 Oh, right. Now, great. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. The convening of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission, because we are holding this on a virtual platform, I'll start with a role called my fellow commissioners. Good morning. Commissioner O'Brien. Good morning. I'm here. Good morning. Commissioner Hill. Good morning. I'm here. Great. Commissioner Skinner. Good morning. Good morning. I'm here. And Commissioner Maynard. Good morning, Madam Chair. I am here. Excellent. Then we'll get started. Today is December 19, 2022. It's a Monday morning. And we are beginning with public meeting number 414. Before I get started, I have a little bit of business to attend to. Earlier this month, I had a taking up the applications for category one and tethered category three sports wagering licenses. Massachusetts Gaming Commission did hold public hearings intended for the public and stakeholders to offer any thoughts they had on the applications we received. We also have held open the ability to submit written comments on an ongoing basis in our continuing to receive input from stakeholders in this manner. To that point, we have received a number of public comments from members of the Springfield community relative to MGM Springfield's compliance with its host community agreement. That agreement was executed as part of the casino licensing process and adherence to the terms of the host community agreement are conditioned of licensure under chapter 23 to K. However, that matter is not directly before the commission today as we review the application which has been submitted for a license under chapter 23 and the sports wagering law. We may and will, however, keep this issue in mind if it becomes relevant to any of the factors we will evaluate as part of the sports wagering licensure process. As always, we appreciate and welcome the interest and input from members of the public relative to matters before the commission. So now, turning to our agenda for today, before I turn to our general counsel, I would like to make a few introductory remarks, some of which are familiar to all of you and those who have listened in on our earlier discussions. Today, as we begin our evaluation of these applications, we as commissioners are reminded of our principal responsibility to ensure the public confidence in the integrity of the gaming industry here in Massachusetts and the strict oversight of the gaming establishments and now sports wagering operators through rigorous regulation. We are reminded that the MGC's licensees will be held to the highest standards of compliance, including an obligation to maintain their integrity. As we have said in the past, the award of a gaming license in the Commonwealth is a careless privilege and our law require gaming licensees to be held to those highest standards on a gaming basis. The MGC mission commits us to creating a fair, transparent and participatory process that engenders the confidence of the public and participants. That process is to benefit the Commonwealth, while minimizing potential or realized negative or unintended consequences. With that understanding, the MGC and all of its powers are created by statute. We must follow the process required by the legislature. Should add further light on that process, I turn now to General Counsel Grossman. Thank you, Madam Chair. And good morning, everybody. Today and tomorrow, you will return to two applications of our current gaming licensees seeking a Category 1 license, which will offer the opportunity for retail sports wagering at their gaming establishments, as well as the opportunity to partner up with up to two MGC license Category 3 online sports operators. The issuance of retail sportsbook licenses at the casinos is relatively complex because it spans Chapter 23K of the general laws regulating casino operators and Chapter 23N covering sports wagering. It is this complexity we must deal with over the next few days and the statutory scheme with which we must comply. Significantly, the timing of the full suitability investigation and determination are different under the two statutes. Chapter 23K required full suitability before licensure of the casino gaming operators. Chapter 23N offers a presumption of suitability to those licensees, although it is subject to further review as described in the regulations. However, for the mobile operators who have not gone through suitability the way casinos have, Chapter 23N directs a temporary license before full suitability. Currently, we're engaged in the public meeting process, which deals with the statutory presumptive granting of casino sportsbook licenses under Chapter 23N and the temporary licensure of mobile sports wagering licenses under Chapter 23N. Our proceeding today is not an adjudicatory hearing. If questions are raised as to suitability, such review would take place at a later time after a thorough investigation that would include an informed decision and determination of any individuals or entities which bear on an applicant's suitability and after full consideration in a properly convened adjudicatory hearing. In the interim, an applicant may be deemed eligible to operate under a temporary list. And Chair Judd Stein, I believe you wish to conclude your opening remarks. Thank you, Attorney Grossman. And thank you to my fellow commissioners again for your commitment to the MGC mission for your thoughtfulness and diligence today and over the next several weeks as we evaluate these applications. As I have said in the last week or so, I feel very fortunate to serve with you, particularly as we work tirelessly to implement this new law for the public's interest in the forefront. And our last several months and months ahead have been demanding and will continue to be demanding on our MGC team. As I said, a team can only be described as a team of excellence. We're very grateful for the contribution you should make individually and as collaborating colleagues. We thank you for your dedication as public servants, the sacrifices that you make and commitment to the MGC mission. With that, let me give a brief overview of today's agenda. First, you will hear again from Attorney Grossman, who will review the statutory and regulatory framework that will help guide us as we evaluate the applications. Then Blue Tarpre Development, LLC, doing business as MGM Springfield, will resume its presentation for a Category 1 license using 205 CMR 218.06 subsection 3 as guidance. Commissioners, upon consideration of requested supplement information, will then we will then resume our assessment of the quality of the components of the supplemented application and decide whether to move forward on a determination of the matter with Attorney Grossman's guidance. Subsequently, we anticipate that MGM's presentation of its application for a Category 3 license. After that MGM's presentation, we'll hear from GLI, the IEB and RSM relative to the technology, suitability, and finance components of the application. And that will lead us to a section by section analysis of the application during which the applicant will answer our questions. Staff members in our legal team, in addition to GLI, IEB, and RSM, will also be available to answer questions. And to ensure that we have ample time to reflect, finalize any personal notes memorializing our impressions, and follow up with any unanswered questions we may break as needed after consideration each section or number of sections. Then after any further questions or purposes of review of the Category 3 application, I will seek from the group comments in a sense as to whether we have a consensus regarding the quality of the applicant's response to that section. Did the applicant not meet expectations relevant to the standard of review outlined by General Council Grossman? Did the applicant meet expectations? Or did the applicant exceed expectations? Any time during this public meeting, the commission may determine that an executive session is required for us to fully review and evaluate certain information in the application, as set forth in the agenda. And should we vote to go into executive session with the guidance of our legal counsel, at this time it is anticipated the public session of this committee meeting, commission meeting, will reconvene today at the conclusion of any such executive session. After our review of the application, we'll decide whether we wish to proceed with our determination process fully on part or defer that decision entirely to another day. So with that, again, let's turn back to item number 20 on the agenda and General Council Grossman. Thank you. Thank you again, Madam Chair and good morning commissioners and all who are joining us here today. Of course, we are here, as the chair mentioned, so that the commission may continue to evaluate the application received for category one sports wagering license from Blue Tarpre Development, which is the licensee that operates MGM Springfield. Prior to resuming that review, however, may be useful to reset the stage walking through the legal provisions and principles that will inform the commission's decision making. And with that, I'll just highlight a few provisions of the Massachusetts Sports Wagering Act, which has of course been enacted as chapter 23 and of the general laws. And then we will take a look at a number of sections of the commission's recently adopted regulations. Of course, as always, questions and comments are invited along the way. With that, I'll start with chapter 23 and and the first place to take a look at is section 61, which says that the commission shall issue a category one license to any holder of a gaming license as defined in section two of chapter 23 K that meets the requirements of this chapter and the rules and regulations of the commission provided, however, that any holder of a category one license shall not be issued a category two license. In the present matter, Blue Tarpre Development is a holder of a gaming license under chapter 23 K. Accordingly, if it otherwise meets the requirements of chapter 23 and and 205 CMR that I'll discuss momentarily, then it shall be issued a category one sports by during operating license. Before we look at the commission's regulations that govern the licensing process for category one applicant, we should discuss what a category one sports by during operator license is. And that term is defined in chapter 23 and section three, to mean a license issued by the commission that permits the operation of sports by during in person at a gaming establishment, as defined in section two of chapter 23 K, and through not more than two individually branded mobile applications or other digital platforms approved by the commission, provided that the mobile applications and other digital platforms shall be qualified for an issued a category three license. So if this applicant were to be awarded a category one license, it would be authorized to operate an in person retail sports by during operation at MGM Springfield and through to mobile operations. This category one license is a tool that enables the licensee to operate through those two mobile platforms. But remember, of course, that the entities that will actually run those mobile or digital platforms, but themselves have to first obtain a category three license. So now let's have a look at the commission's rules and regulations that have to be met by the applicant in order to be issued a license in the best place. The best place to begin here is 205 CMR to 18, which as you know, is the section that sets out the application requirements, standards and procedures. The process itself has of course already begun. Here we've commenced the review that was after an administrative sufficiency review was performed upon the submission of the suitability portions of the application. And then the commission convened the public here a meeting that was referenced in order to receive public feedback on the category one applications collectively. Momentarily, we'll walk through the factors and standards that commission has set out for the award of a license. But prior to doing so, there are a few other provisions and principles that are important to keep in mind. First, the regulations provide that the commission shall analyze the factors and considerations set out in the regulations, but need not do so in any particular order or give any individual factor, any particular weight, and in fact can assign a factor no weight at all if deemed appropriate. Next year, we'll call that the regulations provide that the commission may require or permit an applicant to provide additional information or documents as the commission needs appropriate in its review of the application. So in evaluating the information provided in the application as the commission did previously, it may redirect the applicant to provide updated or supplemental information, which we have done in this particular case. Of course, similarly, during the course of the evaluation, if the applicant observes that there is additional information that it still hasn't provided, there may be of use, it may request an opportunity to do so. It's, of course, again, no worthy that this review is being conducted as part of a regular public meeting under the open meeting law and not at an adjudicatory proceeding. And that means a number of things, one of which we've already discussed, and the other is that all deliberations must take place in public and that if necessary, the executive session provisions of Chapter 30A may be utilized. As it pertains to this instant matter, Section 21A7 of Chapter 30A allows the commission to move into executive session to comply with or act under the authority of any general law. In the present situation, there is a general law that gives the commission authority to move into executive session. Specifically, Section 6i of Chapter 23N provides that applications for operator licenses shall be public records under Section 10 of Chapter 66, provided, however, that trade secrets, competitively sensitive or other proprietary information provided in the course of an application for an operator license under this chapter, the disclosure of which would place the applicant at a competitive disadvantage may be withheld from disclosure under the public records law. In some, if there is any specific information that the commission would like to discuss, but that the applicant identifies as falling within that provision, and the commission agrees, it may move into executive session to discuss that specific information. While the statutory provision in Chapter 23N relates to the public records law and not the open meeting law, to require that the subject information be discussed publicly would nullify the whole purpose of the provision, which is designed to protect such information. Accordingly, application of the executive session provision I referenced is appropriate in this instance. Finally, before moving into the factors themselves, it's also important to recall that any finding the commission makes must be supported by substantial evidence. This term is defined as such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. So when making a determination as to whether there is support in the application to find that a specific factor has been satisfied or has not been satisfied, the commission will have to ensure that there is substantial evidence in the record to support the conclusion. The one exception to this rule, of course, and an area that has a heightened standard relates to the review of an applicant's suitability. By the terms of Section 215 of the regulations, any durable finding of suitability must be supported by clear and convincing evidence, not just substantial evidence, which is a lower standard. Our jurisprudence tells us that clear and convincing proof exists when the evidence induces in the mind of the fact finder, here being the commission, a reasonable belief that the facts asserted are highly probably true, that the probability that they are true or exist is substantially greater than the probability that they are false or do not exist. And for evidence to be clear and convincing, it must be sufficient to convey a high degree of probability that the proposition to be proved is true, and it must be strong and positive and full, clear and decisive. We'll come back to that in a minute, but those are the two general standards of review, if you will, that will be in play during this evaluation. Now please allow me to lay out the factors included in Section 218. The factors are specifically in 218.06 subsection 5. Each factor, you'll recall, falls under the umbrella standard that the commission included in regulation, which directs that in determining whether to award a sports major operator license. The commission will evaluate the application to determine whether a license award would benefit the common world. So that's the main standard that will have to be met in order to award a license. In reaching that conclusion, though, the commission provided that it will consider the following factors. And of course you'll recall that the application itself was designed to elicit information in these categories. Number one, the applicant's experience and expertise related to sports wagering. Number two, the economic impact and other benefits to the commonwealth if the applicant is awarded a license. Number three, the applicant's proposed measures related to responsible gaming. Number four, a description of the applicant's willingness to foster racial, ethnic, and gender diversity, equity, and inclusion. Number five, the technology that the applicant intends to use in its operation. Number six, the suitability of the applicant and its qualifiers. And we will come back to this one momentarily. And number seven, any other appropriate factor in the commission's discretion. So those are the factors that will be reviewed. And again, I'd just like to circle back to that suitability factor for a moment. You'll recall that the commission adopted section 215 of the regulations to govern suitability determinations. And it included provisions allowing for a durable finding of suitability, meaning the so-called final determination. And it also included a provision related to preliminary finding of suitability. In the matter before you, you may choose to award a durable finding if you conclude that the applicant and each of its qualifiers has already demonstrated their suitability by clear and convincing proof, by means of the review conducted under chapter 23K at an adjudicatory proceeding. And that the applicant has maintained such suitability on an ongoing basis up to the present time. In that event, no preliminary finding need be entered, and this applicant could move right into durable finding territory. In support of that principle, I direct you to section 6D of chapter 23N, which says that in investigating the suitability of an applicant, the commission may use information obtained from the applicant pursuant to chapter 23K, chapter 128A, chapter 128C, or information from other jurisdictions where the applicant is authorized to conduct sports bidiary. A preliminary finding may be entered for any category of applicant, including a category one applicant. Recall that a category one license shall be issued to a casino licensee, but only if it meets the requirements of chapter 23N and 205CMR, so it is not an automatic decision. So those are the factors that the commission must consider in making a licensing decision here. As you work your way through the evaluation, though, it may become clear that a condition of licensure will be appropriate at a particular time. For example, you may find that the information relative to a particular factor is lacking. In that event, it does not necessarily mean that the applicant cannot be awarded a license. It may simply mean that the area may require to be supplemented with an appropriate condition. License conditions are described in section 220 of the regulations, and you'll recall that there are a number of automatic conditions, like an obligation to obtain an operation certificate prior to commencing operations and that an operator comply with chapter 23N and the commission's regulations. But there's also a provision that allows the commission to impose any other condition that it determines are appropriate to secure the objectives of chapter 23N and 205CMR. As a practical matter, I might suggest that the commission begin discussing any additional conditions as part of the review of each individual factor, as you have already done here. Then, once the commission has made its way through all of the enumerated factors, but before any final decision is made, as to whether to award a license, the commission should shore up what those final conditions will be in the event that the commission is inclined to award the license. Once that's done, the commission may decide whether it will award the Category 1 license, determine that the applicant is eligible to receive a temporary license, while a complete suitability assessment is performed, and that would be in the circumstance where a preliminary finding of suitability has been entered, or the commission may deny the application for failure to meet the requirements of the regs, or for having violated section 60 or 9 of chapter 23N. At that junction, a written decision will be prepared and issued commemorating the commission's decision. Keep in mind, the award of a license does not mean that the licensee has the green light to commence operations. It simply means that they're eligible to work towards the award of an operation certificate, which is a prerequisite to conducting sportsway during operations. That process is described in section 251 of the regulations and requires submission and approval of such things as the internal controls, including the House rules and compliance with any conditions that may be imposed as part of this evaluation. With that, Madam Chair, I'll pause. With that, I'll see if there are any questions or turn it right back over to you. Thank you, Todd. Questions for Todd, if it's John Scherke from Commissioners? Bringing up the document. So before we return now