number of the overall state number which is seven percent was that after that campaign so those numbers were in fact higher as well is not just the numbers on this particular project the numbers I think are a five-year average ending in I want to say 2018 maybe so I think it would perhaps catch some of the those efforts but not all of them okay so I guess I was surprised that the numbers were the same seven percent for this particular project and seven percent statewide unless there are other parts of the state that happen to have a higher percentage of women working I'm just that we're not aware of or we've never been I think part of it is also a definitional thing that's sort of unavoidable on our part the construction occupations is a lot of stuff right it's not necessarily women in the trades I see you know so women in the trades could very well be much lower but we don't have access to data that's as you know how many female bricklayers are there how many female masons are there you know so construction occupations could be supervisors it could be some equipment operators it could be many of other things so I do want to separate those two things because I think what we might actually be talking about slightly different things I think these efforts that have bore a lot of success was more about you know women in trades more broadly than women in construction occupations which is the best comparison that we could get data for okay thank you for that before we continue I do want to invite Jackie Crum Vice President John Counsel at all for to speak I know that you partnered very closely with Director Griffin and her team and Suffolk to achieve so much of these accomplishments that we've heard in detail today so we'd love to hear from you thank you Madam Chair so I was just reflecting that seven years ago today I was frantically working to complete the RFA2 application and I was laughing when I was hearing this presentation because at the time the RF, our project was 1.6 billion all in as we all know that didn't work out so well for us but anyway a large part of that application was obviously focused on the impacts of construction and Commissioner Stevrens if I recall correctly you were responsible for the economic development section and I believe you gave us three out of four in the overall well done categories so we appreciate that we have very strong opinions on the matter but I understood that research and facts were needed to back up those opinions to that end we engaged two separate consultants to analyze data and to provide us projections and it very quickly became apparent to us that while there are lots of studies on discrete aspects of casino construction projects there was no comprehensive study that the legislature and the commission had the foresight to commission a study of this breadth is a huge benefit for the industry now we now have a roadmap for future projects and something to back up our opinions I'd also like to thank our construction partner Suffolk Construction and our construction team led by Peter Campo who's staying on top of this on a daily basis working with Jill working with the commission it really was an all hands on board achievement and last but not least I'd like to thank the Sigma team Rod and Rachel I know it was an extraordinary effort to put this to distill all this information and it was a vast amount of data into such a comprehensive and digestible report so thank you for that and if I may may I say something very brief to commissioners Stevens you may and you don't even have to be so free thank you so first of all congratulations commissioners Stevens I can't believe it's been over seven years we will certainly miss your thoughtful deliberation always probing us to do better and your consistent support over all this time but I do have a question for you does this mean that you're finally able to come to Uncle Boston Harbor and enjoy our facilities commissioners Zunagos shaking his head yes I'll look for legal counsel they give me a full opinion counsel push the chime in you can go we just can't take free stuff no free stuff okay well congratulations it's been an absolute pleasure to work with you and I speak on behalf of our entire team it's been a wonderful experience you've had you've touched every part of our projects and we couldn't have been more appreciative of your support thank you thank you Jackie it goes without saying I've been humbled and privileged to have had the opportunity to work with you and Jenny and Bob and so many others over at Uncle Boston Harbor and I remain amazed to what you were able to do with a property that had been long forgotten and ignored and kind of left to its own devices so thank you for I know the dramatic impact you've had on the city ever in the immediate surrounding area Madam Chair I got a couple of just quick questions for Rod if I can absolutely thank you Rod first of all thanks to you and your team the breakdown of what the impact meant county by county I think was extensive data and hopefully reassures the residents of those counties that you know the introduction to gaming was a good thing that had many positive impacts and also to thank Emily and the team at Suffolk for helping you out as well as our own team and just to reiterate what Commissioner Zunagas said the great work by Jill Griffin the access and opportunity committee that she pulled together in the great input that we had from our licensees in that process what process was extensive just a quick question some of the money that you know four percent of the project costs though not extensive was apparently spent overseas and I just and you might be able to help me confirm this or Jackie that some of those were really unique construction items that have given us the construction project that we have today you know perved escalators and some other you know really high in each items that just cannot be found or constructed by companies here in the United States or just to give an explanation of where that kind of offshore money was spent would be I don't know whether you have that or Jackie might want to have a chance to weigh in as well I don't I would have that knowledge in a spreadsheet but not in my brain at the moment so if Jackie has you know greater insight onto that deferred to her so you're correct so some of that was just sort of the unique items the chandeliers the curved escalators two sets of curved escalators yes money to replace the one that got flooded but yes so it really was I think as part of our design process what we what we did was we we try to obtain unique items to put in there in the property throughout the property so some of the artwork did come from overseas as well that would make it a large portion of it thank you I'll just add to that that unrelated to this project in the case of PPC we had we found a lot of imports from Canada and in that case it was all structural steel that they needed for their building I guess it was the easiest and closest place to obtain what they needed and we did that so this is a different beast entirely okay and I think I know the answer to this already Rod but I'm assuming the extensive cleanup costs that were part of the construction project were included in the overall numbers that you pulled together that's my understanding that's a good point and that was about how many million 70 70 million yeah and that was included okay which is of course just a significant environmental investment any other particular questions I have a couple one's pretty nuanced Rod it's methodology only because you pointed it out and I thought it was interesting that you were able to extrapolate the impact of Suffolk being a Boston located company and the impact that had on the your overall analysis and I haven't really given that any thought are you saying because their headquarters are in Boston and the number of employees who are located there they were included in the analysis is that fair essentially yes so because we we got the data at a contract level so we you know this big company got X we were able to align those with addresses obviously and then put them in cities towns or counties as needed and so we had a line item for Suffolk Construction Company with an address in Boston and we knew what their receipts were as a part of this project so we were able to allocate that money that they got as the project manager to that location but being able to also look at it at a company level allowed us to make that differentiation of saying you know these big Boston impacts are due to the fact that the construction manager happens to be there it's not that you know because people here will all the you know sound dismissive but you know that's a common I live in western Massachusetts you know we which parenthetically I'm really glad for Zoom because I didn't want to drive from this kidding but you know I live in western mass and the the the complaint here is that the state only thinks by Eastern half of the states you know all the stuff goes there so I wanted to make a point of saying our data allows us to show that these big impacts in the city of Boston a lot of that if not most of that is just coincidentally where the construction manager happens to be based if that if Boston's office was in Burlington then all that money would have been in Burlington you know or if it was in Quincy it would have been in Quincy so once you remove the Suffolk part that the contracts that went to Boston weren't so disproportional seeming as it as it looked which is the the point that I was trying to make broadly but then to your point that yes so once we allocated that there we were able to account for some of the employment and income impacts yeah as a result yeah otherwise it would have been disproportionate that's very very helpful and then just because of sort of my concrete thinking you closed so well with your last slide could you just give us a couple of reminders the the goods and services used up where you had to do your takeaway that are specific to this project so the are you asking what kinds of goods and services would have been used up yeah I just think this what does that represent well because of course you you got to the the 2.6 new activity 2.6 million activity and you quite rightly explained but there is a cost of goods and services that are used up I think you did the the car industry for our example if you could give one that's you know for my concrete thinking just a good example for this project that would be really helpful okay got it so suppose I wanted to sell you a building so which is basically what we're talking about here right someone is buying a building um the price that I charge you for the building would include the cost of everything I had to buy to make the building that is now there plus everything I had to pay my workers everything I had to pay for equipment then profit and taxes and etc etc so that stuff that is left behind in the building that would be an example of the goods and services that are used up so I bought dimensional lumber to frame out the walls so in the case of economic activity that transaction would show up twice it would show up once that I bought it from the lumber mill it would show up again when I sold you the building because the price of the building includes the price of the lumber so in order to figure out what the net value is of that economy created you have to remove that double countering so you got to remove the plumbing fixtures you got to remove the wood the drywall and so on and only capture that value once which is in the value of the final building is that a bit clearer that's very very helpful it's such an important takeaway and explains how we went from that 2.6 down to the 1.6 so thank you it's the overall message really helpful Commissioner Ziniga thank you this conversation took me back to the time of the deliberation and what we were as Jackie was remembering the time for submitting the application and one of the things that we discussed at length that was a big plus for this for this project was the amount of public good that came from remediating a huge site that was contaminated had almost no alternative use given the cost of remediation and gave access to the city of Everett access to the to the harbor that every other surrounding community enjoyed but they didn't is there a way to besides in those broad terms is there a way to outline that or quantify that again I know it's not part of these analyses Rod but what from an economist from an economist perspective could you say about those other attributes sure actually we're struggling struggling isn't quite word we are wrestling with this same question in a project we're doing for the Department of Conservation and Recreation right now where we're looking at interesting some of the impacts of sort what are what is the return on conservation right this is a similar kind of question so you have a couple of different ways you can look at it some of them are more concrete than others some of the more concrete are for example looking at changes in adjacent or surrounding property values so what was the same exact unimproved property worth before and after the cleanup and so those increases in values essentially puts a monetary number on how much people we're willing to pay for this improved attraction another way that economists get at this is through a survey so river cleanups are often done this way that people ask so how much would you pay to contribute to wage differentials or another that more has to do with regional amenity not like a focus cleanup like this but you can look at how much less is someone willing to take to do the exact same job in a sunny beautiful beach town versus a cold and harsh you know midwestern location but for this specific thing I think we could look at the property values I think would be the easiest and if there were any issues with contamination and surrounding areas like if there are associate healthcare costs so in some places near some mines for example the dust happens to carry a lot of lead so you know schools and cities and surrounding those kinds of mines have a health impact from there I don't know what state this place was in if there was worry about contamination of dirt or water runoff in the surrounding areas but the health avoided healthcare costs and improved health outcomes would be another way for sure in addition to property values I can at least attest when I used to drive to work I would drive along part of the highway that goes along the river and at least some businesses are sprouting up that were recreation oriented particularly the kayak business where recreational use has been enhanced that river is much busier with boaters including crew and kayakers and people running along river and I can't imagine that it's not attributed to that cleanup so stay tuned maybe we can follow up I thought that was a really interesting question commissioned in Zuniga what is the benefit of of enhanced conservation Mark I think we might have another check other questions or comments it's fascinating Mark how would you like to close out this great report to both Rachel and Rod thank you so much this is a very exciting way to sort of close a difficult year to reflect back on this project which you know came to fruition in June of 2019 so we haven't been able to have enough be able to view enough boaters getting to encore because of the shutdown and the and the temporary suspensions and all of our own you know our remote work so we're looking forward to seeing all the benefits once 21 lifts a little bit of these remote operations Mark yes so thank you Rod and and Rachel for the report I think this is this is an important capstone on the construction phase of casinos in Massachusetts at least for now without knowing exactly where Region 3 is going but my back of the envelope math says that it's it's been over three projects is it three and a half billion dollars or so of construction and you can't deny the economic impact of that amount of money in the state over what is actually a relatively short period of time and to be able to have a neutral voice that that comes from the Sigma team and UMass Donahue Institute specifically is important and we shouldn't let such such an event go or story go untold as as Jackie said that the casino industry may get you may get small snippets of information but not a comprehensive look at the totality of the economic impact of this to the state of Massachusetts and quite honestly and especially now when we're a country that really needs as much economic help as as we possibly can so thanks for the hard work on this thank you Mark um turning now before we continue commissioners would you like a brief break I see a a couple of nods okay it is five sixteen should we do to top 30 or give a five minute five or ten I was hoping for a lunch break because we have a but I may be the only one here I think we have a couple of items later on that might merit some real discussion no I think that's fair and I'm sorry because I was thinking maybe we need a quick break and then a later lunch break but really is at this time fair to think about eating commissioner so should we do a half an hour and and be fine by me quarter of one perfect all right thank you I don't know if we'll