to section three of the application of the agenda, and which we will now continue with the application review conducted at the Gaining Commission's Public Meeting number 407 on December 7th, 2022, submitted by Luthart redevelopment, doing business as MGM Springfield for Category 1 sportsway during operator license. Excuse me. Notwithstanding our preliminary findings on sub sections B and through E of the application, the applicant has indicated that not only address our specific request to supplement sections F and G, but also supplement other sections of its application. At this juncture, I'd like to give the applicant the opportunity to address its supplemental application, and then we'll proceed with our review. Good morning. Good morning, Chair. Chad knows all on behalf of Luthart redevelopment and MGM resorts international. If I can before jumping in, just introduce the team that we have here today and also online for the live stream. First, of course, Chris Kelly, President and COO of Luthart, excuse me, of MGM Springfield. We also have Arlene Carballo, Executive Director of Finance for MGM Springfield, Beth Ward, Director of Community Affairs for MGM Springfield. We have Dan Miller with us, Director of Client Compliance for MGM Springfield. We also have on the live stream, Danielle White, Vice President Community Engagement for MGM Springfield. I'm also joined in the room here today by Pat Medamba, Senior Vice President in Legal Counsel for MGM resorts international. I also am joined by Gus Kim, Vice President in Legal Counsel for MGM Springfield. In addition, we have Garrett Farns, Director of Responsible Gaming for MGM Resorts international. We also have today with us Joshua Smith, Vice President, International Compliance for MGM Resorts international. And we also have joining us for purposes of the presentation and certainly any additional questions. Sarah Brennan from Beth MGM, as well as Robin Rubis from Beth MGM. So, Chair, the company appreciates the opportunity today to be back in front of the Commission to continue review of Category 1 sportsway during application. And before I jump into the update, I want to turn it over to President Kelly for a few introductory remarks. Well, thank you, Jen. And just a few quick comments. First, good morning and happy holidays to everyone that joins us. Thank you to all of our commissioners. Despite the improbable outcome of yesterday's game, this is a joyful time of the year and we deeply appreciate the gift of your time. I would also like to offer special thanks to all of the support staff at the MGC that have assisted us along the way in getting us to this point, as well as to offer congratulations to the team at Encore Boston Harbor for recently receiving approval for their Category 1 license. And with that, we very much appreciate the opportunity to reconvene today and we look forward to the discussion. And with that, I'll hand it back over to Jen. Thanks, Chris. So, as indicated earlier, MGM Springfield has updated and supplemented its application as requested by the Commission on December 7th, 2022 and as provided through the Commission's regulations allowing for such supplements. And again, I think this was recently commented on, Chair, notwithstanding the Commission's preliminary findings on sections B through E, we have gone back to completeness of the application and the record and supplemented some of these sections as well, but also focused on sections F and G as specifically requested. More specifically, we've updated the application based on the Commission's input at the previous hearing, we've incorporated some of the public presentation into the application from that date as well, again, for completeness. And we have also incorporated as requested specific information regarding that MGM's platform to the extent that it pertains to MGM Springfield's retail application. This is very prominent, of course, in section F, but there are also sections that we've added in that additional information to have in front of you one complete document. Just a few additional highlights. MGM Springfield's application is precise in describing the relationship between MGM Springfield and MGM for the retail sports book, including that all final decisions regarding the sports book by category one applicant that's in front of you today. We've provided a copy of the Raisin Sports Pool Agreement that describes the retail services provided by MGM to MGM Springfield. This was also provided as part of that MGM, that MGM's application as well. So turning a little more specificity to category F, the technology section. This section has been supplemented based on information from that MGM, as well as the company based on what feedback that we got at the December 7th hearing. We've added additional information regarding know your customer safeguards, wage, the wage application process, monitoring and security, testing the platform and kiosks. And I want to pause there for just a moment. We did have an opportunity also to go back and provide additional information regarding the certification of that MGM's platform to the IEB in specific Assistant Director Band with copies of other state independent lab reports certifying the systems proposed here meet the applicable GLI standards as recognized in those other states. So turning briefly to Section G, we've supplemented the company's answers for a series of questions pertaining to background compliance and suitability based on, again, feedback from the Commission as well as observations from other hearings. We, of course, relied on the IEB report as well as Commission's outside financial consultant to verify that verified MGM spring, excuse me, MGM Resorts International's financial suitability. In addition, we've updated certain answers to ensure consistency throughout different sections in response, in particular to Commissioner Nainard's questions in in connection with Section G, essentially to include everyone in connection with suspension revocation and other actions against licenses held by Blutarp as well as controlled by MGM Resorts International and including in portions of Section G, its subsidiaries. As the Commission approaches the review of suitability in connection with the category one sports wagering applicant, and some of this repeats and is similar to what Attorney Grossman said, it should be done through the lens of the company's current suitability, including MGM Springfield is subject to the Commission's continuing duty regulations as well, found at 205 CMR 115. I believe that this is what was contemplated under 23N, essentially by incorporating the ability to draw from the 23K process in order to provide the commission with the adequate information in order to make a category one sports wagering license determination. And again, the fact that the company is and continues to be subject to the continuing duty regulations, which my read is that they are more extensive than even what the sports wagering application would require. I think should give comfort to the commission that the company certainly remains by clear and convincing evidence suitable. We've diligently the company's diligently reported those requirements throughout time. The commission has knowledge of the company's compliance history through those reportings, as well as the company's access, excuse me, the commission's access to MGM resorts international compliance committee materials, including compliance by nurse. So we feel very comfortable on the history of compliance that's in front of the commission. Before I pause, I did want to also go back and address a specific question that was asked by Commissioner O'Brien regarding a lawsuit that was filed by Shea Wynne Brown against the company, as well as its past leadership. And again, while the company is in a little bit of a constrained position in what it can speak about, especially when it comes to matters that may involve mitigation strategy or privilege, the company can provide the commission with the procedural posture of that case, as well as its unequivocal denial of the allegations made by Ms. Brown, as well as what will happen next in that lawsuit. And while the company will briefly address that matter now, no adverse action has been taken against the company's license to bring this before the commission at this time. I think that was reflected earlier in the remarks regarding the process under which that would have to go through and certainly be done to the extent there's anything to look at through an adjudicatory proceeding. And I want to be very clear there's no evidence, let alone substantial evidence that has been presented to the commission that would call into question that there's nothing less than clear and convincing evidence regarding butarp and its qualifiers and the fact that they remain suitable. We're suitable. The company is suitable to be issued a category one spending sports betting operator licenses as required under chapter 23 and with respect to the pending matter, it's helpful, I think to the commission, though, have a better understanding of the procedural posture of that case. And to that end, Miss Brown filed a complaint with the MCAD in September of 2020, alleging discrimination based on race, gender, sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of state and federal law. The company under the MCAD rules filed a position statement in November of 2020. And on August 22, 2022, the MCAD issued an investigative disposition finding that there is insufficient evidence to support a determination of probable cause to credit the allegations of the complaint with respect to all claims in the complaint. Accordingly, a sister agency to the commission with specific jurisdiction over discrimination matters has already substantively reviewed the bulk of Miss Brown's claims of confound no probable cause. As is the case in and under state and federal law, the EEOC did issue Miss Brown a right to sue letter. And based on information and belief, we understand that Miss Brown has filed a lawsuit against Blutarp and its former president, Mr. Mathis. Again, based on our knowledge and as of certainly today's hearing, the company has yet to be served with that. So with that, I'm going to turn it over briefly to attorney Kim just to address the specific allegations that have been made as it comes to the company's reporting requirements in connection with the in connection with its reports filed with the commission. Thank you, Jen. And thank you, Chair, and the commissioners. And thank you, staff. I echo Chris's sentiment that happy holidays to all. And I'm always grateful and appreciative of that. And I can appear before you knowing that the commissioners and the staff work diligently and very hard to make sure that everything is that we're in compliance. I want to categorically state that both of the main defendants, MGM Springfield and Mr. Mathis, unequivocally deny that MGM Springfield, while any falsified reports with NGC or engaged in any unlawful discrimination, harassment or retaliation, I just want to make sure that I underscore that that we do not want allegations in the department. Thank you, Jen. Right. And that's going to be forward to the company's pleadings going forward. And I think as most of you know what you can expect once the company is served with a complaint, we expect to move to dismiss that. Certainly if it survives that level aspect of the litigation likely seek summary judgment, if in fact goes to trial, we will vigorously defend ourselves at trial. We'll obviously keep the commission up to speed and informed as that litigation winds its way through the courts. And Chair, I think as this commission has recognized on many occasions, and certainly the company takes very seriously that suitability is not static. Travels with the licensee. If there's any concerns to the conduct of the licensee at any point, the commission first through the IEP has an ongoing authority in any matter to take steps based on the results of that investigation and then bring any particular matter to the commission's attention. So again, in connection with allegations, again, our understanding yet to be served civil suit that was previously found by the MCAD as having a lack of probable cause don't provide anything to certainly question or certainly not disrupt the category one suitability of MGM Springfield is qualifiers as well as and making it eligible for this commission to move forward with that finding of suitability in connection with the branching of its sports way during license. And, you know, again, I want to go back and although we've already gone over this certainly in the commission has given its sense of satisfaction with the company's answers and sort of wrapping up this part of our presentation is, you know, connection with diversity, equity, including and inclusions MGM Springfield workforce is over 50 percent minority based and with the largest single concentration of team members coming from Springfield and over 70 percent of the Springfield workforce identifies itself as diverse. And so with that in covering sort of the the areas where we wanted to supplement, I believe the supplemented application provides substantial evidence for the commission to move forward. But we are here to answer any additional questions that the commission has and we're happy to do so in order to facilitate your deliberations. Thank you, Trini Nozl. And thank you, President Kelly. Yes, and any additional comments now, Ms. Joneser? Trini Nozl, you're all set. Yeah, we are. Thank you, chair. OK, commissioners. Before we move on, if I could just also point out as you go forward and I'm assuming you are doing this. But the other aspect of the complaint in terms of the numbers that were submitted to the MGMC. I am assuming and trust that you're continuing to provide any information that you have on that as well as the discrimination challenges that were raised in that complaint. Director O'Brien, that's that's correct. And again, we deny those allegations and we will keep the commission and answer any further questions that the I.U.B. has regarding that. We're happy to engage in that process. Thank you. And so now, commissioners that this comment like for us, I have a question just on the subject of the lawsuit. OK, we can we can best those now. That's fine. Thank you, commissioner Skinner. Well, so and I'm happy to I'm happy to hold the question until a later time in the meeting. But just wondering, aside from the lawsuit, wondering in terms of the allegations that Commissioner O'Brien just highlighted, my question is, what is I.U.B.'s role in those in investigating those? Is there an intention? By be to review those allegations and conduct its own internal investigation. But I'm going to have you hold that question, please, because it's addressing our internal operations by now, and if we could just I'm hearing you that you're presenting that question. I don't want to put Director Lillio's on the spot with this junction. Director Lillio's we can see how you'd like to proceed on that given that they have their own procedures that they must follow. All right, so let's get started in terms of the review of the supplement application. Patricia Stinner will put your question into parking lot, but we will return to it. Okay, this time we're going to go through each section as we've done in the past. I'll learn whether there is a consensus as to the quality of the section and whether it meets our expectations. As I said earlier, relative to the standard review set forth earlier by General Counsel Grossman. I do ask that each of us take a breath before we follow up on our questions so that we're not speaking over each other. And I know there's a little feedback for me that sometimes we do that and that makes it hard for everyone both here to concentrate. So I asked for that as we proceed. So I've got section B open commissioners. There were some addition and clarifications to that section as well. Do we have any questions for the applicant? So Madam Chair, it would be helpful for me given the breadth of the application if the applicant could simply highlight what was added in the amended application rather than us doing this section by section without the assistance of the applicant. So are you able to do that or is that? Yes, I can walk you through sort of the sections essentially that we had concentrated in updating. Again, section B1A, we had added again clarification regarding the roles and responsibilities between BenMGM and MBM Springfield with MGM Springfield that's category one applicant being ultimately having control over the sports book operations for retail. We also made some updates in section C including C1C, C1G, C2D, C2E. And really this was taking information that we had presented partly in our presentation to provide you the most updated information to not change but rather supplement those answers in question C again in our efforts to have one complete document in front of you that continues on and incorporating some additional information from BenMGM on C2F and C2G as well as C3I. Again, with information from BenMGM as requested to incorporate into our application, C3J, C3L, additional information in L was added from our presentation, D1C. Excuse me, it was largely the same information that was presented D2B, C and D. Again, just to ensure consistency from what we put and have a complete record in front of the commission on those, not changing any substance of those answers. We also incorporated additional information from that BenMGM include into E2G, E2H. And again, I mentioned then jumping into sections F2 and F3 significant additional information regarding the technology portions including your customer, waitress and acceptance, monitoring, suspicious activity, testing, location of servers in addition to information, security and BenMGM's policy. And then again, we updated G3D, E, G and H to ensure that those answers were comprehensive based on feedback that we got from the commission as well as I mentioned earlier updating section G4 to respond to commissioner Maynard's questions about including everyone when it came to suspension or revocation, right? And then again, we also added additional information when it came to suspension or revocation records as well. Madam Chair. Yes. Could I have the attorney reiterate the changes or the amendments made to section E for us, please? To which one, I'm sorry. E as in Edward. Yeah, and also if we could, if you could, I would like to be able to go section by section to have some order. So hold that and look at E one precisely. Okay, that would be really helpful. So if you're prepared for that question, Mr. Nozzle. So section B for your, any outstanding issues or outstanding questions that they resolve for you on section B? Commissioner Maynard, it looks like you have a question. No, shaking my head. No, I would say that I would reiterate that I believe that the applicant meets section B. Thank you. No questions, any questions or clarifications on B? Okay, hearing none. Can I take your temperature as to whether we have a consensus that it met, we know that it had met our expectations before there have been some clarifications. Does it continue to meet your expectations? And met expectations for me, Madam Chair. Thank you so much. I would say the same. Agreed. Thank you so much. So we can move on. Thank you. Now moving on through section C. I'm sorry for being a little bit less nimble here. The loading is just a little different on this one for me. Okay. On section C, there were some clarifications too. If we had found that it met expectations before, do you have any questions for the applicant now? I have a question I didn't ask before. President Kelly and team might be a Daniel question. It's in my right that the number of kiosks will be 18 now, rather than nine. That's correct. Okay. And in terms of the clarification, they are anticipated to all be on gaming floor now. That is correct. And just in terms of thinking about a hopeful rush to this license awarded, you're all set in terms of they're being spaced for public safety purposes. It's not only with respect to security around minors, but also just lines, that kind of thing for the public to come in and be able to place their bets. Yes, lady chair. There are several different locations throughout the casino floor, so they will be pretty well spread out. A higher concentration in the sports area, because that would be the main viewing area, but they are across the entire floor. Thank you. And then I think I saw that the clarification on the job description was made with respect to who's setting lines. And so I appreciated that. It was actually for me, much of this is a learning exercise. So thank you for that. Anything else on section C? I just had one clarification question on C1A, your current numbers. You note that your tally in this answer includes anybody at MassMetral. Can you just give me the actual headcount of who's at MassMetral? I'm sorry. Hi, good morning, happy holidays. I don't have the exact number in front of me, I can get it in a couple of minutes. The average to about 100 FTEs, I respect, I'll have to get the headcount though. Okay, great. And you don't anticipate any, maybe potential like, I don't know what people call them field, people, ambassadors, whatever that might be added over in that area. The MassMetral area, not at this moment. Okay, thanks. And just follow up on, I think what's important quote, you folks put on the record. I think you enhanced the answer with respect to your continuing and successful partnership with the lottery. Did you add in about, I have the language that I think you might have enhanced that. It might be home. We did, Madam Chair. Again, it was to state that we do have a preexisting relationship with the lottery. We have an agreement with them. That includes that we offer Kino, the lottery from a point of sale perspective and then also kiosks throughout the gaming establishment. Thank you for that update. All right, anything else? Okay, without any further questions. Commissioners, we found that it met expectations. We've got a few clarifiers in writing and then today, do you continue to