see Jackie again um have a a lovely holiday period Jackie and thank you for your work today and as always it's so nice to see you thank you for having me and happy holidays to all of you thank you happy holidays we'll mute ourselves out and return at quarter of one thank you so much everyone all right we'll get started and we have a really meaty remaining portion of our meeting so I think I'm just getting my notes up now that we're turning to Dr. Lightbound you have that extensive business to take care of today good good afternoon good afternoon commissioners so our first item on the agenda is the Suffolk Downs Request for the premium free free period they've asked for October 10th through December 31st 2020 and this does require a vote it's part of the chapter 128c the simulcast legislation or Stemulcast law has everybody had a chance to become acquainted with the materials on that any questions for Dr. Lightbound and to proceed your Dr. Lightbound correct on this one correct you do and you require you'd like a vote today does somebody prepare to make a motion we can do that Madam Chair and with the commission approve Suffolk Downs Request for a premium free period from October 10th 2020 through and including December 31st for 2020 second thank you any further questions technical technical question that is not necessarily this is positive but the request goes beyond the current period for which they're allowed to simulcast pending renewal of the simulcasting law correct this is for 2020 this is for this this year that we're currently in oh oh yeah it's we're catching up where there wasn't new legislation addressing this issue we thought that we should have it on record that for this year this was what the what it was going to be depending on if we get new legislation new racing legislation next year that will probably be addressed in that legislation and if not we'll come back and ask for premium free period for 2021 later on okay thank you good clarification any other edits suggestions amendments Commissioner Cameron aye Commissioner O'Brien aye Commissioner Zuniga aye Commissioner Stebbins aye and I vote yes Erica 5-0 thank you the next two items item b and c the simulcast import request and the account wagering provider request both are normally taken up in a during a live racing application so for Plain Ridge the commission approved theirs during their application earlier this year in November where Suffolk legislation has been changed and they're not applying for live racing we bring this up as a separate issue so the first item the simulcast import locations are the simulcast locations that they would like to use for the coming year 2021 and I recommend that we approve this and it does require a vote any questions for Dr. Lightman on that does that does that implicate Commissioner Zuniga's earlier question on timing I see Mr. Tuttle has joined us no that's just for obviously if at some point Suffolk is not allowed to simulcast anymore they would seize simulcasting but until such time in 2021 these would be the locations they would be using we're comfortable with that okay do I have a motion Madam Chair I move that the commission approve the simulcast import locations requested by Suffolk Downs and identified in the attachment to its November 20, 2021 thank you questions edits Commissioner Cameron aye Commissioner O'Brien aye Commissioner Zuniga aye Commissioner Stebbins aye and I vote yes five zero Erica thank you so much Dr. Lightman the next item is item C the account wagering provider request from Suffolk Downs these providers have all been approved by the gaming commission before Express Bed is being rebranded so we've included that name as part of this approval so later on this year when that gets complete nobody will have questions about whether it's Express Bed or First Bed is that how you say it First Bed as you said Chip Tuttle's arms at the call CIO of Suffolk Downs deferred a chip yes that is how you say it thank you yes just so for those who don't know why I'm questioning that it's the number one slash capital S capital T so I wondered how Dr. Lightman is going to say that out loud thank you First Bed okay this does require a vote and my recommendation is to approve it any questions for Dr. Lightman other than that name do I have a motion Madam Chair I'm happy to move that the commission approve the Suffolk Downs request or approve all of Express Bed also known as First Bed TVG, Twin Spires Naira Beds and Fan Dual Racing as their account wagering providers second thank you any any further questions okay Commissioner Cameron aye Commissioner O'Brien aye Commissioner Zuniga aye Commissioner Stepans aye nine vote yes Erica five zero thank you Commissioner Dr. Lightman the next request from Suffolk Downs is is a new request they're requesting to use MBET they're a web-based mobile bedding platform I have today with me Chad Bork our senior financial analyst and chip title the COO of Suffolk Downs and I'll give a very brief intro and then turn it over to Chad and then he'll turn it over chip to discuss it and if you have questions so briefly the way it works is a patron would go to the teller at the racetrack and ask to set up an MBET account they will get a ticket that has the login information on it and as well as how much money they've put in and then what they can do is for that 24-hour period they can access the tote system basically and make bets from wherever they happen to be at Suffolk Downs if they're sitting at their table they don't have to get up each race to go place a bet it is a convenience factor it also is a little bit helpful with the COVID situation in that you're not touching the self-service bedding machines and you're not interacting as often with the tellers although obviously Suffolk Downs has COVID protocols in place to make these safe so I'll turn it over to Chad Bork now thank you Alex and good afternoon Madam Chair and Commissioners so as Alex has stated Anto provides the MBET service to their clients in this case Suffolk Downs which allows patrons to wager on their mobile phones tablets or their laptops so what you would do is after making the deposit you are given secured logging credentials and able to access the account and place wagers once you are done for the day you would then cash out with the teller so in its simplest form it really is just having kind of your own mobile teller window with you the site will only be able to be accessed through using Suffolk Downs Wi-Fi network this is to keep the way drain within the confines of the property at the end of the day your account is automatically deactivated all your data does run through Anto's back end system so all the account data will be on record with Anto Chair I know I asked about if the Wi-Fi would work out to the parking lot but I guess I'm told that that's not the case it'll work on the apron but not out in the parking lot is that correct? yeah so I'll ask Chip if you want to go ahead and respond to that yes you know we've got to run some additional tests but the Wi-Fi network is pretty concentrated in the building and the apron but we should you know I mean it is I would have to actually get on the Wi-Fi network and go out into the parking lot and see if it if it still has any the capacity still exists my strong suspicion is it doesn't because the Wi-Fi network doesn't always work in every area of the building so it would be a stretch for it to work in the parking lot but we're happy to verify that for the commission if that's required as part of this Mr. Tuttle I don't think that's required but today might be a good day to go test what do you think? and in fact our meeting so I could it go long enough that if you want to do it now yes I got some shoveling done with my earbuds on during the 10 to noon periods so that's funny is that answer your question though commissioner okay I have the benefit and I think most of us have a briefing on this which we appreciate Chad and Dr. Lightbound to just understand the technology it really is a customer service enhancement and as Dr. Lightbound points out perhaps an important enhancement you know should our COVID-19 restrictions need to extend out next year's simulcasting environment commissioner Stevens are you leaning in? yeah I am Madam Chair thanks I had a quick question and I know is the team at Suffolk rolls this out they're going to have lots of good communications to their patrons who are going to use this for the first time my interest or my question chip and Chad is around I come I use it if for some reason that day I do not go back to the window and cash out what happens if I come in the next day and say oh I forgot to cash out is the money still available to me you know we don't want to we don't want to have you know have those types of confrontations or circumstances but you know chip if you can speak to the approach you you plan to take to make sure that doesn't happen is this new product gets rolled out? yes so thank you commissioner and but let me answer your question first and then if I could indulge the chair to express my appreciation for your service I'd like to do that so the you get the that ticket that you get when you you go up to the window and say hey I'd like to use embed today you know here's $50 or whatever your deposit is and then as through the course of the day your your your phone your your mobile device is basically your own self-service wagering terminal and at the end of the day if you you still need that ticket right so that the same way you would take a betting ticket or a betting voucher that ticket is really you're the same you know in in the very same way that you would you would redeem a winning ticket or a voucher and that ticket remains good so that even if you don't cash out at the end of the day in the 24-hour period expires and you're you're no longer active on the embed platform you know even a week later or a few weeks later you can go in with that ticket and cash it for whatever your remaining balance is that's great thank you very much can I can I ask a question before we move on from that topic yes commission absolutely my question wasn't all of this that under that same hypothetical there's two different monies that might be on that though so some of it's a ticket so as if it were a paper ticket winning ticket but what if I don't bet everything I put $200 in I only bet $100 so maybe some of it's like a winning ticket and then some of it is just my cash so some of it could be treated as you get it later you get it like a lost tickets in my bet how's the money that I maybe don't get at the end of the day treated that's not a bet it's just my cash I haven't gotten back that remains in your balance commissioner so if you were to put $50 in and and let's say you wagered 20 and lost that you know you when you went to cash the ticket in a few days later that $30 balance would remain on the ticket but then what if I forget about it if you forget about it it's it's the same as if you have a winning ticket on a race and you know you lose that or forget about it there's there are procedures in place where you can appeal you you come in and say hey I lost the ticket here's when you know on this day and then we go through at the end of the year without standing tickets and the commission approves requests I believe this is the case I don't I don't want to miss speak so Alex please Dr. Leiphorn please correct me if I'm wrong but there are ways for patrons to redeem lost tickets based on a testing that they were there you know a certain time of day we have cameras obviously in the facility that track who comes back and forth to the mutual windows so that's that's how lost tickets are dealt with and then of course at the end of the calendar after a certain period of time in Chad may know this off the top of his head those tickets become outstanding tickets and outstanding tickets by statute revert any unclaimed tickets become outstanding tickets those by statute revert to the purse account that we pay over to the New England HBPA but in my mind there's a a lost ticket where I placed a bet and cash I put almost to get a debit card for the day if I never actually took the cash to put it on a ticket is it still considered a lost wager or isn't that my cash I should be able to get back some other way and it's like a lost deposit is it like abandoned property is my question because some of it was abandoned property some of it would seem to be a lost ticket yeah so so a lost ticket is doesn't become abandoned property until whatever the time frame is that expires but but if you were let me give you an example that may help you think through this commissioner you are able to come in go to the window the mutual window and buy a voucher you know you can give the clerk $100 and get a $100 betting voucher and then you can use that betting voucher and putting put that into any self-service terminal and you know as through the course of the day you know as you bet off that voucher you know you get your balance returned to you in the form of a slip of paper in the form of a ticket so you know similar to you know casinos paying out with you know a ticket a paper slip that comes out of slot machine as opposed to you know coins actually coming out so you know the patrons are quite used to the idea that they have to hold on to their tickets in order to redeem them and again so this is and maybe I'm not understanding your question but there's no distinction between you know what's left on your account and wins and losses you know that's the same thing right if you start with $50 and you're successful and you have $80 at the end of the day you know you've only bet $20 but you've won $50 off that $20 bet now you have $30 in your account now you have $80 you'd be able to redeem the ticket for $80 and if you lose the ticket you'd be able to come in and tell us and say hey I was here on this day and I lost the ticket and and you know we we have not you know we really haven't run into problems with patrons who have been refused requests of lost tickets oh I'm sorry I can give the the timing of the unclaimed tickets it's something that Chad and I have just recently been discussing because that's going to be coming up in front of the commission in January probably every patron has the entire year after the year they bet to claim their winnings off of a ticket so at the end of that period if a particular ticket has not been cashed it becomes an unclaimed ticket and as Chip mentioned there are times when a patron has lost a ticket and they go to Suffolk Downs or Plainridge they can a lot of times they can go back on the cameras and actually see when they place the bet but the patron can be very specific about the time and the location and the amount and then the perimutrials can go back and verify it so then at the end of the year they'll go over it with Chad if there are any that are being claimed by the patron and if Suffolk Downs and Chad feel that it is a legitimate claim then Suffolk Downs will pay out on that ticket to the patron and that's taken out of the unclaimed tickets obviously If I may emphasize something on Commissioner O'Brien's question the key you said that in your mind it's two different things and the key is that it isn't possibly balance whether it came from an initial deposit or the winnings of a ticket or the result of both a balance and wagering that went up and down the ticket contains the balance and that follows the same procedure that they explain you know it's not again it's not different things it's a marker into your account as I understand it what they issue you when you initially funded is a code that points into the balance that you have in that account and that's what they will give you at the end of the day if you redeem it and that will remain you know for up to a year if you don't redeem it for a year etc Yeah to me there is a conceptual difference that I realize maybe industry wise this isn't the standard but particularly when you're moving into an electronic tracking it would seem very easy to be able to treat it differently but you know maybe that's a rule question that I have but it would seem to me that if you're getting this electronically through an app there's a much easier way to make sure monies get back to people without putting the onus on them for lost ticket processes but that's a conversation for another day Understood Yeah that would be a key difference Yeah I would almost expect with the technology you said you'll be able to identify the page and it still has an uncollected balance you know unredeemed balance and that we might actually find ourselves in a position where you could get the money back to the individual before that year period is up Maybe that's really a question for Mr. Tuttle is there anything in the technology that I don't know a button that could allow you to say request my balance or something for that effect I'll have to ask well I mean you know you can request your balance at any time by going back to the window and redeeming the ticket and you know I don't mean to be overly obvious with that part of it but this is to be as to further explain it maybe and help help everyone's understanding you're not required to show an ID to do this you're not required to give your social security number or you