meet expectations? Yes. Thank you, Commissioner Stinner. Madam Chair, it continues to meet expectations for me. Thank you, Commissioner Hill. Same. Thank you, Commissioner Bryant and Commissioner Maynard. I see you nodding your head. Great. Then we can continue on with section D. Do you have any additional questions with respect to section D? I'm not hearing any. I thought your supplemental response in D3 was really comprehensive and very helpful for me. So thank you very much. Commissioner O'Brien? No, just reiterating the commitment that they stated already in this regard in terms of keeping IB and also informed of any new information. Okay, thank you so much. Anything else? Madam Chair, I believe they met expectation for section D. Thank you. Commissioner Maynard. In agreement? Yes. Thank you, Commissioner Stinner. I'm in agreement. Excellent. Commissioner O'Brien? Same. Okay. Then we can move on to section D. Please. Any questions or comments? Commissioner O'Brien? Do you have any? Just looking through it, I need a minute. Okay, excellent. So Madam Chair, I had asked earlier. Oh yes, thank you. If they could reiterate to us the amendments that were made to E. You gave us a nice list, but you were going a little fast for my right. Sure. Thanks, Commissioner, just quickly. I think we essentially, there are three areas in the application that essentially ask for my loose terms or compliance type information. You have E3A through F, which pertains to the applicant. You then got G3, which pertains to the applicant plus 5% owners of the applicant. And then you've got G4, which in that case, we answered those questions in the most complete way, including the applicant. The applicant's owner and then the owner's subsidiaries to make sure that we had covered everything there. So E3 is just was updated to reflect BlueTarps history here, noting previous actions, obviously by the commission, and then referring for further answers to the section actually should be to G3 for further information regarding fines and penalties. Questions on E. I have a question. You've added and underscored, I think in section B as well, and I appreciate this that MGMS is excited to have engaged that MGMS Sports Wadring Service Provider for all final decisions regarding marketing efforts, regarding retail sports wagering will be an MGM sole and absolute discretion to the extent that you are awarded the opportunity to have a Tethered Online Sports Wadring partner. Would that extend out to that extent to Online Sports Wadring as well? So the category three Tethered applicant is a separate entity. I probably turned to Mr. Modamba to give you a little bit of background on the ownership of that, but because it's a separate entity, the retail establishment would not have control over the category three applicant. And I'm turning to Mr. Modamba and maybe add a little bit more because it's probably good to understand sort of the ownership structure of the category three. The answer to the question first would be generally now because that MGM is essentially a joint venture, it's a 50-50 joint venture between MGM Resorts International and in King of PLC, a London public listed company, so that our decisions are joint, we each have 50% control over rate as opposed to our retail operation where we have 100% control. And there's actually already a model in place for exercising ultimate control over the retail book with our service provider. Depending upon the jurisdiction, that MGM plays a different role. For example, in Maryland, where they have mobile betting, we MGM are not the license holder, but MGM is the license holder and runs that business in Maryland on the mobile side. However, at our sports book and the retail side, we have the employees are all ours, but they have a manager, they're permitted to have a manager and manage that book and make decisions over the retail book. On the other hand, in Las Vegas in our retail operation, the statutory scheme for sports betting, retail sports betting does not permit a bed MGM, even though it's our service provider, to have control over those sports books. And we actually have, after our dialogue with the game control board, with the Nevada game control board, we have something called a super trader there and it is an employee on our, it's on our payroll and we have our own trading team. I'm sorry, I hate to do this, but I don't have the best hearing. And for whatever reason, I'm having just a little bit of trouble following. Where's, yeah. Sorry about that. Thanks. You know, Brian, is this better? Yes, thank you. Super. In Nevada, bed MGM does not qualify or what's called a sports pool license there on the retail side. So we run those books with them as a service provider and after a dialogue with the Nevada gaming control board, we have what's called a super trader to demonstrate our ultimate control in the retail books. So it really depends upon the statutory scheme in a particular state. Here you have the tethered category three, it will operate that skin. So it will operate the skin. We will operate the retail book with bed MGM as merely a service provider, as opposed to the operator that retail book. Thanks, I think I was focusing on the marketing efforts and who would have sole and absolute discretion over marketing efforts of your tethered partners. The tethered partners, they only have access to an online sports wagering license through you if you're awarded this license. So I guess my question is, would you extend out your discretion and control over marketing efforts that any tethered online sports wagering partner? Would you have control over that? Lady chairs, especially as it relates to marketing in this section being responsible, gaming, marketing, advertising. I think part of what Pat was saying and others is, although we could not have actual control over the tethered as a separate entity having their own license, et cetera, we would still collaborate with them and clearly from a general compliance and responsible gaming, responsible advertising perspective. It's something I'm very much in charge of at the brick and mortar and retail perspective. And then we've worked with those such as Sarah Brennan at bed MGM, if we felt that there was any messaging that wasn't to be distributed from a responsible gaming perspective. Again, I don't think it's necessarily a matter of decision making and control as much as collaboration that would provide the right kind of messaging. Clearly it's also in our best interests on both sides to have messaging that collates with each other. We would absolutely expect them to be compliant and throw our interest in the joint venture would exercise that interest to ensure they're compliant. And I can't imagine that our partner in team wouldn't want them to be compliant either. So that's, while it's 50-50, both of the owners would absolutely require them to be compliant. Thank you for that clarification. Sorry if I wasn't clear that I'm focused on marketing. It's just that that's a statement that is in section B, the B2A, and it was in section B earlier. So my concern is that it only related to the retail. Only related to the retail. Okay, any other questions for section B? Madam Chair, I now feel that they met expectations for section E. Okay, thank you very much. So Madam Chair, I'm actually curious to reserve my judgment on this until we get down to G in suitability and some of the discussion of NTIN. Okay, Commissioner Skinner. I feel the same, Madam Chair. And that's with respect to sections E and G. And I don't want to go back into the discussion that we had when we were last, when this applicant was last for us relative to operator versus service provider. But I think that MGM is very significantly intertwined with the category one retail operations, notwithstanding the fact that they're service provider. So I'm struggling a little bit in terms of how we can consider a category one license for MGM Springfield without reviewing that MGM's application at this point. Particularly given some of the recent disclosures that have been made and the recent disciplinary actions that have been taken against that MGM. So I'm looking for some assistance, some guidance as to how to get my head wrapped around how we move forward with this application where it can be separate and apart from that MGM. Yeah, Commissioner Skinner, let me give that a try. First, again, Ben MGM and its 50% owner and Tain are not a qualifier for MGM Springfield. They are a service provider, they're a vendor. And if I reach back and think about this from the perspective of the category one gaming applicants, it's not unlike having a question about who is going to run the category one slot machines and who is going to, or do we have confidence in the integrity of who is going to run the MGM Springfield slot machines. It's a service provider. It's something that you will continue to retain jurisdiction and certainly have to have a level of confidence in once we get to the operation certificate process. And it's something that you'll have to be comfortable with as the vendor for MGM Springfield in connection with Sports Bay. So that's the way that I'm thinking about this. We can't review or certainly the ownership of or half the ownership of Ben MGM's suitability here in connection with our application. That may be a question you have in connection with your review of Ben MGM in connection with its category three license where it is coming before you as a qualifier. So, Director Williams, do you want to add into the attorney Nozl's remarks? Just that service provider or vendor model that he's described is consistent with our regulations and consistent with the 23N scheme that identifies operators with MGM Springfield being the operator of the retail establishment and then the regulations going on to define vendors. So for purposes of the retail launch anticipated next month we have treated Ben MGM as a sports wagering vendor and are in the process of collecting the materials required by regulation for the temporary licensing of them that would permit the launch whereas we've treated MGM Springfield obviously as the gaming licensee with the presumption of being the operator for the category one sports wagering license. So I hope that helps, but happy to try to offer more if needed. Director Lillian, for the record on IEB's report have you any concerns with respect to the suitability of MGM Springfield? You know, we filed our report we are constantly getting updates from all of the each of the three properties and there is no information to disturb the finding of suitability on the report that you know as presented in the report now. You know, suitability is ongoing we do continue to get disclosures we investigate as appropriately as appropriate but I'm not bringing any I have no information to bring forward to you that would cause any recommendation or concerns to disturb the finding of suitability. Thank you. And General Council Grosven we've heard from their attorney I'd love to hear from ours. Thank you. Madam Chair, I have a question for Lillian's please if you don't mind. Before we move on to Todd. I'm sorry. I have a question for Director Lillian's if you don't mind before. Thank you. Please Director Lillian's is there an investigation or let me, would that MGM have to be found suitable as a vendor before they can commence the retail operations at MGM Springfield? As a vendor, the commission has promulgated regulations for temporary vendor licenses. They are reliant on attestations for the temporary piece with full suitability investigations to occur subsequently. And so what's the process by which the commission will review that information? Like occupational licenses, the vendor and like the vendor licenses on the gaming side, those licenses are issued on the IEB's findings. So the individual vendors would not come before the commission, but certainly there's a reporting component that the IEB anticipates, you know, keeping you apprised of. And what is the timing in that in terms, so assuming that MGM is granted a category one license today with the understanding that they are collaborating closely with that MGM, you know, just to provide a service so that they can operate the retail sports book. What's the timing in terms of the review of MGM as a vendor? Our licensing division is working hard to get all of the required attestations from both the operator and the vendors before the retail launch. So those documents are incoming now and the licensing division in the IEB are aware of the vendors that will be required for the retail launch. So where, you know, those are pieces that we're all working hard on. And, you know, the IEB will review the attestations, but, you know, that the commission determined to proceed on the attestations in order to enable the launch with the suitability invests to be performed post-launch. So we'd be relying on the attestations alone, but then- I'm sorry, Commissioner Skinner. Aside from information there. I'm just going to interrupt, please, because I'd like to have, before we continue discussing that MGM and its process, I want to get clarification from our general, from General Counsel Grossman because right now, that's not the matter before us. And so I want to be careful. If I'm discussing, I'm discussing that MGM as a vendor to MGM. That's what I'm doing. I have questions relative to that MGM as a vendor to MGM Springfield, the application we are reviewing right now. Okay, thank you. Continue, Commissioner Skinner. Thank you. So, Director Lilios, we will be relying on the attestations alone for the vendors. Despite any information that may come to us in terms of a disclosure or in terms of the media, we are, what are we doing with that information that we have gathered and that has been disclosed to us? Are we to ignore that information and instead rely exclusively on the attestation? I'm just, I'm trying to understand how that- No, I know there's a lot of moving parts here, for sure. Certainly as we review that MGM for the operator license and you have the report on MGM in front of you and Senior Enforcement Counsel Kathleen Kramer is going to summarize that report for you later today. The 23N contemplates that, if we identify a significant issue in conjunction with one part of 23N and operator license, it's not ignored on a vendor license and 23N also contemplates the same thing with 23K, right? We can rely on 23K, we don't have to put blinders on but generally the process that you're utilizing for both the operator and the vendor license is now significantly on self-disclosures and some of the issues that we have seen in the self-disclosures and in other information that has come our way may require some review, some investigation, if you will. That is not something that the IEB has had the opportunity to do at this point. So, but you have regulations that contemplate that. Okay, thank you. It's still not clear to me, but I guess maybe it will come clear as we proceed in the discussion. Perhaps now turn to General Counsel Grossman who will add what exactly commissioners get. I'll certainly try. I do think I would note that it's important, of course, to get all the commissioners the information that they'd like in order to make a reason responsible decision for themselves. And so we should certainly make efforts to do so. And General Counsel, do you, in what way do we do that? Well, I was just gonna say though in the context of this specific question, it's important to remember, I think that service providers can be moved in and out. Though there is one identified today as part of the initial rollout, there's no guarantee that that will be the service provider in perpetuity. It's in generally contractual relationship if I understand this particular situation correctly. So I think it is helpful to focus on the applicant before us, but it's also important to understand what services this particular provider will be providing and what the parameters of those services are going to be. So you can offer a holistic review of the entire application. So it's not irrelevant by any stretch to the consideration as to Entain or BetMGM or any of that, though they are in this context, a vendor. So some of the issues that may surround them, go to or bad or otherwise, are properly considered in the context of their own application. But I also think, and I'm hedging a little bit of what I'm saying, that it is important to make sure that everyone understands the dynamics of the relationship between the parties. So to the extent there is information about the nature of the relationship that would be helpful to move forward on this particular information, then I think that would certainly be relevant. Chair, if I can just add one more comment. Good afternoon, Mr. Nossos. Thank you, I appreciate it, Chair. MGM Springfield and MGM Resorts International and all of the qualifiers that are in front of you, their suitability stands on its own. They are suitable and the commission can move forward with this application based on that existing suitability of the applicant and its qualifiers. And that's what's called for more in connection with the review under the regulations as well as what's called for in the application. Thank you, Commissioner Maynard. Madam Chair, I just wanted to answer your initial question. I believe this section has been met. And we're still on E. Thank you. I think, Madam Chair, if I could just chime in. I think notwithstanding the veracity of what Attorney Nozzle just said, we also have before us the question of whether anything has been raised substantially that would call into question that finding. And I'm not suggesting that it is, but I think part of what Commissioner Skinner's is going to be asking and what I'm asking is because they're so integrally intertwined, the question is, is anything that we see in connection with Ben MGM going to raise the specter of anything with MGM? I don't see it at this point, but I think there's sufficient questions that my question on resolution would be, it would seem like some of the details of the relationship between Ben MGM as a vendor and MGM as the licensee might be something we would talk about in executive session because it might be competitive disadvantage for them to openly discuss that relationship in this forum. And would that possibly answer some of the questions that Commissioner Skinner has going forward on this application? In particular, just to that point, what I'm struggling with, and I understand that MGM Springfield will stand on their own as an existing category one gaming operator and as a category one sports wagering operator, but by granting that license to operate the sports book at the retail level, are we saying yes, okay to Ben MGM when we haven't reviewed their application? Even as a vendor, even as a vendor, right? Are we saying we are okay with MGM Springfield moving forward with that MGM operating their sports book? Commissioner Skinner, I'm going to present my challenge for you and maybe you can help resolve it. A category three applicant that's tethered our word to a category one can't go forward without having a category one partner. So I really do see this as a condition preceded. If we're going to assess category one applicants, we have to do it for the idea that if it turns out their partners have problems, then they're going to have to find a different partner or a different vendor or a different service provider. But I do think that the only way I can think about it is that this is a category one application. And of course, they were very transparent and we wanted that as to who they are proposing. We have the applicant from the other partners explaining that which is really helpful in the application, all the services that will be provided and they are in response to our application questions and in response to our regulatory provisions. But I don't think we can, and this is where I'm asking for help. I don't think we could not make a decision on the category one application and then just say, well, let's see how their partners do first because I don't feel that any protocol partner has lack of that word standing forward with us. Can you help me out, Councilor Grossman, am I thinking about this too simplistically? Let me pick up on that theme that we were just working off of. As I mentioned in my remarks, the award of the category one sports wagering license simply opens the door to the category one licensee to being able to operate online or mobile operations through category three operators. And so it's a two-step process. You would want to make sure that the category one applicant has satisfied all of the factors, including suitability on its own and those who, which includes of course, those who it associates itself with. But the category three reviews should also stand on their own. And as the chair just mentioned, if one of them does not meet the standards that are set out in the statute and the regulations, then the commission could essentially say no to that particular applicant, in which case the category one operator would have to find someone else. So I think they are separate evaluations, but it's also, I think important, and I just want to make sure I'm understanding all the issues correctly. The category in this case, and it was also true of the last one we reviewed for win resorts. That it just so happens that one of the category three operators will also provide certain services to the category one retail operation. So it is certainly relevant to understand the services they will perform in their capacity as a vendor, which is different from the services they will perform as they stand on their own as a category three licensee. So even though it's the same entity, they're really doing two separate things. And so you want to really make sure that we're focusing on the services they will provide in the context of the category one license here, and then we will review them independently on their own as a category three applicant. But I do commissioners get to your point. There is certainly overlap there and I think we need to recognize that. So if there are certain questions out there, they're not necessarily irrelevant here, but