know it's not an ADW account It's not ADW that's important you know they're the state the Commonwealth has specific laws and regulations around ADW accounts and how those work and of course the ADW companies as national entities all you know have protocols that they follow so if I have an ADW account to your point Commissioner O'Brien yes you know at any time I can redeem my balance and you know they they can send it to me via PayPal or Venmo or you know just I can I can make a withdrawal from my account this is is really basically just turning your mobile device into a self-service betting terminal for the day so you know your cash is being held behind the window at Suffolk Downs as if you you just basically have a betting voucher but that voucher you can bet off that voucher through your phone and then you know at the end of the day you you take your voucher and bring it back to redeem it for for whatever your balance is as as Commissioner Zunagicix explained I do I think I understand the differentiation you're making but but I it may be that it's just terminology here I see this as strictly a customer service enhancement where you don't have to get into line to make your bet and apparently Dr. Lightbound said sometimes when those races are so close together you might miss out an opportunity to bet if the lines were long and so they really are doing it from their seat doesn't mean they're getting their steps in though but unlike the ADW where and I'm and I'm correct on this I clarified with Chad and Alex that ADW anyone in Massachusetts if they set up an ADW can bet on horse racing from their couch and in within the Commonwealth's boundaries and in this case it's a customer service where that mobile device can only work for as a means to place your your bet using the amount that you deposit at the beginning of your day from the actual simulcast venue at Suffolk and so it really is just a customer service enhancement without any even though it seems more technologically advanced platform to place the bet it really isn't much more than that enhancement is not to just diminish that enhancement particularly if it's helpful on COVID-19 but that was the only way I could think about it and yeah I Madam Chair I see it that way too I mean it's you know we obviously have a lot of questions about it because it's a new technology and how does it sit into our guidelines but you know to Dr. Lightbounds point you know it's it's convenience for the customer it's going to hopefully draw more people out to physically go to Suffolk Downs and then spend the day or make some bets and during this COVID period it certainly is ease and convenience for me to to bet without worrying about you know any public health impact and you know in many ways it's sort of shifting perhaps to that that approach to use more you know of our handheld devices our cell phones which will of course please the younger demographics so there's I'm sure that that's in the back of the minds of of the summercast industry so any further questions on on this for well just just a comment perhaps perhaps Mr. Total would want to chime in on this let me reference it by saying that I'm in favor of this I think it's it's what you both point out chair of technology that is both an efficiency on on the operations of customer service and especially important or you know useful that during you know this notion of COVID and the necessity to maintain social distance etc but at least um in my mind and and this doesn't take me away from my you know feeling capable about this it is at least conceivable that this would mean less need for tellers because it's especially people get used to you know operating comfortable with the technology on their phones they would still need to fund it before and after so you still need a teller you know at the beginning or the end of the day but you might not need that many if more the more and more people would use it is that a fair sort of statement Mr. Lovell and again I'm fully comfortable with request and in support of it but I think that's the one area that I see as you know at least worth of mentioning I think you raise a fair point Commissioner Zuniga I can tell you that's not our intent at all it's it's not you know we we had not introduced this we we we discussed this with Amtoad our tote provider over the course of the summer you know we we got comfortable ourselves with with how the platform would work we certainly aren't looking at it as a way to reduce the workforce in any capacity really more of a of a patron convenience and and we're not quite sure how many people will adopt it as a patron convenience but we thought it was worth a pilot program I you know we'd be happy to come back and whatever period of time the commission thinks is adequate to you know give your report on how it's working and and whether it's been well received by our customers or or not but you know we certainly are are we've worked really hard to try to maintain the workforce throughout these difficult circumstances during COVID and we'll we'll continue to do that commission Cameron yeah Mr. Total I I think some of the demographics of your of your patrons may may lend itself that they would be more comfortable continuing with the window some of them may be like my mother who still uses a flip phone yeah we all have different I mean I still read books not on Kindle and you know or on cell phones I don't show up on Amazon but anyway thank you for those comments and so I'm but he likes SharePoint yeah I love SharePoint yeah no the idea I'm not making a direct connection into into any of that that you you're totally correct I believe that it depends on how comfortable the customer base you know becomes with the technology if if at all and I think the most important part here is the notion that it's really an accommodation on a customer service option and frankly in our role we also need to be different to the needs of the business in these areas including even if they become real operational efficiency so which is why I wanted to just both mention and preface it by by saying that I'm in support of it thank you commissioner ready for motion yeah I think Dr. Leibman you would like a vote correct on this yes please thank you Madam Chair I'm happy to move that the commissioner approve the usage of my second grounds as discussed here today second thank you commissioner Stebbins thank you and no further discussion okay got commissioner Cameron aye commissioner bryan aye commissioner commissioner Zuniga aye and commissioner Stebbins aye and I vote yes Erica 50 thank you Madam Chair I'll just take just a moment but commissioner Stebbins congratulations on your new appointment your thoughtfulness and your consideration you know we've always valued it here at Sterling Suffolk and appreciate the good faith effort and time you've taken to understand the racing side of the business I know the commission you know has to focus quite a bit on the gaming side but we do appreciate your your effort in learning more about our business and helping us navigate through the last several years and I will see you on the other side you're not done with me yet commissioner Stebbins I happen to have an interest in a recreational cannabis company in the commonwealth so I look forward to talking to you in a different capacity thanks Chip I look forward to that too and you know it's growing up in western mass where we didn't have a lot of horse racing I want to thank you because you did so much to help educate me about racing as did Dr. Lightbound but what was really impressive was the the unique history and tradition at Suffolk Down and all the incredible thoroughbred racing history that that property holds so I thank you for that best wishes thank you commissioners happy holidays Chip thank you for your contribution today to clarify this and I wish you the very best for the new year okay moving on then to the annual report is that correct Dr. Lightbound yes that's the next item on the agenda is the annual report this does not require a vote and if I haven't screen shared before I'll see if I can Dr. Lightbound how have you escaped that this year let's see you have multiple windows open Alex you have the right document okay great all right so I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this obviously people can read through it at their leisure but we want to hit kind of the highlights and Chad is here again he'll go over the financial part of the annual report so to start off with there were a couple of milestones this year this is in 2019 first of all we apologize for this report being so late Chad and I were working on it back in March and thought we'd get it on the agenda by April and then COVID struck so we had other things that we needed to attend to so again this is the 2019 annual report this was the last year of racing at Suffolk Downs which originally opened in 1935 and they had a wonderful run of racing the commission did have sort of like going away at one of their meetings with slides of Suffolk Downs and all near the end of 2019 another milestone was that our chief commission Stuart Susan Wallace was awarded the Pete Peterson Outstanding Support Award by the Racing Officials accreditation program and that was quite an accomplishment on her behalf and again congratulations to Susan Dr. Leipzig, if I can stop you there I did have a chance to read this report and that part made me smile remembering recognizing you know Susan Wallace for that accomplishment a tremendous accomplishment and her work was just impeccable so that really was nice to be reading milestones to remember her accomplishment now it was exciting very exciting to have her honor so much so now on to the Plain Ridge Racing Statistics most of these were very similar to the year before 108 days of racing where we had 110 the day before that I mean the year before that the number of races was slightly down because of that the field average field side stayed very similar compared to the year before there was a little bit of an increase in the total purses and we'll go on to the Suffolk again their changes were mainly due to the fact that they race six days instead of eight which they had in 2018 so again the number of races was down a little bit because of that their average field size they did hand out almost three million in purses which was down again just because they didn't have as many days of live racing our licensing stayed again very similar we usually do around a thousand per track the numbers at Suffolk were down a little bit again just because it was fewer days of racing and our numbers at Plainridge don't take into account people who might have taken out a multi-year license the system just can't calculate that so I'm always encouraged at Plainridge that we do get quite a bit of licensing every year which is in addition to people who've already taken out a two or three year license the State Police Investigative Unit continues to be a big part of racing again they their number of investigations and all was similar two years before there was one ejection and they provided numerous background checks and did a lot of fingerprinting if you recall that was opening of Encore in 2019 so the racing unit also helps out on the gaming side with performing backgrounds and fingerprinting and other staff needs as is dated with the casinos on to the veterinary services and the lab we have contracted with industrial for several years now we've had great a great working relationship with them they're very easy to work with they have a wealth of knowledge and I can't say enough good things about them at Plainridge we had 11 we would call therapeutic medication overages so these are medications that equine veterinarian would use in their daily practice we just want them below a certain level when the force actually races this was down considerably from 2018 when we had in addition to 12 therapeutic violations we had three what we would call an actual positive and two high TCA readings so that was a positive note on that side at Suffolk Downs we also saw the number of drug violations go down there were five in 2018 and there were only three in 2019 so that was a positive note getting to the judges at Plainridge their number of rulings and all were very similar to the year before and the most of the suspensions were relatively short suspension of maybe three days for a driver infraction for interference in 2018 there were 114 rules compared to 119 in 2019 there were slightly more fines in 2018 and again there were slightly more racing days so not much of a change there and at Suffolk in 2018 that was kind of a bubble year there was one incidence where multiple trainers were involved in a um claiming violation so there were 16 fines and suspensions that year and in 2019 it returned to a more normal level where there were only three rulings and three fines and those were all tied to the drug rulings then on the appeals to the commission if a a licensee has a ruling by the judges and they want to appeal it they can appeal that to the hearing officer so there was one that was appealed to the hearing officer and that was denied we had one that was withdrawn it made it to the actual day of the appeal and then they decided to there was a waiver granted and then there's was one that was ongoing so again that's pretty much in line with what we would see in a in any given year and with that I'll turn it over to Chad Bork our senior financial analyst to discuss the financials Chad could he be on you I don't see him there we go sorry about that okay great thank you yes uh thanks Alex uh before again begin I just want to make a quick note of two adjustments the first will be the amount distributed to the thoroughbred accounts from the racehorse development fund the amount there will be four million four hundred twenty seven thousand dollars in which will bring the total disbursements to fifteen million four hundred twenty one and a hundred and fifty four dollars the other is going to be with the Suffolk Downs Capital Improvement Fund the program revenue should be one million sixty two thousand dollars and the RFR payments are a hundred and one thousand bringing the ending balance to two million five hundred ninety thousand and these adjustments will go ahead and and will be reflected in a report and they'll be posted to the to the gaming website so to continue 2019 saw another successful year of racing in Massachusetts and I thought I we would just share a couple of the the financials and we'll go ahead and start with revenue the handle commissions from all tracks generated just over over eight hundred and fourteen thousand dollars and this was a site slight decrease of four point four two percent versus 2018 and from revenue from licensing badges fees along with fines and penalties brought in a little over ninety one thousand which was a decrease of roughly thirty percent versus 2018 and the decrease in these two categories can be directly attributed to the decrease in in live racing plain ridge conducted one thousand one hundred thirty one races and Suffolk Downs conducted sixty eight which was a decrease of two point eighty three and thirty point six one respectively when we look at assessments and association licensing those brought in just around one point one million which was in line with two thousand eighteen and to complete we have our expenditures which came in a little over two point three million that was an increase of less than one percent and then we'll move to the handle thank you two thousand ninety I just want to make sure are there any questions for Chad on that it was just a little hard maybe to follow the numbers so any clarifications that you need thanks Chad sure so with the handle two thousand nineteen saw a decrease of four point five three percent versus two thousand eighteen and again much of this can be contributed to the decrease in live racing one thing I do I do want to point out is you know we continue to see an uptrend in wagering through the ADW providers again from the likes of TVG, Twin Spires, ExpressFeds ADW wagering actually accounted for basically 50 percent of the total handle and that was the only handle category that was up in 2019 and it was up two and three quarters percent so again a continuation of the generation moving over to kind of the internet based and the mobile wagering lastly able to report that the racing division provided nearly eight hundred and fifty five thousand in local aid to cities in towns where racing activities took place so with that finally I just want to give a special thanks to my colleagues in the finance department who assisted with the report any questions for Chad and Dr. Lightbaum my only it's not a question but it is a an observation I think these this 2019 numbers really are the test to the fact that this is such a clean meat meaning very few violations very few medication overages you know I think you know those are a number of things Dr. Lightbaum you talked about the outstanding work of our accredited lab which makes which really does make the case that when there is an overage we can demonstrate in a way that folks can believe that it's been done properly and the same thing with the hearings that are held by our judges and stewards who are very well trained in