it's just important, I think to bear in mind, this review is of MGM Springfield and Bluetarp redevelopment specifically. So I appreciate that and it is coming into focus a little bit. I'm just, you know, I'll end with this. I have a hard time imagining a scenario where we have different concerns about that MGM as a vendor than we would as a category three tethered applicant. I think all of the issues that we'd be concerned about in connection with their category three application, they're present and very much an issue in their role as a vendor for MGM Springfield. So I'm just going to interject now. One, I want to make sure that there's no, I'm hearing we, the word we, and I want to be very careful that there hasn't been any, there's no decision on that MGM. There's no assessment that's gone on as a commission. So to the extent that I don't want there to be suggestion that there's an assignment or an evaluation of that MGM that's already proceeded or that there's conclusions that have been made. I think that's fair. I think we all agree with that. Commissioner Skinner, I know that you're thinking about something. I know Commissioner Brine's maybe thinking about something Commissioner Hill, Commissioner Mayer, but I know that as a body, we haven't discussed it. So thank you for that clarification. Thank you. So with that said, what I'm not hearing is a consensus on sections E and perhaps not F and G, although there might be perhaps majority or something close to it. But I think for taking the temperature that's not sufficient right now for moving ahead. I am hearing Commissioner O'Brien say that there might be issues. And again, disclosures that Director Lillios said that they, you know, our licensees do continue to make the proper disclosures as they do throughout their ongoing obligation as a 23K license. Am I correct that you feel that we need to digest some matters, Commissioner O'Brien, in an executive session if they are appropriate? Yes, that's a fair statement. Commissioner Skinner, does that help you as well? Yes, Madam Chair. Thanks. Madam Chair. Where's my help? So let me be clear, as we move forward, it was my understanding from an earlier comment made from Commissioner O'Brien, that before we would address E that she would like to hear from section F and G before we made a comment. And as we've been moving over the last week, we've gone through those sections and as we have had questions about any possible executive session questions, we put them out there for Todd to take a list and then we vote at the end to go into an executive session to address those. Yes. So I'm recommending that we address F and G as we have, see if there's any questions and then we can put a list together. Thank you, Madam Chair. Excellent. I'm presuming that maybe the executive session will address them, but in terms of E, we'll put that to the side. Section F, there was an enhanced and fulsome response to section F. Are there individual questions for Mr. Nozzle or the applicant at this time with respect to section F? I'm seeing none. Okay. Do we find that section F meets expectations? I'll speak as one commissioner. Yes, I believe it does meet expectations. Commissioner O'Brien? Same, I think F meets expectations for me. Commissioner Maynard. I appreciate the supplement. And yes, it meets expectations. Commissioner. I think it meets expectations. Again, just getting my head wrapped around the fact that we're only dealing with MTM as the applicant right now. Okay. And I feel it meets expectations. I thought it was a very fulsome response. Thank you for the clarification to the applicant. Moving on to section G. Commissioner O'Brien, do you have questions that you'd like to raise in this forum? Hope you're on mute. So sorry. Sorry about that. I'm trying to go back and find it. I believe there were a couple of disclosures about recent fines that probably are, and maybe not, maybe MGM's fine talking about them in this forum, but whether there might be more detail to the fixes that had to go into place or how those happened, whether that goes into any competitive disadvantage, I would ask MGM to give me their thoughts on that. I'm sorry, commissioner O'Brien, what question did you have? Are you speaking to me right now? I believe when you were going through the lists of the licensing history and any dispositions or fines, I believe, wasn't there a recent fine on MGM? Was it out of Maryland? That is a bad MGM matter on their mobile piece, and they are the holder of that license. That was not out of the land based out of MGM. That's correct. Okay. Any other questions, commissioners, for the applicant in this forum? Okay. Given that we have at least I know two who suggested that I think commissioner Skinner, I know commissioner O'Brien mentioned G before commissioner Skinner, do you feel it's met expectations for looking for the executive session for clarity? Again, I would be grateful for the executive session for clarity on portions of the response to EF and G, but again, as it relates to that MGM and the relationship between that MGM and MGM Springfield, particularly around the technology piece. So I don't know how we reconcile that. I'm being told that there are two different applications and I understand that. All right, chair, if I can sort of come back to that. You know, as the technology piece, I think for section F, are we through that piece? My understanding of the outstanding issues were on section E3A through F, as well as I guess in connection with suitability questions in section G3 and G4. And I do have to just say in fairness to this particular proceeding that your questions in the application ask for certain information pertaining to in section E3A through F, the applicant, section G3, the applicant plus it's 5% owners and then section G4, again, the applicant and a term key persons. We have answered thoroughly on all of the information that is before you as requested in the application for anything having to do with compliance or suitability. And again, coming back to the fact that MGM Springfield and its qualifiers are currently suitable under chapter 23K and are under heightened reporting requirements well beyond what this application is required to provide regarding its history of compliance, there is more than substantial evidence. In fact, there's substantial evidence that we have maintained by clear and convincing evidence the suitability of the company. So we're happy to go into an executive session and answer additional questions about what the commission may want to understand further but I do think we have answered everything that the application has and you have a complete record in front of you in order to grant the category one sports wagering license as required under chapter 23N. And just one other comment on, I just wanna make one other comment on compliance which is the question is actually geared towards the applicant, which is MGM Springfield and its owners, which would be MGM Resorts International and we answered that question. But on a quarterly basis, we routinely file with the IEB our compliance committee binder. We have an independent compliance committee that has quarterly meetings, all of our subsidiaries outside of that chain because we have kind of the exact number, probably a hundred plus subsidiaries. We've reported up through this compliance process, all of our subsidiaries, litigation, regulatory matters, a whole host of different things. And we actually share that particular binder, this very same binder that our MGM Resorts International Compliance Committee gets. We share that with our Massachusetts regulator, you, as well as regulators and our other jurisdictions. So we've been nothing but transparent on compliance and it's far broader on a periodic basis, every quarter, far broader than the questions in the application. General Counsel Grossman, do you wanna add to that piece? Yeah, I guess I would just reiterate some of the thoughts I set out before, which is essentially, in this case, of course, it's helpful that the advocate is of the belief that they have satisfied all of the requirements, that's helpful. But ultimately, it's up to the commission, the decision makers as to whether all of the elements have been satisfied by substantial evidence. And to the extent that a commissioner feels like further information would be useful on any of those points, they're certainly within their rights to request that. Ultimately, it's up to the commission as a whole to decide whether there's further information that has to be elicited and we can do that if done precisely in executive session. So we'd need to exactly identify what pieces of information we would like to talk about in executive session and to the extent that that information might help any commissioner or commissioners reach a decision on whether the factors have been satisfied, then it's entirely appropriate in this case. But again, we do need to be very precise. Yes, so commissioner Skinner, you mentioned just now, there had been, I thought consensus on section F but you just raised an issue you raised the issue of technology and why you might want to go to executive session to address the issue of technology. I'd love it if you could explain that to the extent that you're comfortable in this forum to get guidance from chancellor Grossman to see if it would be appropriate for executive session otherwise the forum that we're in is the appropriate forum to discuss it. Madam chair, if we could take a five to 10 minute break so I can consult with councilor Grossman offline, please. Okay, and if I can turn to commissioner O'Brien. You also had to ask for an executive session. Do you still have an outstanding request? So the question that I have is what I am struggling with is not so much the vendor licensee distinction. It is that it appears to move forward even as the CAT-1 licensee that the NTAIN 50% ownership with MGM in bed MGMs integrally intertwined with the operations and this particular application and it kind of goes into a number of different sections responsible gaming technology being two of the most obvious. So I would like a little more information about exactly how that works in terms of control of advertising responsible gaming, et cetera. That's what I'm struggling with where we've had some conversation with it publicly and maybe we can have more in this public forum but it would seem to me that if there was a more candid expression of exactly what the control relationship was in particularly when it came to the advertising marketing or G space that that might be the more appropriate forum to have a fulsome discussion to answer my questions or get information. We can try it in the public forum but I think we've exhausted that. And so then you're referring to my earlier question. And the response that was given in the public forum so perhaps there's some competitive disadvantage issue there that might be provide more insight, okay? So, Council Grossman there's a request for commissioner Skinner to speak with you commissioner Maynard or commissioner Hill do you have any thoughts on either proposal or do you have further questions that you'd like resolved either in this forum or in an executive session? I don't have any further questions regarding this application, Madam Chair. I'm actually ready to move forward with a vote. However, out of respect to my two commissioners who have a further question I obviously would move to go into executive session. In my mind, we have addressed what we needed to do regarding the vendor question. In my mind, I know that a couple others may not agree with that. I've always looked at this as a category one application. And if we didn't have any category threes out there via legislation, we would be looking at this application as a category one and this other issue as a vendor. We've discussed this many, many times. I've gone back and forth but this is how I've ended up and this is how I would like to move forward. So at this time, no, I have no questions but out of respect I would move into an executive session. So my fellow commissioners can hopefully get their questions answered so we can move this forward. Thank you, ma'am Chair. Thank you commissioner Maynard. I learned a long time ago that legal fictions are a part and parcel of what we have to deal with as governing bodies and as attorneys, which I know there are four on this commission. And seeing this as a category one, although there is some, there are some blurred lines. This is a category one application. I have no further questions as attorney Nozzle rightfully pointed out. Section G was supplemented. It went above and beyond and in fact, these questions on the application were very broad and very expansive. I have no further questions but like commissioner Hill, I hear two of my fellow commissioners who want additional information answered. I would vote to go into executive session though I do not expect to have any questions during that executive session. And I'm in agreement with both of my fellow commissioners, commissioner Kill and commissioner Maynard. I want to make sure that all of us are comfortable with all questions answered. Provided that the executive session is a valid venue to answer those questions, I would support that as well. So we'll take a, it's now 1145 to the applicant again. First, I should say happy holidays. I regret not starting the day with that. Although I know it is a very special season for so many and I think probably I just went to work. So thank you for that reminder. And also for the patients that you've exercised as we do our thorough vetting of all the applications. We'll return in 10 minutes so that could suggest before the noon time and hopefully commissioner Skinner, you and council Grossman can connect. And then attorney Grossman, if you can think about commissioner O'Brien's request as well. We'll return in 10 minutes. Thank you everyone. Thank you Dave. Trying to make sure I don't knock out power here commissioner Hill. So all I can say is Jordan I wish I had some of the heat that's trapped in your office today because it is not warm in here right now. You want somebody to look at that for you because we may at the lunch break. I may have somebody it's not horrible, but it's not warm. That's for sure. So we're from my office. I'm serious. No, it's not that bad, but it's enough that like gloves wouldn't be bad once in a while. So in my home office, commissioner O'Brien, there's my radiator. This is actually a radiator cover. My radiator was right here. So I'm very warm and toasty right now. No matter where you go. No matter where I go. Yeah, I have all sorts of aids at home, you know, space heaters, electric blankets, that sort of thing. But sometimes you never know if those are peplovian, you know, they make you feel like you can control your office, but you really can't just see if you feel better about it. The most entertaining thing about my office was one, there's two units in it, right? One unit was offsetting the other unit for a long time. And then I think we finally got that fix. Now it was in the AG's office. They gave us the thermostats. They didn't really work, but if you lifted the grate out by the window in the actual event, you could turn the knob manually and adjust exactly how much was coming in your office, which through the whole runout never changed. You know what I've noticed, Eileen, you were talking about the heat and the cold. Boy, there's been a lot of wind that we've never had in the past, as much wind as we have in the past. Again, again, I can only speak for the North Shore, but boy, it makes it cold when that wind's blowing. Yeah, there's actually nobody to block with. You know, people put the basketball hoops right on the edge on the street. And it had been there for years. And it actually went over and crashed the glass survived, but the actual poop in the front was destroyed. One of the last times everything blew through. I guess the end of this week's gonna be windy, rainy, snowy. Typical New England. Okay. All right, so we are reconvening Master of this gaming commission, meeting number 14 because we are holding this meeting virtually out to a roll call. Good afternoon, Commissioner Ryan. Good afternoon, I am here. Commissioner Hill, good afternoon. Good afternoon, I'm here. Good afternoon, Commissioner Skinner. Good afternoon, I'm here. Commissioner Mayne, good afternoon. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, I'm here. Excellent, okay. So, I'll turn to Attorney Grossman. Thank you, Madam Chair. If I may, I believe the best approach at this point would be to ask Commissioner Skinner to inquire of the applicant relative to a couple of issues. And it may be that it would be able to answer the questions in public. And if that is the case, then that may resolve the issues relative to this applicant. And we could move on from there. If the applicant is unable to answer these questions in public, it seems to me that it would meet the standard under section six I for purposes of going into executive session to inquire further. But I think it's important that we ask these questions in public first. Certainly, and then we can move on to Commissioner O'Brien's question, which I think we've already established cannot be answered in public, but we just wanna make sure we refine the exact issue and then ensure that it meets the standard. So, if I could, there was a question that the chair had asked earlier, and I went back again and I looked at the application again in terms of the advertising, marketing control, and I'm satisfied with, for this applicant, what's in there. And so I'm not gonna need executive session on that particular point. So I defer to Commissioner O'Brien's questions. That's encouraging, Commissioner O'Brien, because I suspect that I will get there after I ask my question. So, to the MGM folks, what is the relationship between the applicant and that MGM with respect to the provision of promotional advertising, including risk-free advertising? One minute. Go ahead, take that there. Yeah, take that there, sure. So the retail promotions are those that would be in our control. If that helps Commissioner Skinner. So the types of promotions, that type of promotion or any other type of promotion ultimately would be something that we would decide whether it was appropriate or not to offer at this particular market. I didn't hear that last part. I'm sorry. Dora, I'm so sorry. And good to see you. What's offered in the retail book ultimately is MGM's decision. So whether it be those types of promotions or any others, we would have the ultimate decision as to whether or not to offer that promotion or any other type of promotion in the retail book. Okay, that's helpful. Thank you. My second question is, what is the relationship between the applicant and the MGM relative to the maintenance of patron data? Patron data, I hear you. Thank you. There is certain data that is shared back and forth with that MGM. Just as you would share data with other service providers where you're doing account creation and what have you. So condition your skinner, anybody for example, there is an MGM rewards member already. We had that information at MGM Springfield and our greater pair of MGM resources national on our servers. We're not then sharing information with that MGM from that sort of perspective of then going after. Here, let me help. There is sharing in terms of, if you're asking about for example, system security, we share information essentially, information that we share one way. They share information with us the other way. But it's contained on either their server or our server. So that we are responsible for the security on our data on our servers. And that stays within the MGM environment. And anything that's on their servers is the responsibility of a bed MGM and affiliates of that MGM. But our environment stays secure. As a final piece, Commissioner Skinner, what I might turn you towards is a diagram that we supplemented. It would be page 374 of the application that shows the separation and connection of the data systems. But again, our environment is contained within the MGM. We're in control of our environment if that's what you're asking. So let me ask a different question, slightly different question. So this bed MGM have access to MGM patron data. I guess is MGM patron data, does it all sort of get funneled through, did excuse my terminology, funneled through MGM, the parent company? Does it get funneled through there and therefore, and through that process, does bed MGM have access to the MGM patron data? Doesn't have full access to the patron data. And it doesn't go into our system to get that data. We share certain data with them to facilitate the creation of accounts. We share, it's probably shown in that, I haven't seen the diagram, but it's probably shown on the diagram how it's populated, but it's for purposes of facilitating the opening of an account on the mobile system. But they don't go into our environment to get the data. And it's just on the mobile operations, it's not for retail purposes? We might ask them for information that would be exclusive to them if we're populating someone on the retail side. I'm sorry, could you- So there's a lot of crossover, I'll put it that way, between a retail customer and a mobile customer. So that we facilitate. So for example, when you sign up on the mobile, on the bed MGM mobile app, you get, you become an MGM rewards member by signing up there. So we would get data back on that customer. And that's how in previous discussions we mentioned about the ability to get credits and tiers across both platforms. Great, it's more about our players abilities to move through our loyalty program than sharing of information that you could be insecure or inappropriate. Okay, so I think with that, Attorney Grossman, I don't know your thought, but I do think it is appropriate to move into executive session to further discuss. To discuss the second question you asked- Second question on the patron data, yes. Okay, if there are questions about the relationship between the parties relative to the maintenance of patron data and personal information, that seems to fall within the parameters of competitively sensitive information that could be detrimental or replace the MGM, the applicant at a competitive disadvantage. And so it would be the appropriate subject for emotion. Can I ask, does the applicant plan on sharing anything further in that discussion? Sure, we'll try to answer all your questions to the best that we can, at least. Because, Pat, you're just uncomfortable because of the issue around there being sensitive information that could put you at a competitive disadvantage. Okay, thanks. Yeah, just to public the public discussion on this, there's one additional element, I think in response to the commissioner Skinner's question that at the end of the day, for purposes of responsible gaming, for purposes of data integrity, when it comes to the retail sports book, MGM Springfield is responsible for that. Including any issues that would ever come up, they would be responsible. Not the vendor MGM Springfield. They would be responsible and accountable to the commission for anything that happened in connection with any issue around regulatory compliance or otherwise. So do we need, so does that solve your question, commissioner Skinner? I just want to understand what I would be voting on to go into the next question. Well, so let me be more pointed then. I guess my questions relate more to the confidential investigations that were disclosed by that MGM. And so I'm interested in that's why I asked the question that I did relative to the relationship between the applicant and that MGM relative to the maintenance and security of patron data. I think we need to pause there to the extent that we're discussing things that are outside of the public domain. Okay. All right, so Councillor Grossman, you're comfortable that we could go forward under, under, under, six, I correct? Commissioner Chair, could we have a five minute break before we go into executive session? I want to make sure that I'm going to reach out to somebody else as well on the MGM side. I want to make sure that commissioner Skinner's question gets answered fully. Yeah. And before we do that, though, I just would like to pause on her first question. Commissioner Skinner, you mentioned the free back, just as a reminder that the issue of free back, our wife does address that director Lyndon produced with his team earlier and published. It does address the issue of free back. And we have to the extent that we decide we want to have more of a regulatory role in that world. Commissioner Skinner, I think that we are going to be looking at our advertising regulations. So that's just something to keep in mind. You raised an important question that we haven't raised, but I think it's only because the advertising guys haven't been in front of us, but again, something for us to think about for moving forward. So thank you for that question. And now we'll give the applicant, but do you need 10 minutes? 10 minutes, I'm going to reach out to Las Vegas. Okay, so 10 minutes and that gets us to about 30. And then we'll reconvene and decide if we're going to move into executive session. Thank you, everyone. Okay, Dave, thank you. All set. Thanks so much, Mr. Noslaw. Are you all set or are you still waiting for some of your? I actually just drew a medama to return. So if you can just bear with us for two or three minutes, we should just give me a nod and I'll know. Thank you so much. Yep. Chair, maybe while we wait if, is there an explanation, I guess on the mechanics of going into executive session, if necessary, how will that work? Is it a separate link? What's the, what would be the next steps for that? Yeah, so Crystal, I'm not sure if I see her. She's been on page two. Crystal, you'd be able to send the links to the applicants, participants, do you have all of their names or at least send it to, yeah, Monica forward it. Yep. Okay, I'll send them. So would you send it to Daniel? Yeah, Chair, on our end, if you send it just to Pat Medamba and I and we'll figure out and forward it to anybody else that we think we can. Crystal, are you all set with their emails, so the wise Karen can pass them on? Are we? I've got everything. Okay, she's got everything. She'll make sure you have those links. Are you all set now? Chad, we're still waiting. No, I think we're ready, we're ready. Oh, okay. Thank you so much. Thank you. So again, this is a reconvening of Massachusetts Gaming Commission public meeting number 414, because we're holding this meeting virtually. I'll do a roll call to confirm that all my fellow commissioners are 10. Commissioner O'Brien. I am here. Commissioner Hill. I'm here. Commissioner Skinner. I'm here. Commissioner Maynard. I'm here. And so we're set to proceed. Attorney Grossman and Attorney Nosell. I think we're waiting to hear from the two of you. So. We're going to go into. I want to hear from Mr. Medamba to hear whether there's any supplemental information in response to commissioner Skinner's. Are we in the executive's house? No, no, we're not in the executive session yet. No, so, but you, but the request was for to move into executive session. Council Grossman, can you confirm that this would be an appropriate use of that before I meet into the record that's required? It would, except I believe Mr. Medamba was going to see if there was any further information he could provide first. That's actually not exactly accurate. I said that I would feel more comfortable in the executive session. Okay. And I would also ask for somebody else to join us. And we will have someone else join us as well. In that executive session. Okay. In that event, Madam Chair. Yes. So I think if you would like to read the language you have before you, and then commissioner Skinner, I believe has a motion. And you are saying based on everything that you've heard today that it would be appropriate. Yes. Okay. The commission anticipates that it may meet an executive session in conjunction with its review of the MGM LLC or BlueTarred redevelopment when business has MGM Springfield applications. Actually, that's wrong. My apologies. The commission anticipates, so strike that the commission anticipates that it may meet an executive session in conjunction with its review of the BlueTarred redevelopment doing business as MGM Springfield application. In accordance with GL Chapter 30A, Section 21A7 and GL Chapter 23N, Section 6I, consider information submitted by the applicant. In the course of its application for an operator license that is a trade secret, competitively sensitive or proprietary in which it disclosed publicly but placed the applicant in a disadvantage. Madam Chair, I'm prepared to make a motion. I move that the commission meet an executive session in conjunction with its review of the BlueTarred redevelopment doing business as MGM Springfield application in accordance with General Laws, Chapter 30A, Section 21A7 and General Laws, Chapter 23N, Section 6I, to consider competitively sensitive information related to the relationship between the applicant and BED-MGM with respect to the maintenance of patron data and an ongoing confidential investigation that has been disclosed by BED-MGM, which if disclosed publicly would place the applicant at a competitive disadvantage. Second. Can I ask the clarifying question? You said that this is disclosed by BED-MGM. I don't have that application in front of me. Is that appropriate then, Councilor Grossman, I'm asking the question. Yeah, I mean, this is a public meeting. So there is certain information that we will make part of the record certainly. So it's not a secret and we can certainly provide whatever information is necessary, but it should be done in executive session. Well, I am again, asking Fisher-Skinner's motion said that it's with respect to something that was provided by BED-MGM for overlaps, right? And that pertains to the relationship that the applicant has with BED-MGM. Could you say the motion again and please, Commissioner Skinner? I move that the commission meet an executive session in conjunction with its review of the Blue Talk redevelopment dealing with business as MGM Springfield application in accordance with General Laws, Chapter 38, Section 21A7 and General Laws, Chapter 23N, Section 6i to consider competitively sensitive information related to the relationship between the applicant and BED-MGM with respect to the maintenance of patron data and ongoing, excuse me, confidential investigation that has been disclosed by BED-MGM, which if disclosed publicly would place the applicant at a competitive disadvantage. Not a clarifying question. Has that same information been provided by the applicant before us? Not that I'm aware. Director Lillios? No, it's new information. Was it to provide it only, not new information, was it provided by the applicant before us? I wanna make sure I didn't miss it in the application. It was provided by representative of BED-MGM. We're prepared to have the discussion, share an executive session about the sharing of data. Okay, you may be, but I'm not because I don't have that application in front of me. Has that information been provided? Perhaps, but it's not the application before us. I just wanna make that clear that it's procedurally, I hear the applicant wanting to be cooperative. I guess if there's a different way of framing it so that I'm not having to consider something that's not for me. I'm just a little uncomfortable with that arrangement. Councilor Grossman? I mean, the alternative is to have the discussion in public without going into the executive session. Oh, no, well, that's another solve, I'm sure, commissioner. I'm wondering if we phrase it more from the MGM perspective, that the question is in connection with their application and their data sharing, MGM's data protections and sharing in relation to the matter that was disclosed by BED-MGM because then we're putting the focus on MGM's role in that regard. And whatever they share with us in the executive session. If there's something that's... Right. Let's go to commissioner Skinner's question. I would like the motion to reflect that it's coming from them as opposed to us looking at an applicant. Because I understand that they're interwoven commissioner Skinner. So I understand that that relationship is there but I just don't want to reference another application. That's all. Thanks. So, Councillor Grossman, if you could maybe commissioner Skinner, would you be willing to revise your motion? What's the help? I'm asking that I revise the motion because I feel like exactly what commissioner O'Brien just said is reflected in the motion that I put forth. So I'm gonna need a little help understanding what it is you're looking for exactly, Madam Chair. I guess I'm trying to make sure that we don't reference that this information is coming from a different application. I can only make my decisions today based on the application before. Okay. Madam Chair, I move that the commission mean an executive session in conjunction with its review of the Bluetalk redevelopment doing business as MGM Springfield application in accordance with General Laws, Chapter 30A, Section 21A7 and General Laws, Chapter 23N, Section 6I to consider competitively sensitive information related to the relationship between the applicant and that MGM with respect to the maintenance of patron data and an ongoing confidential investigation, which if disclosed publicly would place the applicant at a competitive disadvantage. Second. Any further discussion? Commissioner O'Brien? Aye. Commissioner Hill? Commissioner Hill? Yes. Commissioner Skinner? Aye. Commissioner Maynard? Aye. And I vote yes. Aye. Okay, now we're going to leave this session, this public session, and then we will move into the executive virtual session, virtual room. You'll have a link to that. And we're not gonna take a break beforehand. We'll just go straight into the executive session. Thank you. Dave, I think you can take down the screen, the chair just needs to connect to audio. Okay, that's all set. Yeah, Kathy, it looks like you're muted. I don't know if unmuting will do that or if I'm not. Everybody, I'm talking away and I was not on audio. Thank you, everybody. Okay, so this is a reconvening of mission public, missions public meeting number 414. And we're going to just again, because the virtual platform, I'm going to confirm attendance. Commissioner O'Brien? I am here. Commissioner Hill? I am here. Commissioner Skinner? I am here. Commissioner Maynard? I'm here. So we're set to proceed. We just concluded our executive session and we now are going to turn back to my searching for or assessing whether we have a consensus on the outstanding sections of the application, which has been revised that our request, particularly with respect to sections F and G and but also supplemented elsewhere. I believe we have outstanding F, believe we've confirmed our expectations that we are now looking for sections E and G. Do or are there any outstanding questions with respect to sections E, section E? No questions, Madam Chair, but I would say that they met expectations. Thank you. Are there commissioners in agreement? Agreed. Same. I agree. Okay, excellent. So thank you again for the enhanced response and for your participation in today's questioning. Then, turn to section G. Do we have any additional questions on section G? And so do we feel that it meets expectations? Commissioner Skinner, I saw you take off your video, your audio. Yes, I feel that that section has met expectations. Excellent. Commissioner Hill? Meets expectations. Excellent. Commissioner Maynard? Meets expectations. Commissioner O'Brien? Agree. Okay. So I agree. We'll move on then. If the commission is prepared, we've gone through each section and we have reserved like you're on the right item. We have reserved an item number four, the right to make a determination by the commission in accordance with our regulation. And we have asked Attorney Grossman to walk us through that process if we are prepared to move in that direction. Okay. Thank you. I'm not hearing any objections. So I'm going to assume that that's moving in that direction. I turn to Congressman Ardell. Thank you, Madam Chair. If helpful, what I'll do is I'll just remind everyone what the standard is and we'll go through the factors and the subfactors just to ensure that everything is in place. And then we can talk about some of the conditions that may go along with it if the commission declined to award the license. First, so we begin at section 218.06 sub five, which says that the commission's ultimate question is to, in determining whether to award a license is whether such award would benefit the commonwealth. And in making that decision, as you know, the commission laid out a series of factors. And now we'll just go through the factors and the subfactors that help inform the decision. So the first is the applicant's experience and expertise related to sports wagering, including the applicant's background in sports wagering, the applicant's experience and licensure and other jurisdictions with sports wagering and a description of the applicant's proposed sports wagering operation or description technical features and operations of the sports wagering platform, which is not necessarily applicable in this particular matter. The next factor is the economic impact or and other benefits to the commonwealth if the applicant is awarded a license, including employment opportunities within the commonwealth to projected revenue from wagering operations and tax revenue to the commonwealth. And here the applicant's proposed plans for construction and capital investments associated with the license board and finally community engagement. The next factor is the applicant's proposed measures related to responsible gaming, including the applicant's responsible gaming policies, the applicant's advertising and promotional plans and the applicant's history of demonstrated commitment to responsible gaming. Next is a description of the applicant's willingness to foster racial, ethnic and gender diversity, equity and inclusion, including within the applicant's workforce, through the applicant's supplier spend and in the applicant's corporate structure. Next is the technology the applicant intends to use in its operation, including as applicable, geo-fencing, know your customer measures and technological expertise and reliability. Next is the suitability of the applicant and its qualifiers and your recall here, there are the two options, either the durable finding of suitability or the preliminary finding of suitability. And we can discuss these in a little greater detail if that would be helpful, but the sub factors include whether the applicant can be or has been determined suitable in accordance with 205CMR 215, the applicant and all parties in interest to the licensees integrity, honesty, good character and reputation, the applicant's financial stability, integrity and background, the applicant's business practices and business ability to establish and maintain a successful sports majoring operation, the applicant's history of compliance with gaming or sports majoring licensing requirements in other jurisdictions and whether the applicant is a defendant in litigation involving its business practice. And finally, any other appropriate factor that the commission is relevant in this description. So those are the standards and the factors that the commission, of course, has considered during the course of this evaluation. Let me stop there. There are of course other provisions that may be helpful to discuss, but Madam Chair, I'll go back to you. So I go have notation of a condition that we discussed from last time or this time as a condition, but Commissioner O'Brien, you did ask a follow-up question and then you had a chance to review the application during a break. Is there any further clarification we want with respect to the advertising and marketing? Not that I can think of at the moment, Madam Chair. I don't know if you have one, but... This is a question for the applicant. Did you clarify that you would be in control of third-party affiliates for marketing and that that would extend through your partners, the ultimate responsibility? And I heard a collaboration from Daniel, but I thought later on perhaps you clarified that. We have complete control over the retail side. On the mobile side, the tethered skins at the moment, just one, we would expect that that MGM would follow because it's that MGM that would be placed in the advertising would follow all of the requirements in Massachusetts and to the extent that they didn't, we would exercise our control, if you will, for some interest in the JVS. And again, I can't really speak for our partner, but I can't imagine that in pain as well, wouldn't want that MGM, it's just to satisfy all of Massachusetts' requirements. But the skins do operate, I'm not going to say independently, but they do operate their business with, and look, at the end of the day, we're ultimately responsible to you because they're tethered to our license, and that would reflect badly on us, if they did something that was not appropriate. And we are fully competent of that. We operate in other states with skins, not only that MGM, but in some other states we have, we host another skin as well. And we're just often really responsible. I'm all set. Michelle, Brian, you're all set. Yeah, I mean, that's why I think a lot of other questions I have are more bad MGM, not this CAT-1 applicant. Thank you. I don't have notes of another condition. Tony Grossman, do you? Sorry, no, I don't have notes of any specific conditions, but just as a reminder, under section 220.01 of the commission's regulations, there are automatic conditions that will attach to the award of any license. And if it would be helpful, I can just quickly go through those so everyone is on the same page. Please remind us of them. Thank you. They include the following, that the operator obtain an operation certificate before conducting any sports wagering in the Commonwealth, that the operator comply with all terms and conditions of its license and operation certificate, that the operator comply with chapter 23N and all rules and regulations of the commission, the operator make all required payments to the commission in a timely manner. In this case, as far as the licensing fee is concerned, if it's a durable finding of suitability, the commission issues, that would be the full $5 million fee. If it's a preliminary finding, it would be the $1 million payment towards a temporary license. The next condition is that the operator maintain its suitability, hold the sports wagering license. And lastly, that the operator conducts sports wagering in accordance with its approved system of internal controls consistent with 205CMR and in accordance with its approved house rules in accordance with chapter 23N, section 10A and consistent with 205CMR. So those are the automatic conditions that attach. And then of course there's a whole process to obtain an operation certificate that requires other prerequisites for that. All set. Commissioners, I think this applicant is probably looking for a motion. Are we? Oh, sorry. Commissioner Hill, I think before you do that, you should talk about- I'm just gonna bring this up. Oh, sorry, Commissioner Hill, please. You might go for it. I think the last week when we were doing this, we went through the factors and we read and then we made a motion. Is that what you were gonna say, Todd? Yeah, specifically as it relates to suitability, I think you need to determine which branch you're going to go- We did them individually. Remind me, because it's a different standard as opposed to accepting out suitability for a different standard. So are you gonna do it by motion or should I make it as a, I think we do it by a motion, correct, Todd? As opposed- I have two motions to make. One of them will do with suitability. However, we did go subject by subject in the last two licenses that we approved. And I think, Todd, you walked us through that. Yes, I think Commissioner Hill is prepared to address these. I was ready to address the motions to allow, but Chair, I was looking to you to go subject by subject. We