order to conduct a very professional hearing so few of them make it to the commission on appeal I just think it's it really is it speaks to the good work being done by your staff and how professional everyone is in the way they do their job so these numbers really do speak to that so thank you it's it's nice to see it and understand it for the whole year so we can understand that that work is just really well done thank you commissioners um I I don't know if we can take the power point down are the up report down now thank you I just think I can see everyone's faces commissioner Brian commissioner Zuniga I'll just make a comment similar to to commission cameras thank you for this report it's a reflection of a great year it's very thorough and detailed and um you know we look forward to the next one commissioners I'll set I would just Alex if you can remind me who this report goes to I know it goes to a number of our counterparts over in the legislature and a few other places if you can remind us where this gets filed you know I don't remember off the top of my head I know it does go to the legislature and so you know we'll definitely do that but I don't remember the exact spots that I have yeah but it was good to have and you know great work to kudos to you and Chad for the financial team for helping to pull this all together and Chad does make a good point and I usually try to make it when we do the end report we get support from all the different divisions of the gaming commission every division contributes to our success at some different levels so again I appreciate all of them for their contributions to the racism season as well as the commissioners it takes the whole team right Alex it does yes good close excellent report and so thorough and Chad thank you for the financial analysis you both bring a lot of clarity to an area that is filled with detail that a lot of us find challenging so it's a very thorough and clear report for me thank you so much thank you makes sense of of a difficult statute so thank you so much thank you commissioner Karen smiling because she knows that's a little bit of an understatement okay so I think that concludes horse racing the racing division Alex and Chad thank you so much we're now moving on to the next item on that really is under your attribute counselor Grossman thank you madam chair I'm actually going to turn the next three items pertaining to the regulations over to Kerry Terese who will walk you through those there she is hello thank you good afternoon madam chair and commissioner good afternoon afternoon Kerry so there are three regulations on the agenda today for a final vote to complete the promulgation process so I'll just run for each of these 205 PMR 146.13 is the regulation related to the table characteristics for the blackjack tables this is the regulation that clarifies that the table layout must read that blackjack page that odds of three to two or six to five depending on what odds are being offered at that particular table this regulation came before the commission on October 8th and you voted to begin the promulgation process at that time public hearing was held this morning and that was presided over by commissioner Stebbins we did not receive any comments at the public hearing we also have not received any written comments so at this time we'd be seeking a vote on the amended small business impact statements that's in your packet as well as the regulation to finalize the promulgation process other questions on on this regulation we've had extensive briefings over the course of the regulation promulgation period so I'm seeing no questions that's only because of the thoroughness of your work prior to today so thank you that means that we do need a vote starting with the small business impact statement do we have a motion madam chair I move the commission approve the amended small business impact statement for 205 CMR 146.13 blackjack table card reader device physical characteristics inspections as included in the commissioners packet thank you commissioner stevens second from commissioner cameron thank you with no further questions commissioner cameron hi commissioner o'brien hi commissioner zinneke hi commissioner stevens hi and I vote yes next do I have a motion on the the regulation language I'd further move that the commission adopt the final draft of 205 CMR 146.13 blackjack table card reader device physical characteristics inspections as included in the commissioners packet and authorize the staff to take all steps necessary to finalize the regulation promulgation process thank you any questions on that okay commissioner cameron hi commissioner o'brien hi commissioner zinneke hi and commissioner stevens hi and I vote yes five zero thank you Carrie thank you so the next regulation is 205 CMR 153 related to the community mitigation fund this is a new regulation that codifies the procedures and guidelines for the community mitigation fund including an annual review of the guidelines a procedure for entities seeking emergency appropriations minimum requirements for the execution of the grant instrument and the assessment of reasonable administrative costs to the fund this regulation came before the commission on October 22nd and at that meeting you voted to begin the promulgation process this public hearing was held for this regulation this morning as well presided over by commissioner stevens and again we did not receive any comments at the hearing or any written comments so we would be seeking a vote on this one as well on the amended small business impact statement and the regulation in your packet Madam chair if I can just add I know that they carry working alongside Joe Delaney and the team brought this these changes before our local community mitigation advisory committees as well as the subcommittee and community mitigation and at all three meetings there was support for the changes by the committee members thank you for that update commissioner stevens and before I forget thank you too for presiding over this morning's regulatory process we will miss you covering that aspect of thank you so with that are there any further questions observations comments this is again we thoroughly vetted I'm glad that it was vetted externally too with important stakeholders do I have a motion no madam chair I would move that commission approved the amended small business impact statement for 205 CMR 153 community mitigation fund as included in the commissioners packet thank you commissioner commissioner cameron aye commissioner vryan aye commissioner zinica aye and commissioner stephens aye well yes five zero thank you moving on to the bragg itself I further move that the commission approved the final draft of 205 CMR 153 the community mitigation fund as included in the commissioners packet and authorize the staff to finalize the regulation propagation process is there a second thank you commissioner any further questions commissioner cameron aye commissioner vryan aye commissioner zinica aye commissioner stephens aye and I vote yes five zero thank you carry again all right and finally 205 CMR 133 related to the voluntary self-exclusion program these are administrative changes that ensure uniformity in the process of managing and maintaining the voluntary self-exclusion list specify who is deemed a designated agent and has access to the list clarify the application contents and refine the qualification requirements for providers of services offered by the vse program this one also came before the commission on october 22nd October 22nd at that meeting you voted to begin the promulgation process it was also part of the public hearing held this morning we did not receive any comments at the public hearing or any written comment so again we'd be seeking a vote on the amended small business impact statement and the regulation included in your packet any questions for carry on this final read for today okay again we'll need a motion on the small business impact statement madam chair i moved that the commission approved the amended small business impact statement for 205 cmr 133 voluntary self-exclusion is included in the commissioners packet second thank you any questions comments commissioner kim aye commissioner bryan aye commissioner zuniga aye commissioner stephens aye and i vote yes five zero great work well done thank you Todd and Carrie and and i know many i'm sure we just need so sorry by reg itself thank you my apologies thank you i further move that the commission approved the final draft of 205 cmr 133 voluntary self-exclusion is included in the commissioners packet and authorized staff to finalize the regulation promulgation process thank you thank you so much so second with commissioner stephens now any questions thank you commissioner cameron aye commissioner bryan aye commissioner zuniga aye and commissioner stephens aye and i vote yes five zero so now i can say thank you i know it took a big team effort to get these three regs through Todd and Carrie thank you and all the the team members who helped substantively so thank you thank you before we move on to the next item i do just want to bring your attention to the two documents in your packet that followed that last reg we updated the forms related to the vsc program the enrollment form and the petition for removal just to align with the changes that were made to the regulations we're not seeking any formal action on these but um we just wanted you to have a chance to see them and i know that mark and charisa are on now if you do have any questions about them thank you did everybody have a chance to look at them like i i think they're on like page 123 and 124 they reflect the that work well done there's director vander linden i'll set commissioners yes thank you and thank you for sharing them in the packet today thank you great work so i think cary do i turn back now to i i turn back now to councillor grossman yeah thank you so much yeah thank you kary i'll take it from here so now we're on item d or the fourth item under legal this is a review of the enhanced code of ethics and for your consideration commissioners we have a variety of proposed amendments to the enhanced code of ethics you'll recall that the the first edition of the code was actually adopted in february of 23rd 2013 the second edition in january of 2018 and it certainly seems a healthy practice for an organization to periodically review and refresh its policies and procedures and that would certainly apply to the commission's enhanced code of ethics which of course governs many aspects of our daily conduct at work so it's particularly important that these policies be clear and current and fair and reflective of the commissioners and the commission's collective values ideals and the law itself and so it was through that lens that the chair and commissioner Stebbins and I set out on a review of the code the amendments before you are proposed as a means to enhance the language of the code it is not intended in any way to specifically increase or decrease the rigor of any particular area though that may be the impact of some of the amendments you may ultimately approve of and with that if there are no introductory remarks by any commissioner I'd be happy to walk through the proposed adjustments that are before you pointing out any areas that may be of public a particular interest in my mind of course welcoming any thoughts and comments along the way I can pause there for a second or otherwise just keep going here my sense was although ordinarily I would share this document I don't know madam chair and commissioners if it would be easier actually just to keep us all uh moving in this format so you can see each other and maybe engage in more of a robust conversation when necessary if people do they have access some to the document I do I think everybody has access I see commissioner Cameron has it in printed form even so I think that's a good suggestion it really does help for us to see each other's reactions and and if there's a comment I think rather than holding comments and to the end we should we should make it an active conversation as if we were sitting around a conference table in public I think that makes good sense so I'd be happy to get started thank you as we do have a number of proposals before you and we'll just take it from the top paragraph section one really is a an effort to just clarify some of the language and the ultimate goal here was just to be clear that the state conflict of interest law chapter 268a and 268b is really still the the body of law that controls the baseline of all ethics compliance for the commission and that this code is intended really just to supplement that so there are no changes in there per se that was really just an effort to clarify the language of paragraph one moving on to paragraph two and I'm just looking over at my other screen not ignoring anyone here or anything like that you know this so this is the continuing obligation section of the code and by way of comparison section 20 of this code discusses a related topic but not identical and we'll get into that momentarily but I just wanted to point out what the proposed amendment to paragraph two is you'll see in the stricken language the proposal is to remove the duty of each commissioner and employee to review and assess the conduct of fellow commissioners and employees under this code and the ethics laws and the reason is is that it could inadvertently create a culture of one having to report on a potential violation of someone else that pertain to very complicated and nuanced areas of the law that being the state conflict of interest law which could be difficult for someone to navigate it's difficult sometimes to navigate for yourself even more difficult if you were to attempt to do it relative to someone else's conduct so the thought here is that we remove the obligation to report relative to someone else's conduct of course we keep the obligation to review and assess your own conduct in light of this code and the ethics laws and we say that instead of whenever there's any reasonable doubt as to whether something could be a violation or not that if you have any question as to whether your own conduct is in comport with the law that you need to ask and inquire further so those are the changes here and by way of contrast and I mentioned section 20 already that section deals with a duty to report if you observe or aware of a by that someone else has violated a criminal law or directly violated chapter 23k so that's a whole different area and we will get to that momentarily but we buy this proposed amendment to section two we're not attempting to allow people to ignore certain things that may come to their attention just to really create a more fair and equitable duty that we place upon each commissioner and employee I asked the question in the two by two on this one since duty report is such a topic of discussion when it comes to public safety these days but I did receive a good clarification from our general council but this is really just talking about ethics and your own ethics you know and of course your ability to ask is this okay very different than a some kind of a criminal matter so I once like I received that clarification I was certainly supportive of this change excellent in that case why don't we move down to section five which is page two of the document and you'll see a lot of red in there but really all this is is a reorganization of the existing language just to clarify both the materials and documents that have to be offered to and provided to the commissioners and employees for their reference as well as streamlining the training process and clarifying how that will work there really are not any substantive changes proposed here though again there's a lot of red the there are two things that were changed though just for everyone's reference and the first is that we said that the provision of the documents to commissioners and employees upon their employment has to be within 30 days instead of 14 days and what that does is it just aligns that requirement with the actual ethics training that we also provide to the employees so that it can be all done on the same time schedule and that we don't have separate time schedules the other thing we added in here is just that all employees be provided with a copy copy of the summary of the conflict of interest law which we do provide to everyone annually but this just helps remind us that it needs to be also provided upon employment with the commission or within 30 days of employment so those are really the two big changes the other piece of language we added in here is really just a reference you'll see it's under paragraph there's paragraph one and two in part C which is the big red paragraph we added language that says that the commission will also provide applicable training under the conflict of interest law to advisory and subcommittee members as deemed necessary that is a practice we already engage in we're just codifying that practice here so that everyone is aware that we we do that and that we will and continue to do it and paragraph what will was paragraph D will become paragraph B I'm just moving down to the bottom of page two we just outline all of the things that will be included