did, I thought Councilor Gressman, you did that. Yeah, basically you wanna just make sure there's substantial evidence for each of the factors that I just reviewed. That's really the ultimate question. And then ultimately whether a license award would benefit the common. That's the question to answer. So, Commissioner, with respect to A through G with the exception of F, we're going to need to find whether or not we agree that there's substantial evidence to support that the ultimate finding that the commonwealth will be benefited. This will operate as a benefit of the commonwealth. Do I have a motion with respect to that? Councilor Gressman, I think that this was, I think that you led us through this process last time. Yes, I certainly can. And Commissioner Hill, maybe- If we do with our other- You're doing something I can- With our horse racing license. I don't wanna, I don't want to lead my fellow commissioners, you know, imprecisely. Sure, I can certainly tee that up unless Commissioner Hill, you'd like to- No. Go for it, okay. So I think you wanna find that the applicant BluTARP redevelopment through its application submitted and discussed as part of the review today and on December 7th has established by substantial evidence that the criteria set forth in section 218.06, sections 5A through E and then G have been met and that the award of such a license would benefit the commonwealth. I'm ready to make a motion to that, Madam Chair. Okay, thank you, Commissioner Hill. So Madam Chair, I move that the commission find that the applicant BluTARP redevelopment through its application submitted and as discussed here today and on December 7th, 2022 has established by substantial evidence and met the criteria set forth in 205 CMR 218.06, 5A through E and G and further that any award of the category one license to the applicant would be to benefit the commonwealth. I second. Thank you, Commissioner. Any further discussion on this first part of the decision? Okay, Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Commissioner Maynard. Aye. And I vote yes, 5-0, thank you. And now. I have a second motion, Madam Chair. I move that the commission find that the applicant BluTARP redevelopment be found to have established by its application filing, reviewed by the IEB and the discussion here today and on December 7th, 2022, by clear and convincing evidence at an adjudicatory proceeding, its suitability consistent with 205 CMR 218.06, 5F and that any condition subject to a finding of suitability also reference the obligations outlined in 205 CMR 220.01. Just point of, I have a question on that because we didn't do an adjudicatory hearing. So are you referring to the one back in say 2013 when you make that statement or we need clarity on that? Yeah. Yeah, I can jump in on that one. Yes, so of course any durable findings of suitability have to be made by clear and convincing evidence presented at an adjudicatory proceeding. In this case, it was at the prior one you've referenced and I don't have the date before me, but I believe it's in the IEB's report where it talks about the fact that this applicant and its qualifiers have gone through the adjudicatory proceeding process and have maintained their suitability up to the present day. And that's, you can rely upon that in order to find the durable finding of suitability if you were so inclined. Okay, I guess the only language I would suggest adding in given the two days of hearing and the discussions that we've had is to maybe amend it to say and nothing in the submissions of the applicant or in the hearings on December 7th or today raised substantial issues such that we would disturb that suitability finding. I think it gets nod to what we've done over this month. So I would agree to that. And would you amend it just to put in the date of the earlier 20th? Yeah, I said December 7th and today's date. Oh, no, no, the one, the adjudicatory hearing date. Oh, I see what you mean. Refer back to the 2013. Yeah, whatever that is. I don't have that readily available. I don't know. Yeah. It was amazingly, it was December 23rd of 2013. Here you go. It's like Groundhog Day. Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah, right? Okay, so there we go. So I would second given those in my mind. Yeah. And I think we have it on the record unless you would like Commissioner Hill to reread it and we all set. Okay, and we have a second from Commissioner O'Brien. Any further discussion? Commissioner O'Brien? Aye. Commissioner Hill? Aye. Commissioner Skinner? Aye. Commissioner Maynard? Aye. And I vote yes. Five, zero, congratulations to MGM Springfield and thank you for your application, your interest and your responsiveness today and December 7th. So thank you. Commissioners, what would you like to say? Congratulations. Happy holidays. Commissioner Maynard? Thank you, congratulations. Good luck. Okay, Commissioner Hill? Yep, just a great job and congratulations to you. And Commissioner Skinner? Congratulations. Thanks for hanging in there with me. Happy holidays. And the applicant. Commissioner Skinner, always a pleasure. Just thank you, everyone. Really do appreciate it. And as I said in the executive session, more than happy to answer any question that the commission has. I hope everybody enjoys their holidays. It's been a tough, really tough couple of years, three years now going on. And I just hope everyone really, really enjoys their holidays. Thank you for that. President Kelly, we picked your team away last week and we thank you for having been lined up. And I'm pleased that we were able to address you this morning promptly. I thought we'd let you close. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the entire commission. As has been referenced on the calendar, it's aptly timed for the gift of this decision, what it means to the city, what it means to the community and what it will ultimately mean to the state. We recognize that this is a multi-step process, but this is a very important step forward for our entire team at MGM Springfield. And so we thank you. And we appreciate the thoughtful and deliberate approach that the commission has taken. And I have to say we are extraordinarily excited about in the not too distant future, transitioning in extraordinary sports lounge into a sports book. So thank you again and happy holidays. Thank you and happy holidays to all. Thank you so much. Commissioners, I think probably now we deserve some lunch. It is 1.30, should we reconnect to? Does that sound right, commissioners? Okay. Thank you. MGM Springfield DeVox and stay warm. How's that, Dave? Oh, good. That's much better when I have the audio on that works. Thank you so much. No problem. Okay, commissioners, everybody's back. Hey, this is a reconvening of Massachusetts Game Commission's public meeting number 414. And because we're holding this meeting on a virtual platform, we'll do a roll call. Commissioner O'Brien. I am here. Commissioner Hill. I'm here. Commissioner Skinner. I'm here. Commissioner Maynard. I'm here. Okay, so we're set to go. And we are now turning back to our agenda. And we are going to begin, and I'm just looking at our attendees. Now with the presentation of that MGM for their application for Category 3 Sports Wuthering Operator License, we hope that it will include a demonstration of their application. Good afternoon. Is that Moni or Lani? Hope you're on mute or your... Can you hear me now? Yeah, just if you can elevate it a little bit more. There we go. Is that better? That's better. Commissioners, we can always use louder. All right. It's very soft actually. I will speak up. Great, so it's Loni. Did I read your lips right? That is correct. It's Loni. Okay, excellent. Good afternoon Miss Loni. Madam Chairwoman, good afternoon. We want to echo the sentiments of MGM and thank all the commissioners this afternoon for the diligent review of our Category 3 Sports Wuthering application tethered to MGM. We want to thank you all for all the review of the information along with the staff, specifically the BIE Group for the hard work. We have a group of subject matter experts here today to talk around different issues throughout this presentation. So I'd like to run through the individuals that will be presenting different items for you all this afternoon. First of all, if you'd like to move to the agenda slide. Commissioners on the Chief Compliance Officer of BET MGM, Ria Loni. Also joining me to discuss our experience and expertise is Jeremy Coleman, our Deputy General Counsel. Sarah Brennan, our Senior Director of Technical Compliance. David Main, Senior Manager of Technical Sports Operations. We'll also be addressing responsible gaming in our presentation today. We have Richard Taylor, Senior Manager of Responsible Gaming. In relation to discussing our BET MGM Rewards Program, you'll have Megan Twomboli, Director of Loyalty and CRM Optimization. Anna Eliezer, our Head of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion will be discussing our Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Program. Also you have Roman Rubis, Director of Technical Governance who will be discussing the technology component and doing a presentation of our platform. Commissioners, if it's your pleasure, we'll now turn it over for the presentation portion and I'll turn it over to Jeremy Coleman, Deputy General Counsel if there are no questions before we begin. Thank you, Ria. And I want to second everything that was said. We really appreciate your time and consideration of our application. Before we get started with our formal presentation, I just wanted to make a quick note regarding confidentiality. BET MGM has designated several parts of its application as commercially sensitive or proprietary as provided in Chapter 23N, Section 6I. BET MGM asks that discussion of any material that has been designated as confidential be done through an executive session. As such, we do not plan to present any information that is confidential in our affirmative presentation and we will alert the commission if a question asked by the commission elicits confidential information and we will request that we move into an executive session. With that note, I'd like to kick it over to our Senior Director of Compliance, Sarah Brennan to start our formal presentation. Thank you all. Thank you, Ria. Thank you, Jeremy. Good afternoon, commissioners. Nice to see you again this time on behalf of my organization, BET MGM. And we will dive into experience and expertise. Kennedy is going to be changing slides for me. So bear with us a bit if I have to tell her to move on or go back. BET MGM was established in July of 18 to create a world-class betting and online gaming platform in the US and has quickly become an industry leader in this space. As an industry leader, we use state-of-the-art proprietary technology to offer sports wagering and online gaming via market-leading brands to our patrons. This proprietary technology allows us to control the entire player journey, creating a seamless and enjoyable experience for our patrons. In collaboration with MGM, BET MGM assists in operating the physical sports books, as you know, and as we've highlighted over the last couple of days of hearings, by providing 24-7 trading and risk operations and our retail technology at MGM's properties in Vegas, Detroit, New Jersey, Mississippi, Maryland, and soon to be Massachusetts. Next slide, please. BET MGM is a joint venture between two industry leaders, MGM and NTIN. This diagram demonstrates the services that either provide to us. MGM largely name recognition brand and market access in our MGM jurisdictions across the US and NTIN with a proprietary retail and online technology that's supported by over 2,000 developers. They are a leading global online operator with over 50 licenses in 27 jurisdictions and lead in expertise in betting and online gaming. We've got 600 traders worldwide. Next slide. As the industry continues to evolve and grow and market access across the US opens up, that MGM is live in 25 jurisdictions presently. Online sports withdrawing has reached 41% of the US population in the last few years. And at present moment, we have 31 market access agreements across the US. Next slide. Now we spoke about this briefly in MGM's hearing and I thought it would be helpful to have a slide here that more specifically delineates the responsibility between MGM and Bet MGM as it relates to both retail and mobile operations. As was stressed during MGM's hearing, both entities are singularly responsible for their regulatory compliance obligations. You can see, and as we discussed already, that Bet MGM provides retail technology to MGM sportsbooks and also industry leading, trading and risk operation management. Which includes the 24 seven global book marketing operations and a dedicated US based team. For online and mobile operations, Bet MGM is responsible for all regulatory and operational functionalities, which I'll get into when I describe the compliance function and department at Bet MGM. And you can see that the team that reports into me operationally is responsible for the trading and marketing compliance and responsible gaming functions. MGM at their book is responsible for all other regulatory and operational functionalities when running a Bet MGM sportsbook and uses its proprietary rewards program MGM rewards for integration with casino player tracking systems. At retail, every employee prior to deployment receives extensive training and operations responsible gaming and AML. Next slide, please, Kennedy. Now commitment to compliance. Anecdotally for your background, when I started working at Bet MGM, I was employee number 110. I started in January of 2020 and there was five people in the compliance department. To date, we are nearing 75 with the recent addition of fraud analysts to the AML team. So you can see that the growth in the compliance and legal teams has been exponential in correlation with our expansion across US markets. Bet MGM's dedication and commitment to compliance is deep. And as such, we have expanded the department in order to mitigate risk and ensure compliance across all business functions and all the jurisdictions within which we operate in every area of the business operations. We have a director of AML compliance who is responsible for all federal and state filings as well as managing the senior director of suspicious activity who's responsible for filing suspicious activity disclosures as it relates to any sort of suspicious activity or waging that Bet occurs on our mobile platform. We also have a director of technical compliance who works in close parallel with both my operational compliance team and Roman Rubis with whom you'll become acquainted on the tech governance team as they evaluate the regulatory requirements as it relates to platform capabilities and requirements in each jurisdiction's regulatory framework. Licensing, I know that you all have been acquainted with Joshua Wiseman. He's a senior manager of licensing and his team is responsible for entity, vendor and occupational licensing across all of our jurisdictions and the operational compliance team. Again, we went from having two analysts dedicated to regulatory and operational compliance to now a team of nearly 40, including trading compliance, eye gaming compliance, responsible gaming, marketing compliance, page and complaint management and regulatory administration. The regulatory administration team is responsible and you may have already had some interaction with them for developing all of the compliance documentation including internal controls, terms of service and all other required filings with respect to responsible gaming and trading compliance in each jurisdiction. I'm going to hand it over now to David Main. He's our senior manager of technical sports operations and he'll give you a sports betting overview and explain more in detail as to how trading works at Bet MGM. Thank you, Sarah. Good afternoon. So Bet MGM's trading department handles all the odds making and risk management of all sports wagering in all of our properties. The primary functions will include the setting and modifying of wagering lines for all events as well as resulting the events upon their completion that also monitor all wages, liabilities on events in real time in order to best determine any price changes that we need to be. There are a number of factors by which the trading team will determine the betting lines which would include monitoring prices in comparison to the competitors in the market as well as some customer analysis and a review of which teams are being heavily backed. The trading department would also work very closely with the compliance team to ensure that all offered events and markets comply with the official sports wagering catalog provided by yourselves. That will include managing of any events that should be added or removed accordingly. As part of the risk management, the traders are also responsible for monitoring any potential suspicious wagering activity placed by the players on particular events or outcomes. Next slide, please. In the event that a trader does suspect any potential suspicious activity, this would be escalated to our third-party integrity monitoring provider, which is US Integrity. Now, US Integrity work with member gaming operators as well as federal, state and tribal regulators as well as law enforcement to basically make sure that the integrity of all events are complete and that there's no issues. So once an alert has been raised with US Integrity, they would review and request that all member gaming operators would also check in case they saw any suspicious activity themselves. On the flip side of that, the trading team will also monitor US Integrity themselves for any alerts that other members would raise and review if we saw any similar suspicious activity as well in all of our jurisdictions. If we did identify any suspicious wagering, then those details would be reported back to US Integrity as well as those the state regulators themselves. Is there any questions on any of that or can I move on to Richard Taylor who's our senior manager for responsible gaming? Thank you, David. We hold our questions so if you could just stay tuned. Thank you so much. Sounds good. Thanks, David. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, commissioners and staff. I would like to begin by thanking you all for allowing me the opportunity to provide an overview of our responsible gaming efforts and how we at BetMGM meet our RG commitments. At BetMGM, responsible gaming goes far beyond the RG team and the compliance department. It lives and breathes throughout the organization from our chief executive officer, Adam Greenblatt on down. We believe we all have a role to play when it comes to responsible gaming. Now, some of the content in my presentation will probably look familiar to you and that is intentional. When I first took this role back in the fall of 2020, it was abundantly clear to me and to BetMGM leadership that a consistent responsible gaming customer experience between the land-based operations of MGM resorts and our digital offerings at BetMGM would be critically important. That's why we've implemented Game Sense throughout our operations and continue to hone its use in a digital arena. And I'll show you some examples of how we use the program during the rest of my presentation. I'm excited and proud to share with you today how we empower and inform our employees and customers to understand and practice responsible gaming so that we can help keep gambling a fun activity and mitigate gambling harm as much as possible through education, support, and direct assistance. At BetMGM, we take a multifaceted approach to responsible gaming. As you all know, RG and PG are difficult challenges and we take this responsibility of ensuring the most enjoyable and safe experience possible for our customers seriously. At the base of our efforts is the Game Sense program. We owe a lot to the MGC for introducing us to Game Sense. Having helped implement and lead the program at both MGM resorts and now at BetMGM, I've had the privilege of seeing firsthand how the program can make an impact for employees and customers. You light bulb interactions in training rooms, gaming floors, and through digital interactions have been some of the most rewarding moments of my career. A highlight of these experiences was working there in Massachusetts with Mark VanderLinden, the Mass Council, and so many others to develop and implement Game Sense at MGM Springfield just over four years ago. In my opinion, there is no better example of operator, regulator, and nonprofit collaboration out there. I believe through Game Sense, we are making a real difference and a lot of credit is owed to this body for introducing us to the program. In addition to Game Sense information, we also provide an array of RG limit-setting tools and have trained staff who are able to provide tailored care and service to help both encourage responsible gaming as well as assist those who are in distress. Never content to settle. We look to both real-world experiences as well as academic research to enhance the ways we engage with our customers to reinforce positive play and address problematic behaviors. This evidence-based approach also helps guide our employee training programs, internal controls, and responsible gaming best practices. At Bet MGM, continuous improvement isn't just a talking point, it is a way of operating. As we know, we can't do this alone. And so through collaboration and partnerships with our parent companies, MGM resorts and NTAIN, regulators, external organizations, advocacy groups, and researchers, we can do our part to help inform the public and mitigate harm. We believe this unified approach to responsible gaming puts the best interests of our customers, their families, and the communities where we operate at the forefront. Slide. Now I am a firm believer that if you want to embed a culture of responsible gaming throughout your organization, you must start with your employees. All of the tools and algorithms in the world won't matter if your teammates do not understand the concepts behind them or the importance of RG from a customer experience and business sustainability standpoint. Like MGM resorts, we use a situational relevant training model. So while all employees will receive an introduction to essential concepts of RG and PG, those who interact with customers will receive more in-depth interaction-based training. At the top of our training program is Game Sense Advisor Training. Game Sense Advisors are trained to provide enhanced customer assistance for RG and PG matters, including cases involving customers experiencing significant distress as a result of their gambling. As of now, we have six Game Sense Advisors on staff and we have plans to expand this team over the coming year to meet our future needs. Training is provided during new hire orientation as well as annually as a refresher. And beyond these trainings, we also provide micro learning sessions to the entire company during problem gambling awareness month in March, as well as responsible gaming education month in September. Finally, we place a strong emphasis in learning from those who have actually experienced gambling harm and have an intimate knowledge of its devastating effects. That's why we are proud to be working with the Renown Harm Reduction Group from the United Kingdom, Epic Risk Management to develop enhancements to our current training to improve how we identify and handle customers who are experiencing significant gambling harm. We anticipate rolling this training out in a few months and I'm really excited to get going and providing our employees with this content. Next slide. Moving on to our customers, we believe that informed decision-making begins with player education. We recently completed an overhaul of our responsible gaming websites to the Game Sense website you see in front of you. Accessible by clicking on the RG logo in the header, our players can explore a variety of key responsible gaming topics, including our principles, how to develop a game sense mindset and play within one's means, an explanation of our RG tools and how they can help players stay in control, a factor myth game to help set the record straight about what gambling is and what it isn't, and of course a full list of state and national resources to help individuals address problem gambling concerns. Something I'm particularly proud of is that we also have a section for family members and friends to learn about the gambling of a loved one, including specific information on seniors, children and spouses. We recognize that responsible and problem gambling extend beyond the customer and so we feel it is important to provide information not just for our customers, but for anyone interested in learning more about this topic. Having experienced firsthand how gambling addiction can affect the family, this portion of our Game Sense website is particularly important to me and I'm proud to work for an operator who prioritizes this area. Every jurisdiction does RG slightly differently, but the beauty of our Game Sense website is that it can be fully tailored based on the needs of each jurisdiction and we welcome the opportunity to work with your staff to include information and content to best serve the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Next slide. Understanding that no two players are completely alike, it's important to offer our customers a variety of tools to help them control their activity. Whether they choose a deposit limit, time limit, loss limit or an extended timeout, also known as a cool off, we want to encourage our customers to view these tools in a positive light. We want them to be proud to use our tools and see their use as a sign of strength, not a sign of weakness. Through this positive promotion of the tools via customer emails and chats, we hope we can help reduce stigma and increase utilization rates. We actively promote these tools within the Game Sense pages, our Game Sense welcome emails to new customers, as well as throughout the year, the emails and social media posts. Once entered and submitted by the customer, the limits cannot be canceled or increased until the expiration of the limit and a cooling off period has passed. However, at any time, the customer may place more restrictive limits if they desire to do so. Next slide. A key tenant of our approach to responsible gaming is meeting customers where they are at and how we do that is through providing them with a variety of ways to get the information they need. From first-time depositors who receive a Game Sense welcome email to our seasoned customers and those who are hosted, we have something for everybody. Our customer service and VIP teams are trained to both promote responsible gaming, as well as look for problematic and concerning language and either address it directly themselves or escalate it to my team for additional assistance. While the vast majority of our customers can gamble within their means, which is something we help encourage through Game Sense and the promotion of RG tool usage, we understand and we recognize that some of our customers unfortunately experience issues as a result of their gambling. When these concerns are presented either through communication or observed behavior, we take quick action to provide empathetic assistance, to prevent additional wagering through our service and encourage the customer to seek help through the state self-exclusion program, gambler's anonymous, treatment, et cetera. Above all else, our number one priority is taking care of our customers. Slide. Our customer-facing teams are trained to identify common warning signs and problematic communication and they're empowered to act. However, sometimes it's not a cut and dry situation. In those instances, my team is available to assist and provide guidance and interaction to customers. For cases where the communication is vague and they are unsure if there is a gambling-related problem or not, our customer-service agents are trained to escalate the matter to my team for additional review and action. And here's just an example of what that may look like. A player may state that they could really use a bonus or they need their luck to turn around, et cetera. And so through that communication that could mean a variety of things. Maybe they're just looking for additional funds for play or maybe there's an underlying issue that needs to be explored. And our teams are encouraged to view it from that perspective. And so that would come to my team where we would look at all of their communication as well as their player activity and we would determine the next course of action. And depending on what we would see if it's a milder concern, at a minimum we're gonna send an email asking how they're doing and for them to respond that they understand the risks associated with gambling and that they're comfortable with their current level of play. At a maximum, we will take measures to close their account and send them resources for problem gambling wherever they may be located. While no two situations are identical we believe that by considering the player's activity and communication directly with them we can reach a resolution and mitigate the potential for harm. For severe cases we do not hesitate to close accounts and refer the individual to problem gambling resources. So we will always err on the side of taking care of our players and putting their wellbeing ahead of anything else. Slide. In addition to working with our customers to ensure they are having a positive gambling experience we also make significant effort to keep those who shouldn't be gambling off of our platform. And Roman will talk a lot more about the technology behind this during his part of the presentation but I'll just say that we work closely with regulators to ensure we are uploading the self-exclusion list into our system in a timely fashion and that our KYC process keeps them out. We also encourage those who may be considering a self-exclusion to do so and provide them links and phone numbers to these services. Much like the RG tools we view the self-exclusion programs that these states offer as a positive, as a good thing. And if those who need self-exclusion we're here to help them get to that application so that they can sign up. Like MGM resorts, but MGM abides by the American Gaming Association's Code of Sports Wagering Marketing and regulatory requirements to ensure marketing is tasteful doesn't appeal to underage or vulnerable populations and that we support responsible gaming messaging and problem gambling helpline information. As it pertains across jurisdictional cooperation we work with MGM resorts on a daily basis to ensure that we're sharing our list of banned players so that we aren't cross marketing to people who one of us know should not be receiving marketing or any type of enticements. We understand that problems with gambling don't stay within certain state lines and so when possible we will apply these restrictions regardless of where they were initially set. We believe that this collaboration stays true to the spirit of self-exclusion and help support those who willfully enroll in these programs. Slide. In addition to working closely with our customer-facing teams both my team and the marketing compliance team have a close relationship with our marketing teams. Frequently we are reviewing content providing training and guidance and ensuring they have the most up-to-date requirements regarding disclaimer language. Some of the key areas we focus on are not marketing or creating content which would appeal to underage audiences not promoting irresponsible or excessive participation in sports wagering not misrepresenting the chances of winning or suggesting sports wagering will guarantee social, financial or personal success ensuring the problems that problem gambling helpline is displayed on all ads among other topics. And we do that through examples so we like to pull ads that are currently out there that go over the line or near the line and talk about why it is that they're considered that way. Through this examples and through this knowledge sharing we believe we can hone our marketing and ensure that we're meeting our commitment. Next slide. To close, I wanna talk about our work with stakeholders and experts to help us improve our operations and contribute to the field of responsible gaming and problem gambling. We are proud to work with other Game Sense licensees including the Massachusetts Gaming Commission within the Game Sense community of practice. Having a forum to learn from other operators has been tremendously valuable. We are platinum members of the National Council on problem gambling and are active with state councils on problem gambling, attending conferences, chairing and participating in committees but most importantly listening to the experiences and challenges of those in the trenches. We also collaborate with providers such as the Dr. Robert Hunter International Problem Gambling Center here in Las Vegas to obtain information on problem gambling rates, co-morbidity and third party harm to share within our trainings. We are proud to partner with the American Gaming Associations have a game plan campaign and we sit on the HGA's Responsibility Committee which unites operators on responsibility efforts, research and modernization. Met MGM recently joined others in the first industry-led responsible gaming standards. This 12 point pledge serves as a commitment to ensure safeguards, education and consistent standards for online wagering. Finally, you may have seen that we recently contribute $180,000 to the Boston-based ICRG to help further the study of marketing and its impacts on gambling and problem gambling. While we understand that this is just a start we're excited to see the results of the work and we look forward to applying these learnings to our operations as well as sharing them with the broader industry. We truly believe that we are better together and through ongoing collaboration between our organizations, our peers, advocates and the Massachusetts Gaming Commission we will be able to offer our guests and customers a safe informed and responsible sports wagering experience. I wanna close by thanking you all for your time and again, I appreciate the care and concern we all share when it comes to responsible gaming. I now turn it over to our Director of Loyalty and CRM Optimization, Megan Thwombly. Thank you. Thank you, Rich. Again, echoing the sentiments previously shared. Thank you for your time and your review and allowing me to present on our proprietary rewards program. And so, Kennedy to the next slide please. Thank you. Thank you. Apologies, trying to speak and turn the camera on at the same time. So what I'd love to talk through today is about how our partnership with MGM Rewards allows our players to participate in one of our industry's leading loyalty programs. So as such, when a player signs up for Bet MGM Rewards they are automatically enrolled into the MGM Rewards Program. This enables our players to double up and stack the rewards by earning on both our Bet MGM digital platform and also for anything that they have on property. So whether it's day, casino play or dining they're able to earn into one consolidated loyalty account. And as players earn points and share credits to move within the program they're able to redeem their points for bonus credits towards sports play in Massachusetts, casino and poker in other markets or they're able to convert them into MGM Rewards points which are redeemable for complimentary food and beverage entertainment hotels days and more. As players earn digital rewards they're also earning share credits to unlock new MGM Rewards periods for exclusive benefits including way of resort fees, tickets to MGM Rewards concerts, remote grades and more at over 20 MGM resort properties in Las Vegas and nationwide. Can we do the next slide? So just diving into a little bit of how these two programs are really interconnected and rewarding a player with a rich offering regardless if they're playing digitally or on property. So on properties they can earn on plots, table games their stay or dining at the resort online they're able to earn for either online sports wagers or casino and poker in available markets if or wager on sports in some of our Bet MGM sports books that we spoke about earlier today in our hearing. And as such, they're going to earn both share credits regardless of digital and retail and then that will help them move up through the program. So if you think about your airline loyalty program as you fly, you start to unlock different tiers and this program works in the exact same way. You are then able to participate from playing at home before your next trip to one of our fantastic properties and then as you earn MGM rewards points you're able to redeem those for hotel accommodations dining entertainment and more. And then for your digital rewards the Bet MGM rewards points you can redeem them online for either digital rewards or transfer them into MGM rewards points to use on property. Can we do the next slide please? And to give you a sense of what the earning looks like for a sports player if somebody came in and wagered $100 on a straight bet depending on the odds and somebody's tier level they would earn at least 20 Bet MGM rewards points or more different odds and at least end 20 tier credits for that wager for $100 parlay we do incentivize that slightly more by rewarding at least 50 Bet MGM rewards points and 50 tier credits and I'll leave poker and casino to as we're not live in those products excuse me. Can we do the next slide? And to give you a sense of what we have available in our loyalty store for players to redeem these are examples that we have live in other markets whether it's a $10 bonus fees on sportsway during or potentially a free bet these are examples of what may be offered in Massachusetts and with that I will be turning it over to Anna Lisa our head of diversity, equity and inclusion and thank you for your time. See Anna online, could you potentially just think of? Anna's on, but Anna you're on mute. Sorry all this is like one of those memes about how many years we've been remote and we still struggle to- And Sarah we have an unusual platform so nobody's concerned is- Now? We have you Anna, okay. Okay. There we go. Switch that over, I enjoy that on the web so part of my delay there. Thank you everybody. If you could just get a little closer to your microphone or- Sure. Maybe increase your- Move this even closer. I want to hear you clearly. Yes, can everybody hear me now? I think much better. Okay, great. Thank you for having me. Kennedy if you can move to the next slide. Great, thank you. So just wanted to talk a little bit about our diversity, equity and inclusion at that MGM. The overall picture that I just want you to have for us is that we believe that DEI has to be embedded into everything that we do. Who we are, it's not separate but it lives within our core values and that is everything from internal to external processes and practices. So within those core values we respect the game where transparency and trust are our foundation. We show the love, which is through connection and personal moments. We know the odds where we really heavily rely on the best data to inform us and we play to win where we know that our people position us for greatness. And these serve as our guiding principles underpending our shared commitment to continuous self-reflection, challenge and improvement in order to uplift each other and meet each other where we're at. Next slide please. So our DEI framework is really focused on three areas that are rooted in our DEI mission statement, our brand values and our leadership principles. So the first one is include and this is where we are committed to creating an inclusive culture for our team members, guests and local communities. The second focus area is represent where we are committed to representing the diverse communities in which we operate and the third area is win where we commit to using our diverse talents and skills to create a best in class experience for our guests as we lead the industry in responsible gaming. Next slide please. So we have our strategic goals here and I'd like to just start off our inclusive culture which is our first strategic goal by giving you kind of an idea of, so the results that were shared by SHRM from the upcoming national study of workforce equity report have shown that nearly two thirds of organizations say that DEI work is important but only 62% have allocated resources toward DEI. I'd like to kind of just go into that with explaining where we were at. So in 2018 when we got started, it only took us a couple of years before I came on. That was 2020, the end of 2020 and there was a lot of grassroots employee driven DEI work that was being done at that time and it did not take long for the company to recognize that they needed to put something in place formally. So I came on at the end of 2020 and we formally launched the program at the beginning of 2021 and by 2022, Jaleel Morton who is on my team has come on this June. So we've really tried to set the foundation for a strong implementation of DEI by having dedicated resources to our program with now a little over a thousand employees. In order to nurture this cultivated, we partner with our seven ERGs. Our newest ERG is our bed on vets which Rich is actually one of our chairs for. So very proud to have that newest ERG that just launched this year. And we do that by authentically trying to meet the communities where they're at. So we have different partnerships that have come from that. So for instance, the Latinx Alliance, one of their main goals was financial literacy and we actually were able to bring on a employee benefit with a company called Goalsetter to help create financial wellness and that's available for free to all of our employees. Same thing with our women at MGM, their development was one of the goals that they had. And so we were able to create a partnership with progressive women's leadership and provide a platform for them for extended learning on leadership. One of the other things that we have done is bringing visibility to DEI concepts and best practices. So we do that by working in strategic partnership in key organizational areas of the business. So talent acquisition, learning and development, HR, of course. Another thing that we are doing is utilizing partners like the ones I mentioned, Goalsetter is a great example. We also have some partners like Story Bolt and the defensive line, which are more focused on building empathy and awareness across the difference. And then lastly, we encourage all of our employees to voluntarily self ID. And I'm proud to say as somebody who identifies as queer that we now include LGBTQ plus identification for people to be able to self ID. And then how do we have accountability for these things? We have an annual inclusion survey and that is resultant in organizational actions. And we actually have created our flexibility policy around our first inclusion survey. And that took a lot of work and a lot of different people, but we really listened to our employees. We also have created an entire training program that DEI is embedded into based on what our employees told us in the survey. And so we're really proud of the actions that has come out of that listening that we've done through those annual surveys. We also have required company-wide DEI trainings on DEI fundamentals and allyship. We also have required people leader DEI workshops on inclusive leadership and allyship. And this is from the senior level to executive level in leadership. And we do workforce reporting as well. Next slide, please. So our diversity suppliers is our next area. And this is actually a newer area for us. I'm very happy to say that we have partnered with supplier IO, a really great platform to help to build and scale our supplier diversity program. We will be doing this in Q1 actually is when we have the goal set to have those percentage levels actually set in stone. So we're working with finance right now. But the cultivating of that will come through including diverse groups in vendor and supplier considerations as well as cultivating connections with diverse bidders to leverage in partnership. The ERG relationships that we create as well will be a part of that such as engagement with chambers of commerce and things of that nature. And then the accountability will come with working on the implementation like I mentioned before of the annual spend goals for that will be also across departments. So not just for the company but in each area of the business and then supplier reporting on those goals and how we are tracking toward them. Next slide, please. And then lastly, we have our workforce diversity. So how are we implementing this? We actually are already using artificial intelligence tools to generate gender neutral and inclusive job descriptions. And I am proud to say that labor of love is finally coming to fruition this coming year. We will be launching a, it's called empower mentorship program which is going to be available for all of our underrepresented members of the organization. So super excited about that launch coming in Q1. How are we cultivating this? So we're driving our underrepresented talent attraction through long-term institutional relationships with job postings, messaging campaigns, career fairs. And we have established relationships so far with ACEs, which is American Indians and STEM, Lesbians Who Tech, the Athletes Unite Conference. And we are building relationships with the community through the ERGs to increase our brand visibility and company culture and hope to identify and attract a more diverse talent pool to the company. And I think probably the best example of this is our partnership that we have right now with the Tom Joyner Foundation, which works with historically black colleges and universities across the United States. We are doing an executive series with them. So going from different school to different school and having different executives talk about what they do and why the MGM is an exciting place to work, letting the students have access to executives and ask questions, as well as our talent acquisition team so that they can help them review resumes. And we have exclusive, actually our first internship program will be exclusive for those students who are part of the Tom Joyner partnership. So that will be coming in 2023 as well. So we're very excited for that. So hopefully doing more things like that in the future as well. And then the accountability is required, inclusive performance management training, which is going to be rolling out this coming year, or sorry, performance management is already there, but the inclusive hiring is gonna be rolling out in Q1, which I'm very excited about as well. Annualized DEI goals to increase representation and strategically structuring interviews and interview guides to help support equitable processes throughout the entire interview process. And so with that, I look forward to answering more questions from you all when it comes time to it, but I will hand over for now to Roman response. Thank you. Thank you, Anna. Afternoon, Madam Chair, commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to present BetMGM's technology. Next slide, please. So BetMGM's proprietary mobile platform is live and tested in 19 jurisdictions. 