on the SINA form that everyone will be asked to execute after the training so there's really no change there it just identifies all the documents and all the items that are already on the form section six this is on page three the only notable change here is in part B where we added the reference to chapter 23 K section 3 V you'll recall that's the section of the law that talks about commissioners and employees being prohibited from owning stock or being employed by anyone who holds a license under chapter 23 K as an enforcement mechanism that we presently employ we ask commissioners and employees annually to attest to the fact that they're in compliance with that section so all we're really doing here is adding a reference into the enhanced code to reconcile it with our present practice section seven towards the bottom of the page is our definition section and there were a number of adjustments to some of the definitions that have been proposed the first is to the definition of the term consultant and when looking at this definition it's important to also have a look at the definition of the term employee which is two definitions down from there and what we say is that an employee essentially is not a consultant so consultants are specifically exempted from the definition of employee which is why it's important to be clear who we believe or we define consultants to be and so we haven't really changed what or who a consultant is other than to just clarify that if someone is a consultant that this code doesn't the enhanced code that is doesn't apply to them but that the commission by way of contract can make either the whole code or any provisions of this code applicable to any consultant so we have the flexibility on an ad hoc type basis to review and assess a particular situation with a particular consultant and add in any provisions that might be beneficial as opposed to painting with a broad brush and making the whole code applicable to all consultants next is the definition of direct or indirect interest and this comes up in the context of ownership in the licensees and what have you the law says that one is not allowed to hold a director indirect interest in licensees so again it's important to define what that term means as it's not defined in chapter 23k and as you see here there's only a highlighted provision I haven't stricken it because I wanted to take some time to talk about it and think about it and if if there is a consensus here today we can take action but the the language that's been highlighted you'll see pertains to an exclusion from what a director and direct interest is and we say that it does not include an individual's interest in less than one percent of publicly traded companies but by way of contrast there's also a black and white rule and this is the law that says that we're not allowed to own any stock in any licensees so this particular provision and I don't recall the genesis of it specifically I don't believe it really has any application whatsoever it seems to be superfluous and could actually prove to be confusing to people and so the proposal on the table is that we take this out before I did that I wanted to float the idea to make sure that there are no unintended consequences of doing that I haven't been able to think of any but that's something to just talk about before we take action on that provision if I can comment on that because I I was going through this with with Todd in the briefing and I think he raises a good question as to the notion that perhaps this creates a little confusion there's one aspect of publicly traded companies here that may that we should inherently be considering here if we're talking about gaming related publicly traded companies that we license that's a clear absolute preclusion elsewhere in chapter 25k as well as elsewhere in the in this go and if we're talking about any other publicly traded company the question arises as to why would that be necessary um if if you have stock in in in other publicly traded companies unrelated to gaming let's say the threshold would seem arbitrary to me when it comes to ethics so we can either remove the language or specify whether these applies to publicly traded companies that are not gaming related or licensed under the chapter which is really and have that allowed to us and employees or whether the intention was and I don't recall myself the genesis to have no ownership of any publicly traded companies more than 1% that would create potentially other conflicts I cannot say what those would be but that's the question that's the distinction that I think we need to be thinking of do you remember any discussion around that point commissioner no I am I have always wondered about that prior to even joining having seen that threshold Todd did you I hear you saying I'm not sure if you have a clear recommendation for us and maybe we need to maybe we table this discussion on this definition until we get to the other item does that make sense to talk to about them together or which other then there isn't there another section where it refers to fact that we couldn't that we could have perhaps up to 1% interest in in a I think it's a correction that you're recommending today in one of our licensees I think this is this is the provision here okay this is does Oh I guess I thought it was in a separate as well my apologies no it's all oh I realized I'm not sharing my screen so highlighting it doesn't do any good but the no this one just talks about an individual's interest in less than 1% of publicly traded companies and it is possible that the intent was as commissioners Zuniga just described to really allow for an ownership stake in a non-gaming licensee company that happens to perhaps be a vendor of some kind right because oh I see I guess I'm my apologies my notes I should have had them in front of me because right now the way it's written we could have an interest in well I would say no only because there's a broader rule that says you're not allowed to own any stock so the question under the statute yeah and we actually say at the beginning of the definition of direct and indirect interest it means an ownership stock ownership loan property leasehold so we say stock yeah there so but the term doesn't include an individual's interest in less than 1% of publicly traded companies which would be stock I can provide an example there's actually a personal example and you know since we're talking about ethics that's that's relevant my wife is an employee of a publicly traded company and she owns as part of the their stock plan as part of the retirement has on stock in the company that the company contributes I haven't checked but I'm sure we're nowhere near 1% that's a very large company but but conceivable that that could have been a scenario envisioned here where we would not have to worry about unless there's a direct or indirect ownership in another company that then begins to raise the question as to whether there needs to be some kind of disclosure or divestiture or whatever but and for the record it's a completely unrelated to any gaming I know for sure yeah yeah yeah company which is what would appear to me to be part of the sentence capturing because the way it's worded it would be any publicly traded company not just gaming related or or with a interest or rather revendor or some kind of relationship to a gaming related What is your recommendation Todd you know I think perhaps we should leave this one as is and come back to it at a later date it hasn't caused any issues to date and I think it just needs a little more review perhaps on its own and so for because there is still a bit of uncertainty here so let's let's not just delete it can I ask though is there an easy fix to just exclude publicly traded companies that are are licensees or or doesn't is it more nuanced than that well you know and the statute talks about not holding a director indirect interest in a licensee under this chapter so that's I mean that is the rule that present and so we're just defining what that means but if you then take this term the term does not include an individual's interest in less than one percent of publicly traded companies of course we wouldn't be able to with that prohibition in the statute we can't have any stock in the licensee so I wonder how if this if this provision competes with that statutory provision I guess it was trying to articulate that it might not right if we're talking about none other non gaming and I agree with you entirely Commissioner Zuniga so I do think we need to make sure that Commissioner Zuniga's scenario is permitted but make it clear that this doesn't suggest that if we were all lucky enough to own up to one percent of one of our licensees you know in in stock of other companies non-licensee companies well no there's that but also the opposite which would be strictly prohibited I just wonder if it if it just needs to be the term does not I know that we have a strict prohibition but if on first glance this looks like it it's it competes with that prohibition well only because it's excluding the direct interest interest definition Commissioner Brian I think we could be clarifying it please by saying that publicly you know traded companies not licensed yes under 23k I think that's exactly I would I would suggest that yeah therefore the exclusion would be relevant and not in conflict with the other prohibition yes and that people could own up to one percent of a publicly traded company that was not a license under the chapter I would I would make that suggestion too Commissioner Brian I see you kind of nodding do you do you agree that that might be helpful yeah Todd and I talked about this a lot in terms of you know why it was there and yeah I I don't think that creates any issues in fact I think it solves it but I don't know Todd I would think do you want to do we propose that with sort of an asterisk going forward today to be double checked Todd to make sure that putting the not in otherwise regulated solves the issue yeah well I mean I think that does absolutely I mean that I think is okay anyway you're allowed to own stock in a company that's not licensed under 23k that's right that's not at all an issue the question I think for me is what how the commission interprets licensed under this chapter that phrase because the rule specifically is that commissioners employees shall not own or be in the employee of or own any stock in a business which holds a license under this chapter so it clearly only applies to companies which have a license under chapter 23k and a company that doesn't Amazon or something like that certainly doesn't count you can own as much Amazon stock as you want but it's a company that is licensed under 23k that becomes the question and whether we read licensed under this chapter to mean just the gaming licensees or any licensee like a vendor a racetrack all those folks to the extent they're publicly traded companies I think we mean both we mean anybody who's licensed under 23k what we've called in the past as big L or little L you know the the gaming manufacturers et cetera if you put licensed then it applies by the way your example of Amazon the way I read this current language including my proposed Provisio would limit our ability to own more than 1% of Amazon stock even if we could afford it the way the way I see this written because it says direct ownership would not apply to somebody's interest in less than 1% of publicly traded companies it would limit our ability to own more than 1% the way I see this written okay well I just you you don't understand what what I've been sort of trying to articulate I do I've always kind of given it a different read though I mean I I viewed this as meaning first of all this is limited to whether you have a director and direct interest it doesn't place any other independent restriction on you so if you don't fall into a director and direct interest then there's nothing to be concerned with and so I've never read this to mean that it applies to every publicly traded company on the market it's just ones that happen to be licensed under chapter 23k and what effect that has on employees and commissioners ability to own stock in those companies and so if you're a company that's not at all licensed under 23k then I think employees and commissioners can own as much stock as they want 1% 20% whatever you want so I've kind of looked at it a little differently and for that reason maybe instead of making a change to it right now we just kind of hold this for a moment until we're all comfortable with it and we can revisit it yeah it's not an imminent or urgent matter nothing's come up or anything like that and we want to make sure we get it right we don't know what we're getting for Christmas yet right well or Hanukkah yeah I'm not getting anything I already know what I got for Hanukkah so that 1% have some public maybe that it's not just the highlighted part but the rest of the sentence that maybe you incomplete in terms of qualifying but let's really see that she suggests because they can there's a read I guess I made my point already that you might apply to any and I and I agree with with that and so I do think well we can table it today I don't think we should table it for long you know I think we should revisit it sooner than later but I do think it sounds like you're being thoughtful about the license in our ability to make sure that that we can attest correctly about our our ownership it is I think it's a prohibition on license all together any licensed company all together but again let's revisit it I think Commissioner Brian and you have had some good conversations and I think it's worth really drilling down on it this was not something Commissioner Stevens and I spent with Todd much time it was a discovery and I can I can only say is I saw this as before I I joined joined the organization as competing and of course didn't have a practical problem but wondered what it meant so you know from that personal point of view I don't know Commissioner Brian if you did the same thing but it did seem to be a little bit at odds with the the statutory prohibition at least on how we read it so yeah because I know we want to move on but the exclusion of mutual funds is is a much more intuitive one right and very consistent with the Ethics Commission's practice because we don't have ability to control right control factors so yes and that's that's very clear here so that's important right thank you we can if we may I guess we can keep moving on to the definition of employee which begins at the on the next page and again we're just this is we're clarifying what the practice was and I believe the second edition of the code this was contemplated by the commission but we recognize there was not as clear as it could be in excluding members of our advisory board or subcommittees from the definition of employee such that they are not subject to this enhanced code of ethics and to be clear that doesn't mean they're excluded from any ethical considerations they're still deemed special state employees so chapter 268a does still apply to them as it applies to any special state employees so there are still ethics considerations just not the whole enhanced code of ethics the next area for discussion if we kind of scroll down to the bottom of this page is the definition of significant relationship and this comes up in the context of the the discussion about conflicts of interest and one is not allowed to engage in any financial any particular matter in which there or an individual with whom they've had a significant relationships financial interests are implicated and we'll get into that section in a moment too but the the question before the commission here is whether the tense of the language here in significant relationship is as it should be and just by way of reference I went back and took a look at section 3m of chapter 23k which is where the term significant relationship is used in the statute and it says that it applies to anyone who has present tense a significant relationship with someone else so you'll see and we reference this I think in three places in the code this is the first place where we wrote in there in number 4 that it's anyone with whom a person shared and that's of course in the past tense an influential or intimate relationship there was some discussion about adding shares or shared but the prevailing thought may be that we just make it present tense as the statute talks about and make all references to significant relationship to a situation that you are presently in with someone so this would read if that's agreeable that it's anyone with whom a person shares an influential or intimate relationship I think you have a consensus there okay so we will strike the word shared and replace it with shares along those lines and I just mentioned this if we then go up to number 3 in significant relationship it talks about former spouses domestic partners or life partners so X folks those are all of course by definition people who there were past relationships with so perhaps consideration should be given if we're moving towards making this a present tense to removing that to the extent we find it to be inconsistent but if that is viewed and it can be as such a limited carve out because those people are in such a special place in one's lives that we keep it we at least need to recognize that most of the definition applies to present tense but that one is in the past tense Commissioner O'Brien yeah Todd and I had a long conversation about this trying to reconcile the tenses in the different areas and I do think we should be consistent you know I was trying to do different hypotheticals in my head and it's like you know you could have had a significant domestic partner life partner spouse that was over 25 years ago and you don't see the person and you have no idea and it's you know no more than a close friend so to me doing this catch all of past sense and pulling that in where we're doing present tense for the other I feel like it should be consistent I feel like the past tense goes too far but that's that's what I conveyed when I got briefed on it I don't necessarily disagree with that Commissioner O'Brien's point the only one in that specific line and that might be of some interest is a former spouse who might still be paying some type of you know financial obligation to or what have you that could be viewed as competing wouldn't you have a financial interest wouldn't that fall in financial interest category potentially it would still come up under appearance issues and things like that so it's not yeah so I mean if your ex-husband or ex-wife even if it's from 20 years ago came before you for a license I mean you'd probably need to disclose that at least yeah but in terms of the in terms of the absolute I mean Bruce we were talking about this that if you had something like that it would seem that the definition of financial interest in one salary, gratuity or other compensation or remuneration definition it would seem to fall in that because then you do have an interest in it because helping this person that might help you get out of your alimony all right and so I wasn't bothered by changing the tense because that still seemed like it was caught by the financial interest I agree with that assessment by the way I think I think that way covers it I I like it I like it making it more consistent if to I think Commissioner Stevan's point is addressed through other through other if you don't as a financial interest definition so we don't see a conflict if there's no financial interest with that former then it's Todd's point of appearance of conflict as opposed to an actual financial conflict so it's just to be clear the consensus is then to take it out okay Commissioner Cameron are you comfortable with that if there are other vehicles yeah absolutely I'm fine with that okay so we'll take three out and then we'll delete the word shared and it will replace it with shares perfect okay now we're down to section nine this is the conflict of interest section there are again a number of amendments here but I'm hoping we can easily explain what we've done the first is in paragraph A this is really just to bring this provision in closer line to the state law and it's easier really for training purposes a just to note that a conflict of interest applies to yourself too if you personally have a financial interest so we didn't say that here because that's covered under 268A but here it's just easier to add that applies to the financial interest and something you know about so it's to your knowledge so those are just two additions and then you'll see although I can't remember if I just did this or this is in your draft there's the part where we say have or had a significant relationship in the last line so we delete the or had and it would just read with whom they have a significant relationship so it would be more oh it wasn't deleted in this version so okay yeah so that's consistent yeah okay so we'll get down to paragraph C and D and there are some similarities between C and D we'll take them separately but at the end of the day we are trying to do basically the same thing with both and the distinction with paragraph C that's important here is that it only applies to commissioners and it only applies to situations in which you're making a licensing decision and this provision is included in chapter 23K and it says that commissioners must recuse themselves from any licensing decision in which a potential conflict of interest exists so the terminology potential conflict of interest does not appear in the state conflict of interest law that is special to chapter 23K but it makes sense to have a mechanism tied to the mechanics of the state conflict of interest law to handle any such situations that may arise and the closest comparison is when there's a so-called appearance of a conflict of interest under 268A chapter 23B3 in that case one is required to file a particular form which is referenced here in the new language in red and that form is to be filed with your appointing authority not with an executive director or anyone else you file that form regardless of who you are with your appointing authority so the proposal here to help us navigate situations in which a potential conflict of interest exists is to say that if that situation arises a commissioner can file a notice of an appearance of conflict under 23B3 with their appointing authority and the commission will have deemed that that potential is dispelled so there's no longer any potential because it's been put out on the table out subject to the sunlight everyone can see it everyone knows about it and the appointing authority then of course has the ability to make a determination if they so choose as to whether the person can continue or not continue on in that particular situation but at the end of this paragraph you'll see we also added language that says because an appointing authority essentially is not obliged to necessarily make a determination that a commissioner who files such a disclosure with their appointing authority must announce the filing at a public meeting of the commission so that it's all out in the public if this type of situation were to arise so that's the additional language you see here in paragraph C it may be helpful of Madam Chair and commissioners just to go on to paragraph D before we have discussion because there's a lot of similarities between the two although the language is slightly different paragraph D pertains to commissioners and employees and again there is language in Chapter 23K that addresses the situation here and which is not addressed in 268A the state conflict of interest law so again it's unique to the gaming law but again raises similar issues to the so-called appearances under 23B3 so what we have said here is that in the event that a commissioner or employee finds themselves in a situation that could give rise to an appearance of conflict or in which their impartiality may reasonably be questioned and that's the language that's in the statute impartiality may reasonably be questioned that they may file this disclosure under 23B3 and that as it does with appearances of conflict under state law shall be deemed to dispel any such appearance or any question as to whether their impartiality may reasonably be called into question and like before we say that such filing shall be made with one's appointing authority and in the case of the commissioners your appointing authorities are your statutory appointing authorities whether it's the governor or the attorney general or the treasurer or the combination of the three when it comes to most of the other employees of the commission that would be the executive director who is our appointing authorities and when it comes to the executive director it is the commission who is the appointing authority but and whoever that happens to be that's the individual or group of individuals you would file the disclosure with and the ultimate decision as to whether you could continue on would be with your appointing authority the change that was made to this section was because there was a bit of a tricky situation that we unintentionally created whereby commissioners would be required to file a disclosure with the executive director who would then be called upon to make a decision which creates an awkward situation to say the least in which someone would have to make a decision about their superior essentially under a conflict of interest law and that's not a great setup so the amendment here is designed to remove that and to bring this situation into closer alignment with the existing vehicle that's used under state law to address these kinds of situations and again when it comes to commissioners the requirement would be to announce publicly that you have filed such a disclosure with your appointing authority so that's paragraph c and paragraph d and I think it might be a good time to pause for discussion comments or any questions about what the proposal is questions I think it's well articulated by you now and by the changes here something that took me a little while to kind of get sort of understand really the question that was being brought up I kept thinking of the personalities in the in the prior executive director but I think the amendments here are appropriate and reflect every process no problem at all when it was briefed I thought this made sense okay excellent in that case we can keep moving along the next change was to section 11 it's just a real minor clarification it requires if anyone commissioner or employee gets offered a gift that they report it for their own protection to ward off any suggestion that someone actually kept a gift it requires the reporting to one's immediate supervisor where commissioners don't have immediate supervisors here at the commission we added in that that could also be filed with the general counsel and that would just be on record in case of any future issues that are asked if we keep on going down to section c of section 11 we talk about travel expenses and this is already in the enhanced code the adjusted language here is really just a clarification of the rule and ties it even more closely to state law on this issue and points out that if you were to follow state law that acceptance of either travel travel expenses or a reimbursement of such expenses or the waiver of any such costs shall not be considered a gift and that is consistent with state law on the matter and we are really just following that here so that's really just a reworking of that language but not a change in the policy can I just add one observation on that and commissioners we all have the great help of jamie on travel and conference setting but there are regulations under chapter 268a where if there is any element of third party support whether it's a waiver of costs because often we don't we use our own internal budget to cover those costs but if there's any waiver there it may trigger an obligation to file a disclosure with your appointing official and it does require a determination from your appointing official so just keep them in mind and we'll remind jamie of that requirement she knows it but just she's a great gatekeeper to remind us on for that and it should be done it must be done I should say in advance but that's but that doesn't happen that frequently for us but if they waive that also has value so is that fair to say Todd so we'll remind jamie so she can remind us okay thanks right we're all on the lookout that's the key to this holocaud you know it's hard to remember all of this so it's important that's why we train everyone and we talk about it regularly but she's so helpful on that front so so the next section section D talks about use of employee cafeterias or dining rooms the commission I believe reviewed this within the past E I mean it might be more than a year although it feels like it was within a year or so but it's in our employee handbook so now we're just migrating it over to this enhanced code too and it allows employees who particularly work at casinos or in the casinos to make use of the employee cafeteria dining rooms provided that they pay a market price for any of the items that they purchase it's our understanding that oftentimes the casinos will offer some discounts or good deals on their meals to their own employees or even perhaps offer them for free in certain circumstances and we of course can't do that but if we do accept the food or beverage at market price there's no violation of the rule so we're just codifying that there are also a couple of typos here that I would I would just kind of take out there are a few extra vats in here so I'll delete those as well thank you to Commissioner O'Brien who keenly caught those um section 12 that's just clarification of the unwarranted privilege rule just tying it more closely to chapter 268a it's discussed there there's no real substantive change to that one section 13 talks about use of the licensee facilities and particularly staying overnight at hotels that are owned or operated by the licensees and here what we have done and this kind of harkens back to the part where we talked in the conflict of interest section about the executive director being required to take some action pertaining to her superior so we wanted to remove that type of scenario and which we initially had whereby the executive director would have to approve of a commissioner staying overnight in a hotel so we instead the proposal is we just say the commissioners shall not stay overnight it says no commissioners shall stay overnight in a hotel of any kind for any reason period and we separate that out from any other employee like a gaming agent for example who may do so with express authority of the executive director director of the IEB or the gaming agent divisions chief provided that we pay for those rooms so that's the the purpose of the change in section 13 looks good well commissioner Cameron all set this one makes perfect sense so there's no reason to stay at a licensee facility yeah yeah so that is actually a clear improvement or a further additional enhancement here right commissioner Cameron oh yeah I never thought that we that there was any need to do that ever and this is good clarification thanks Todd section 14 has a similar amendment whereby initially in the present language a commissioner could place a wager in the course of their official duties if they had the approval of the executive director director of the IEB and to remedy that situation where a commissioner would need the permission of subordinate we instead changed the rule to essentially say that commissioners can never place a wager in a casino which of course is the law anyway we carved out a very limited exception here that an employee can place a wager in the course of their official duties the theory being that it would presumably be part of an investigation of some kind or some type of compliance effort to ensure that the integrity of a particular game is being met but the thought is that it would never really have to be a commissioner who would engage in that type of activity really just an employee of some kind and so what this does is it just kind of codifies the fact that no commissioner will really ever be placing a wager in a casino there is no undercover work for commissioners no undercover work for commissioners there goes my one skill that I obtain about switching dice go down in history down yeah I always advertise it at the one and only time that I might ever do it this is the Zuniga rule that wasn't even undercover that was right out in and I was in full view yes and plain view so um paragraph in a very limited I just want to be on the record very limited circumstance on a test night so this is just to clarify really a clear rule again very much like the overnight at the hotel correct commissioner Cameron yeah absolutely no need at all to place wagers as a commissioner I or the wagers I'm thinking it's worth that because that's something I did participate in undercover capacity this is very different no need as a commissioner yeah so that's clear so good thank you Todd do you want to continue on to 15 yes so paragraph 15 just a couple of real minor adjustments one is just to clarify that an employee working at a gaming establishment may purchase food or drink within a publicly accessible area at the post and menu prices which was already the policy but this is just the distinction from the employee dining areas where you can't just pay the posted price you have to pay market price but if you buy if you're at the casino and you purchase food or drink at out in public at the posted price then that is permissible and not considered a gift or or actually doing anything in violation of the code if you scroll down in the same section section four again this gets into the situation where a commissioner was required to obtain the approval of the executive director so we changed that this pertains to the scenario in which someone wants to go to a gaming establishment for a family or social gathering or civic or charitable event or what have you and we do have a mechanism in place that allows for that provided that amongst other things you a regular employee gets permission of the executive director this would require commissioners to notify the executive director of such and then announce such filing at a public meeting that you were going to the casino so I should just point out that this is just now putting a notice on on file which was recommended by Todd I don't think it precludes a commissioner from maybe taking the additional step of filing you know some kind of an appearance disclosure with their appointed official to just say I'm going to be at the licensee for and my cousin's daughter's wedding or whatever just to you know make sure that you're clear on the record but I thought this was a really reasonable recommendation and it wouldn't preclude additional steps this is because this is a measure that isn't doesn't stem from a statutory prohibition but from our enhanced code correct Todd that's right okay paragraph B of this section directly below I don't believe you have any marks on the draft you have in front of you but you'll recall that this section pertains to a commissioners involvement as an officer director or fundraiser with educational religious or charitable organization that receives significant funding from any gaming licensee I wanted to raise this to seek to clarify a bigger question about this and that is whether this is intended to apply solely to such service in a commissioner's personal capacity or whether it was intended to actually cover such service in the course of a commissioner's official duties as well it was my sense for what it's worth that this was intended to apply to one's personal involvement and any such organizations because that's really where the conflict of interest law is designed to to jump in and help moderate behaviors but in this type of situation where a commissioner is providing service to such organization in the course of their official duties I would suggest that the concerns that the conflict of interest law are intended to address are really limited and so I think a clarification as to that point would be helpful here are we talking about it has to be a charitable event does that work not just any other kind of an event at the licensee's premises well it's not an event it's really service on a board this is letter B B S-T-B okay Todd gave a great example to me you know we're quite proud of the fact that director Wells is on the Niagara this doesn't pertain to her commissioner Cameron because it's only with respect to commissioners but suppose you know you can't I can't use commissioner Stebbins well I can because he's still here he gets a request today to serve on a gaming licensee's a non-profit organization that is made up of regulators right really is serving the industry it would be really about your official capacity and I believe that there are ethics the ethics commission has made rulings that would be consistent with what Todd has suggested here with that said there's always other prohibitions in terms of confidentiality around our own business etc on serving on those boards but it doesn't it doesn't involve the potential conflicts that I think you were probably intending when you put that in back in the day it really is around the non-profit organizations that we serve personally I serve on various private non-profit organizations and coming here to the gaming commission I did my due diligence to make sure they weren't invested in any gaming companies and so I think that's what you were hoping for on that but we haven't had any invitations yet to serve on a non-profit are we talking something like Ayagra or yeah he said you don't think a commissioner should do that no the opposite the opposite I'm saying the opposite okay because saying you're sure you should be able to do that because it's an official capacity yes I see the distinction okay yes versus if we were on a non-profit that had a substantial financial interest yes very big difference yes yeah because then it would be for our personal perhaps personal gain versus our professional correct got it and so we'll make that change I think that's a good suggestion right yes okay you know for in the interest of disclosure I could have on the exact conversation I have been invited to be a member a board member of the to of the national council on program gambling and have not done so to be you know a board member to be in in in full compliance of this provision with the you know without necessarily and you have the benefit of this discussion that you know it was not perhaps meant to be as part of my official duties so it is a very real situation it's and this is a helpful clarification I think ultimately beneficial to the commission and that's what was intended okay paragraph C you'll see there's just a deletion to 11 C the theory is that 11 C references the gift restriction and the thought is that compensation or honoraria are really not travel reimbursement so it was somewhat perhaps of a misplaced cross reference so that's the purpose for that deletion and E is really again just a clarification that you may participate in civic or charitable activities that supplies to commissioners or employees that do not interfere with your independence of judgment or just adding in there related to the commission I mean if you're involved with something else that affects your independence that's your business but we're only concerned with ones that will affect your judgment here at the commission okay so section 17 deals with unlawful conduct if someone happens to be charged or ultimately convicted of a misdemeanor or a felony the statute this is right in section three of chapter 23 K says that in certain circumstances we have to suspend that employee and certain circumstances they have to be terminated the what's interesting though is that the section we realized after a careful review does actually not apply to commissioners and the reason for it I believe is that the decision as to whether a commissioner should be suspended or removed from their position is really up to the governor not up to the organization to decide and so in that event what we say is that a commissioner would have to report to their appointing authority that they have been charged with such a crime but not to the executive director otherwise the rule remains in effect for the rest of us as it should so that's that's the purpose of that amendment paragraph 19 just adds you'll see the commission into the category of individuals and entities with whom someone will have to cooperate in the event of an investigation and I think the last section I just wanted to touch on is section 24 which is on page 12 of the code and it talks about violations and this language was derived from section three of 23k and it relates to a scenario in which the governor could remove a commissioner for cause essentially and there's a whole body of jurisprudence related to removing an appointed official from their position the intent here I believe initially was to just give the other commissioners a mechanism by which to convey the existence of any of these scenarios that are described in the statute to the governor but when we went back and read it it doesn't it didn't quite say that it may have added more of a duty or a burden than was intended so the language you'll see in here is intended to really clarify the obligation that a commissioner or group of commissioners would have to make a certain report and just to walk through it quickly sections one through and this is roman numerals one through five are the exact language in the statute that the governor may use to remove a commissioner if any of those items are in existence six we added in so that's not in the statute but that it relates to of course a violation of this code and one of the keys to the amendment is that it's not incumbent upon the commissioners to make a definitive finding that another commissioner has done one of these things but just to conclude that there is essentially evidence for the governor to consider that one of these things may be in existence and the standard that we've tied to this is essentially the substantial evidence standard and the language before you says that if a majority of the commissioners agree that information exists that a reasonable mind might accept is adequate to support a conclusion that another commissioner has engaged in one of these particular behaviors or activities then they shall after providing notice to that other commissioner reported to the governor and the important thing here is that this is a shall so if if three commissioners concluded that there is evidence of one of these things they shall report it to the governor after providing notice to the third and this is the type of thing presumably depending on the situation that could actually be addressed in executive session we'd have to if for whatever reason we ever find ourselves in the situation we'd have to look at on a case by case basis but there is language in the open meeting law that may allow for such a discussion but this would mandate that group of commissioners to take action if there was evidence of one of these six are we are we using the term reasonable mind instead of reasonable person because it's plural is more than one commissioner or is that a term that's this is the exact length instead of saying that if a majority of commissioners agree that substantial evidence exists right we we use the language that defines what substantial evidence is so this comes to to turn reasonable mind reasonable mind oh I'm always familiar with reasonable person never mind yes and in fact I think we use reasonable person elsewhere in the code here but it was just a way to tie it to an actual legal standard you know so it's subject to discussion we could make it a reasonable person of course but that's where it came from I just wanted to explain that if it comes directly from you know it's used elsewhere and it's applicable I have no problem I just personally never heard the term yeah it's it's an interesting it's an interesting way to think about it but it comes up of course in our work all the time particularly in the hearing context uh context when we have to look at whether there's substantial evidence and of course the commission the judic could adjudicating any number of matters has looked at whether there's substantial evidence so it's a pretty well understood term and this is just how it's legally defined so it's if I could sorry if I could just add I think that shell there was always a obligation affirmative obligation to make a referral to the governor the difference that I saw was that the language as it existed before suggested that the commission had the power to make the um determination of the or the findings that are outlined in the statute where um ultimately in a removal process that the governor you know would be exercising it would be the presiding officer who would be the governor that makes the determination of the evidence so um in this case if the you know the commission would be more likely to know about something so you know there's a now a tool that the majority the commission could come together and say you know gee we seem to have made a decision or that there is this substantial evidence and then as you had before make you know affirmatively make a referral to the governor then of course it would be up to the governor as to what to do with that so it really is reflect it reflects the process of removal more accurately um and then but the other thing is the fairness factor right Todd where the commission would give notice to the the commissioner as as well that's right and that was that's a it's a great description of what the driving intent was behind this proposal yeah but I would I'm with commissioner Cameron I would not have known reasonable mind either and and for whatever reason but it does it's it is in aligned with with substantial evidence as in terms of its definition I'm going to go to our other legal mind commissioner O'Brien you're comfortable with I think of all of the changes this one was probably more of a of a challenge to to write and I thought Todd you did a superb job on it so thank you well thank you madam chair there was there's only one other proposal that I thought we would get to quickly here and that's in section 25 post-employment section where we talk about how long one would have to wait to be issued a license or registration by the commission in the event that they were dismissed or terminated for a violation of the code so if we have to terminate someone because they did something impermissible under the code we say that they at present it says you have to wait two years many people including commissioners have a two plus year cooling off period under law anyway so that really wouldn't have any effect to say that you have to wait two years so in effort to give some effect to that we say that the two-year waiting period would be after your statutory cooling off period so if you were terminated from the commission for violating this code you'd have to wait three four or five years before you could be licensed or registered to work at a casino and hopefully we'll never have to deal with this either but it's just uh while we're at it we might as well I love commissioner Cameron's expression it just kind of blossoms no concurrent sentences here no no it's the consecutive yes I see that get the number twice here that's it I just have a quick question on that Todd if someone is booted off the commission then what authority does the code then have over them um or is it that the that the so the licensing division would now be prohibited from licensing that person under this that's right that's what we would do but in massachusetts yes commissioner Cameron I suspect they may have different roles in different states but that's I'm fine with the the uh consecutive here yeah no light sentences if you're I mean you know if someone gets terminated violating the code it's probably going to be a unique situation to begin with yeah in that scenario the code terminus versus the parallel might be the least of the issues I think so too so then um like that is the last comment I had um I can turn it back over if there's any further discussion we can hit on any uh other comments or questions otherwise ultimately it would be something that the I think the commission should take a vote on as to whether to adopt the amendments and then as you'll recall this code gets filed with the state ethics commission so we'd have to update it and then file it with that body before we take any action formally I just want to thank well one Todd for your thorough thorough work here you you had made edits and allowed me the opportunity to chime in and Commissioner Stebbins I want to thank you for all of your contribution while you didn't necessarily add comments today you were you know wonderful contributor to the thoughtful changes that Todd proposed today so thank you for your attention on this you know again I think Todd set the stage right but you know this was really thoughtful several years ago thoughtfully done and it's been updated and it's probably just a good habit to review this important document on a regular basis to make sure we commit ourselves to the standards that that are expected Commissioner Stebbins yeah thanks Madam Chair I would agree a great job by our general counsel and you know thanks to you I know this has been your bailiwick this has been in your background through your years of public service so your input was incredibly helpful I know this started off is trying to make some simple corrections but I'm glad that we took a chance to really do a top to bottom review and update a lot more than I think was originally on our agenda to keep it current so I thank you for that and again thank Councillor Grossman for his good work and his incredible drafting abilities wow that's thanks to all of you we all participated and it wasn't very thoughtful and well any question I had had really been thought out thoroughly so I do appreciate the work of all of you I guess I'd like to have ended on maybe the construction report or the annual horse racing report but this was business that it's it is a good closer to get done especially because Commissioner Stevens did contribute and given I wanted to make sure he could be part of today's process so I'm happy that we took the time today to get through this and I think Todd has does suggest that it would be good to formalize I know we've had a couple one at least one matter that's outstanding and then there's been one change I think one amendment that wasn't in our document today but you noted it so with that I don't know if there is if unless there's further discussion if there is a motion on this matter Commissioner Bryan are you thinking certainly if I go back to the agenda see how we can Madam Chair I would propose that the commission vote to adopt comprehensive amendments to the enhanced code of ethics included in today's packet and as discussed second any clarification or amendment we'll just come back and review the clarification of the publicly created companies threshold matter Commissioner Stephens you're all set yes okay then again thank you Todd and thank you to all who patiently listen today it does affect the entire team so very helpful for you to stay on with that said we'll call vote Commissioner Cameron I Commissioner O'Brien I Commissioner Zuniga I and this may be a final vote for Commissioner Stebbins you want to stir things up Commissioner Stebbins well I'm just thinking it's not going to apply to me in here in another couple weeks so I'm sticking the rest of you with it now I'm happy to happy to vote I also thank you and I vote yes five zero Erica and before we turn to the next item Commissioner Stebbins thank you for that last formal action and now we will turn to the Commissioner's update correct and this does involve Commissioner Stebbins so it's just a formal vote the last formal vote we'll turn to Commissioner Zubrayin and Commissioner Stebbins thank you Madam Chair I start this off with an apology and a maya culpa there was a miscommunication between myself and HR in terms of getting the draft in the packet we didn't make substantial but I can and Bruce correct me if I miss anything but we we didn't do significant disforms what we really did was tweak them to be more relevant to particularly for the ED as opposed to a non-exempt employee and particularly for this year being calendar 2020 and the fact that Karen was put in as interim and then appointed this year without the benefit of having gone through a formal process where she set out particular goals for the year things that would be normally part of this process and you would harken back to those as part of this so this might what I suggest is I can go through what we propose maybe some of the discussions about the dates that we as a body can agree on in terms of timing in terms of care and self-evaluation our evaluations and then the public hearing and then what we may want to do is put on for January 14th the first public meeting in January final discussions about what our form is going to look like again we didn't do a lot of changes to it but as we Bruce and I talked about this people may feel differently about how or if they want that form to change and the mechanisms for doing the actual review but what I can do right now is simply say that the the original form that was disseminated that had been used for years when Ed Bedrosian was the executive director really it was ministerial changes to make sure it was Karen would be self-evaluating for calendar year 2020 not on a fiscal year basis that it makes a reference to the goals and how how did you do in progressing toward those goals but we simply populated with not applicable this year because she was not given a chance to give any goals in the beginning of the year it does give her the place obviously to set goals going forward for the next calendar year and then the really the three areas that we propose adding to this for this year because she couldn't set goals but we don't want her to not be able to talk about her accomplishments there is another form that HR and management have been using to do these quarterly check-ins with employees and I kept referring to it as the purple sheet which had a number of you know other questions to ask an employee kind of more regularly as the year goes on and one of them was which accomplish which significant accomplishment or contribution to the MGC this calendar year have you contributed to and which of those are you most proud of and so that we propose adding in this year for Karen so that she can talk about what she thinks she accomplished as interim and director even though it's not an official goal that we're going to be gauging her on whether she attained it or not and then breaking out into goals for next year agency related goals and personal goals so one would be introspective in terms of does she has any particular goals as ED and manager that she wants to accomplish on a professional basis versus what are the two to three goals that you set for you to accomplish for the agency as a whole but other than that the form looks very similar to what was given to the former executive director in terms of asking her to self-evaluate her communication skills her personal effectiveness skills her management qualities and her interactions with others so it's it's what it does is it's the same form we've used it's simply calendar versus fiscal and then it does add in significant accomplishments and personal assessments on that because she was not obviously given the chance to set those out in the beginning of the year and Bruce I don't let let me know if I left anything out No, I think you covered it it is again the commissioner Brian's point we didn't change the the the base form over overly dramatically just some some ministerial changes but the real meat of this was what we commissioner Brian called the purple page which I think is for the first time giving us and our ED a chance to talk about how they want to improve professionally what goals they're setting for the agency as well as a review of the goals and it gives the commission the chance when we talk about her performance to also have a discussion about the goals that she has put in her self assessment and how she views the work of the commission and the team going forward into the into the calendar year so yeah that's really the big standout change and you know thanks to to Troop D and Natasha for both helping commissioner Brian and myself kind of tweak that and make it relevant but I think it's a good solid document again used in the past and now we've tweaked some of the you know goals setting that all the employees are using to have it specifically relate to the executive director questions it sounds sounds reasonable sounds appropriate this is the year that we've had to improvise so this is one more document that we needed to do it so I I thank the two of you and the team that assisted you with being thoughtful about this and I just thank you for the work and it sounds great I agree the on the only thing that maybe I have missed I haven't thought correctly about that that the evaluation and compensation process would be on a calendar basis but it sounds as though and not surprising given it's also deals with compensation that it's that this has been was expected to have been done on a fiscal year basis historically yes when we looked at the forms it was historically done on a fiscal year basis but we'd have that conversation earlier in the year in terms of whether to go forward with Karen on an annual based on her start data to stick with fiscal and the consensus at that time had been to do the 12 months look back even though it was going to fall on a calendar cycle and do you think with that now with reviewing the document commissioner that you would still think that's appropriate or should we have that discussion on the 14th as well whether we need that we ship right fiscal year versus calendar I think that might be a question for going forward you know whether in interim six month and then we're back on a fiscal as we move forward with her as ED that's what I'm wondering yet right and that could be a discussion as we move forward you know do you have a small one and then it's stretched out to to sync up with everyone else okay so we'll plan on that for the 14th so it's possible that she could do a half year set goals for half year okay excellent I just wanted to go back that cycle of fiscal year as opposed to calendar so commissioner Zunica will you think about that too if it's important to get keep it on the fiscal year basis for you know fiscal purposes or we could ship to the right I don't see a really imperative I think it's a matter of preference you know so I'm finding the way frankly all right excellent sounds good and that and I'm excited about the purple page I know I was too actually Bruce and I thought it was actually pretty pretty good idea that was how people were doing that with their Supervisories so the only and then the only other discussion really is the machinations for how this goes forward in terms of when Karen gets this form and does the self-evaluation the recommendation that I had and then Bruce had when we were talking with Tripti and Natasha about this was if she's instructed to return it to HR and then HR disseminates it to each of us so we can each do our individual assessment of her and then HR could disseminate our individual assessments back to her no compilation etc that she would get an individual assessment from each one of us and then there would be a separate public meeting to do an overall assessment that we would need to do because of the position that she's in that would talk about our performances etc but mindful of public records laws exemptions and privacy rights that would attach to personnel records etc it's my understanding in the past compilations of assessments were made Bruce and I were talking about how that would work what that would look like etc just doesn't seem to me to be a good process and it seems to me that the executive director should get the benefit of knowing what each commissioner thinks I mean heaven forbid there be outliers one way or the other she should have the opportunity to sit down one and one with that person and talk about what those issues are and that can be done one on one with one or more commissioners if the commissioner or she wants that so we didn't really want to go forward and continue with that idea of just getting one summarized review but we obviously wanted to take it to the full board to commission to see what you guys thought and and the idea was that we would still have some kind of we would we would benefit from the one on one but there would still be a compilation of some kind by HR on no so that's just that is the compilation would really be us oh triptus here what we had talked about there were two components historically to how the commissioners evaluated the ED and one was purely numeric it was breaking these various general categories of communication management style et cetera engaging them on a score of one to five that's purely math I mean so if the question is and Todd I know this gets into maybe other questions of you know how we want to go forward a public meeting but it would seem to me HR simply compiling the median and or the range of those to be presented at the public meeting and then we each can give our summary of what we think of Karen to me would be the better way of publicly discussing her performance without having someone go through the exercise of subjectively deciding how to merge everyone's comments about her yeah I think the compilation was as you just clarify included the comments there's the summation of all the different comments so it was not just limited to the to the numerical exercise which was in part of part of the deal I'm fine with this process you know what would you suggest I think it would enhance the feedback so so long as we don't preclude it doesn't become at the expense of our robust discussion in the opening which which is the purpose of the review to be done in public which I know can be awkward but but it's it's part of the deal really part of the structure that we are faced with I think what we were and Bruce jump in please but we were trying to balance having a vigorous process publicly but also acknowledging that there is a component that even the public records law acknowledges is allowed to be kept exempt and so we're trying to do this in a way that's robust in public but also acknowledges that there is that component to this Todd and I were talking about you know exactly what the mechanics are and the forms etc that that you know could be shared it doesn't mean obviously that the five of us to see the other four's evaluations at the meeting that would mean that document is public but to me the benefit of her being able to individually see what we say and then we as a group publicly talked about that I think satisfies both those requirements but I don't know Bruce if you wanted to comment also yeah no I would agree with that and Todd has dug us out some very useful information both in terms of case law as well as practice and you know even looking back to our you know what I saw was our last evaluation of an ED which was quite some time ago we we did have you know on a discussion in a public meeting but again you know some of those documents weren't included as part of the packet for the purposes that Ellen just explained so I think it you know the processes for thinking about it helps Karen as a professional to understand how her bosses kind of view her performance and at the same time gives her some thoughtful feedback allows us to weigh in and again the new wrinkle being now having a conversation in a public meeting you can assess the goals that she's laid out in this kind of whole new piece to the to the review and assessment of the work I think it's thoughtful then I would have my camera off too if I were Karen I I think Karen is appropriately using herself she's got her cat in the cat's visiting this is very awkward so I figured I'd make it less awkward by jumping out Karen I don't know animal just your cat Karen if we um if we ever do this back in in real life again you have permission to bring your cat and hold the cat hear that Cooper cat yeah there you go thank you and we're almost we're almost concluding our meeting but um to the only last the timing so it sounds like commissioners O'Brien you're going to take this on now on your own you'll have the document to share with us for further input on the 14th we'll mark it up onto the agenda and it seems as though we maybe at the next agenda setting meeting you could make a recommendation about how we might schedule next steps and and how many meetings that you imagine this would take I have no problem with us you're pushing this into the new year it's important to get it right um it was right before but you know again I think you know your your set of eyes looking at this with the benefit of Mr. Stevens past eyes it sounds as though you've got you know some enhancements that that Commissioner Stevens think will be really helpful right so getting Karen's input in terms of how much time does she need realistically to complete it that's right and and us as well so that we can do it in a meaningful way for the meeting yeah we want to be fair all around so no vote on this however before we um take oh actually Commissioner Stevens you might have one more official vote I just realized that you were very generous at the beginning of the meeting but this is a public record Commissioner Stevens so I do invite you to share your parting thoughts if um Elaine Driscoll were here for our archives this is an opportunity for you to speak on the record you'll have opportunities to speak off the record in our you know informal compliant meetings but please and don't feel pressed on time everybody relax well I will be mindful of everybody's time first of all let me say it was as I said as I was sitting here and I'm looking at the date and I was reminded that in about another month that was 30 years ago that I left what I thought was going to be the best job I ever had and come today to sit here and realize maybe that wasn't true 30 years ago because this has been an incredible experience I'm really humbled by the opportunity to get to work with everybody on this incredible team and that includes you know staff that were with us and have now left for other pursuits as well as my other former colleagues from the commission Chairman Crosby and judges McDonald and McHugh it has been great over the last eight years to not only get to know all of you personally and professionally but to really enjoy working in a place that has a true sense of family and teamwork you're all incredible I have learned so much from each and every one of you you know I in I respect you all so much as professionals and you know getting to know each of you personally I'm going to miss Colonel Cameron's stories about her days in the New Jersey State Police and I'll miss Commissioner Zuniga's Payeya and his turkey stories I've enjoyed Madam Chair hearing stories about your incredible family as well as Chippy's not in the room but a very cute dog and I can't wait to see pictures of Commissioner O'Brien's new member of the household you know I this has been incredible and I want everybody on this team to always realize the incredible work that you do and bringing a new industry to Massachusetts and that you were really helping afford a number of our fellow residents the chance to go to work and you're affording a number of small businesses across the Commonwealth to really have incredible new opportunities to work with our licensees and that's so important you should all take great pride that you're really making that happen every day for for folks across the state as Commissioner Cameron said this is not fair well even though my commute is probably going to go in the opposite direction when we all return to office space but it's not a fair well and it's simply and you know until we see each other again so thank you all very much thank you Commissioner Stevens so kind of me the roast comes later yeah I bet you're you're writing them as we as we speak Commissioner Cameron so um if you will I'm going to allow or ask Commissioner Stevens to make the first little his last official gaming commission motion Madam Chair I move that we adjourn this meeting any objection except that it's to say goodbye and thank you for your service your integrity your fidelity and loyalty and with that we'll call vote Commissioner Cameron I Commissioner Bryan I Commissioner Zuniga Hi Commission late I vote yes Commissioner Stevens yes I and with that thank you everybody that's five zero thank you everyone