18 of those jurisdictions are listed here that have been tested and certified by gaming laboratories international. It should also be noted that several of those jurisdictions like yourselves have either adopted or observed the GLI 33 technical standard jurisdictions such as Arizona, Iowa, Michigan, and most recently, Ohio. Anytime that there's a requirement for annual security testing or penetration, or security assessments or penetration testing, we do contract that worked out to independent third party and bulletproof, which is GLI's provider. And actually, that's good for now. Next slide, please. So BetMGM's geofencing solution is fully integrated with Geo-complied. Utilizes the location services on the player's device along with an SDK that's embedded within the app. So what I have on the right hand side here is an example of an error message that a player would receive. Based on the type of error that the player receives, it'll potentially show them some troubleshooting information. This example here, they're showing them how to enable their Wi-Fi to hopefully improve the data points that are collected to be able to better locate that player. The BetMGM platform also allows players to place wager using desktop through a plugin that's provided by Geo-complied. And as I transition over to the demo, I will be using our desktop product to demonstrate that. So if there's any, if there's no objections, if I wanna cover any more on the technical requirements or the geofencing requirements, I can transition over to the demo if there's no concerns. I think you can go right into the demonstration. Thanks. Thanks, thank you. Okay, can everybody see the screen? If you could make it a little bit bigger, are you able to do that? This? A bit? So let's see. Pressures, are you able to see that okay? I can't see anybody's reaction. So you'll have to say yes or no. I can see it just fine, Madam Commissioner. I can see it. Okay, we're good then. Thank you. Excellent, thank you. So one thing I'd like to show you guys as I tab through the sports books in Colorado, Indiana, and New York, the consistency of the layout, the sports listed across the top, BedMGM's logo and the jurisdiction underneath it. We always have the RG logo displayed in the header and then the ability to search for players or specific events up in the header. We also have, again, come into the layout, we have this showcase carousel, where you can showcase different markets that we wanna call out and then the general layout of the sports books. For demoing purposes, I'm gonna run through registration on Indiana and then I'll come back and log in and place some wagers in our New York sports book. Should be also noted that we all for help in contact when we're logged out. So if I were to select this option, I'd be taken to some troubleshooting screens and then the ability to contact customer support. There's three different locations that we offer this link. What I'll do is once I'm logged in later, I'll run through that journey, the player's journey for that. So as I go through registration, BedMGM uses what we call conversation registration. So what we do is we work with the player on each step of the registration. Our first step is to sign up with your email address. So I can create your password. So as I'm meeting all the criteria, you can see the details below are being checked off. Everything is green, everything's happy. I'm now able to move on to the next step in the process and to the player's name. It's important to note here that we also advise the player to enter the information exactly as it appears on their government documents. This is for better accuracy with our KYC providers when verifying those players. We now ask the player to enter in their last four digits of the social security number. As part of our KYC process, we're able to utilize the service by one of the providers that's able to try to match the first five. If they're not able to match the first five, that step will fail and the player will have to enter in their full nine digits of their social security number. Next is the date of birth. So if I enter any date of birth that is below 21 years of age, I've shown an error message. I'm not able to progress any further through the registration form and the next button is grayed out for me. The date of birth that's over 21, I'm now able to progress. For your mobile number. And this is not my mobile number. It is a mobile number. The last step before going to the terms and conditions, it's gonna ask you to enter in your address. We utilize a address finder feature. So if I start entering in an address, I can select on the dropdown and it will populate those fields. And then lastly, I'll go through and acknowledge in terms of conditions that I'm over 21 years of age and I'm not a very good player. And the last thing to do is once I've checked those boxes is select the create account option. I'm not gonna do that on this because this is a production environment. But essentially what happens when the player hits create my account, it takes the details that they've just collected or that we just collected. It sends them out to the KYC providers where they look to verify a social security number, age and identity, and then finally address. The platform receives pass fail responses from the KYC providers to determine whether that player is verified. Additionally, as part of that check, you have OFAC PEP and deceased checks that occur. So if somebody is on those lists, they'll not be able to create an account. Once the player is KYC verified, the platform then takes their information and runs it through the system against the self-exclusion list for the state to ensure that this player is allowed to have an account. That is registration. From here I will log into my New York account. So as soon as I log in, I'm shown a toaster message up top that shows the last time I logged in. From here, then going across the top, you can see the BenMGM logo and the jurisdiction that I'm logged into. We have the RG logo. So as Rich Taylor pointed out, brings you to our game sense pages. One page I'd like to cover here is the state specific pages. So any information that Massachusetts wants displayed can appear on this page here. Again, coming back to the RG logo, the ability to search for markets. In the upper middle, we have the session timer that's always displayed to the player. So you know how long you've been logged into the sports book. And from there, I think I'll place my first wager. So looking at the first market that's available here, you have the Rams and the Packers. Let's say I feel good about the Rams. The Vets populate on the right-hand side. You're seeing the team that you selected, the current pricing, and the stake on the bet that you're gonna place. I go through and place my bet. Everything's green and happy and that bet is now placed. If I want to go back through my bets and take a look at any other details, so I can tab over to my bet section. From here, I can see the bet I just placed. The stake and my potential odds. If I want to go beyond any open bets, I can click on the settle tab. I have the ability to go back through specific time periods. I can look at any wagers at the bottom. Any wagers, any lost wagers, any canceled wagers, and have those details available on the right-hand side here. If I need to contact customer service, I can drop this little arrow down. I'm provided with the Bet Slip ID in the specific time that that bet was placed. So again, I can contact CS, provide them that number, and they can look up the specific bet in the system. Additional feature, I think we can touch on real quick, is we offer the ability to cash out a wager. So we have here the ability to cash out at 50 cents. So I can basically go back and cash that wager out. So there's my confirmation. There's the details of the cash out. And then that will not also appear in our settled wagers. One of the features that I'd like to go over that's unique to BetMGM, is our ability to edit bet. If I go through, place another bet, place it on the Rams. I have a link here to go through and edit bet. So by clicking this link here. So essentially, most of our competition offers the ability to cash out a wager, which puts that money back into a wallet. They then go back to the sports book. They can go place another wager. If I edit my bet, you actually save an additional step. So if I decide to change from the Rams to the Packers, I can make that selection and confirm. And once it's placed, I get the green messaging that it's successful. So going back up to the top, when I click on my account avatar, we're showing the MGM rewards information for the player. I know that there's a lot of discussions about the information being passed back and forth here. So when a player registers on BetMGM's platform, that player information is sent one way to MGM. MGM doesn't look up against their player database and all that BetMGM receives our response is their M life number and then any tier credits that they should be receiving. I'm able to see my wallet breakdown. So if I have any bonus money or the amount of funds that I can withdraw from, if I choose to go into the cashier, you can see our cashier tiles. This is a dedicated cashier for New York. So conversations around whether credit cards are allowed or not allowed. Every jurisdiction has their own dedicated cashier. So these tiles can be changed based on what's allowed or not allowed in the jurisdiction. Going back up to my avatar. As I scroll down, I'm gonna go to my responsible gaming limits. So Rich touched on these briefly, but just to see them from the user's perspective. So what I have here in my deposit limits, we offer a daily, weekly and monthly limit. I currently have a $5,000 monthly limit set. If I choose to remove that, I can uncheck this box, hit submit. And I'm provided again a green message saying that it's been successfully opted out. So we provide information to the player at the bottom that calls out that if the value in the text box is different from the current limit, the requested limit is not applied. So this goes back to our waiting periods that Rich had spoke about. So if I click this link, we have the breakdowns of daily limits, weekly limits. I can see that my monthly limit, if the month has 31 days and it's done before the 28th of the end of the month, I can expect that limit to be updated on the first of the next month. If I make my change between the 29th and the 31st, I have to wait a full month and the first of the next month, I will be able to, I'll be able to see those limits updated. Additionally, there's information for 30 days and also for three years. All right, going back to my responsible gaming section, if I want to time out from my, from playing. What I like about New York's self, our timeout pages, the state actually has their voluntary self-exclusion information right on this page. This is customizable based on what the regulator would like to see. What we have here is a link to the New York form to fill out, the player can go to this form, fill it out themselves and it'll be sent back over to that MGM. If I don't want to self-exclude, I'm able to select this timeout button. If I do choose to timeout, we have information to the player here that details what they're allowed to do with their account. So obviously you cannot place any wagers, you cannot make it deposit, but you will still be able to withdraw your funds and you will not receive any promotional or bonus notifications or emails. So if I choose to continue, again, I can select time period and the reason and this is where I will stop because when I hit continue, I will be timed out of my account. So additional feature, I think it'll be good to go over is the strong authentication. So essentially what this does is if a player chooses to opt into strong authentication as part of the login process, once they enter in their username and password, they'll be sent a pin number to their mobile device. They'll have to enter that pin number ring and they'll then be able to proceed over to their, proceed into their account. And I think with that, that should be everything that we've been demoing today. Is there anything specific that we'd like to see that I did not cover? Could you go back to your page, please? It was just two pages ago. You had your fill up on the factor on. It was just the one before on limits. Just for on regulation. Setting for, I think, opting out. This page here. That's responsible gaming limits. I'm looking for the opt-out times. Oh, timeout, yes. Timeouts, yes please. And then the next page where you showed the different options. There we go. So you select the period which is good. It goes from three days to a week, to two weeks, to three weeks, to four weeks. And then what's that? So this, I can set a specific date within the year. And then you have one year timeout. So, yeah. And then I can. So you can add one year timeout. So, and how much notice does your map provide for if you're running out of, you're running, if you're approaching your timeout limit? So once the limit expires, the player is displayed a message that the limit has expired if they would like to extend it or remove it. So it's upon expiration you provide notice. But you don't provide necessarily, it's approaching notice. It's just upon expiration. Not from the platform. I don't know if we have internal controls. No, I just wondered, that's helpful for us to think about commissioners, right? Madam Chair, if I may, it's Richard Taylor. You know, I've thought about this question a lot over the past couple of years. And one of the things that keeps coming to mind is when somebody sets a cool off nine times out of 10, it's for a reason related to concerns about their gambling and problem gambling. And so if we were to reach out to them and let them know that this cool off is going to be expiring at a future date, my concern is that it starts a countdown timer for when I can get back to gambling and raises excitement levels that frankly I don't know if I'm comfortable with. Now there's an argument to be made on the other side where obviously you can offer them the ability to extend that cool off for that time out. But for me, I don't know if I'm there yet. Obviously whatever the commission requires us to do we will meet that requirement. But from my perspective, I just have some concerns about notifying somebody that their cool off is going to be expiring in 10 days a week or whatever the timeframe may be. Very helpful, Richard. Thank you. Thank you. I interrupted just because I did want to look at that page. Commissioners, while we have Roman and the technology, do you have anything about the device itself that you want to follow up on? Roman and you might be continuing on too. I might have... You still have more to... You know what? I actually just realized I meant to touch base on customer service as well. You do reference at a higher level, yes. So if we're going to access customer... If you don't want to see, I can end the presentation. This is good. Please. Thank you. Okay. So if I want to contact customer service, I'll go to my account avatar. I'll select the option here. We offer the player troubleshooting steps before connecting with an agent. So let's say I have an issue with geolocation. We're able to provide the player's videos to help get them through the issue they're having. If the player is still not able to resolve the issue on their own, you're then taken to the contact page. So we can select the live chat which is available 24-7. We have limited hours for phone contact and then the email. Madam Chair. Yes. I know we usually hold our questions to the end, but I think this one should be a red flag for a couple of us looking at this screen or at least for me for sure. And that is the hours of operation available to a live person on the phone. I see the hours are from 11 to 8. And I think I have voiced some concern, as have others, I don't want to speak for them, about the availability of a real person. And we were educated last week that there are times throughout the day that not a lot of people will be betting. So they've cut back their hours, but that was only, if I remember correctly, when we were being educated on that, maybe it was like a four-hour window. This looks to be a very big window without the opportunity for someone to be able to call if they have an issue. And I know you have live chat 24-7, and I see the little hand going near that. But there are many, like myself, who would like to be able to contact a real person and not a live chat. So could you just speak to that issue, please? And thank you, Madam Chair. That one I probably will hand off, but I believe the determination for the hours of availability are based on the regulatory request. So if a regulator wants 24-7 phone support, it's something that would be available. But if anybody else wants to jump in on the operations piece. Hi, Sarah here to talk about the regulatory requirements. So we do track and manage this across each jurisdiction within which we operate. Some jurisdictions don't require phone support at all, other than for a patron to be able to email in and say, please have someone call me. Other jurisdictions have limited phone hours that are required. And so we would obviously adhere to whatever guidance you all set forth for what your expectations would be with respect to staffing phone lines. So 11-8 is an example, and that's most commonly found because it's the highest volume of calls that we get across all of our jurisdictions within those business hours. But we track it constantly internally within our CS operations department and manage according to volume. Adam Chair. Yes. So you've answered the question why it's 11-8. If we weren't to regulate how many hours something has to be open, I would assume that it would be 11-8 in Massachusetts unless we were to do something regulatory wise. Is that what I think I just heard? Yes, sir. I have a phone call. Adam Chair. Oh, I'm sorry, sorry, Brad. I said okay. I hear the answer and I'm not sure I like the answer, but I understand the answer. Thank you, Commissioner Maynard. So I have a follow-up. If in the live chat function, one was to type, my entire life savings was transferred. Would they get a call even if it was outside of these hours basically with the live chat move quick enough to get someone on the phone for someone? Yes, that's a great question. And Rich Taylor, as you heard speak earlier, has established a very well-developed SOP for CS escalations of players who either threaten self-harm against an establishment or responsible gaming problematic behaviors, express any sort of issue with their play behavior or concerns that then are immediately flagged by a CS agent escalated to their supervisor. And then according to the content of the conversation, is escalated in whichever path is most appropriate, including a call from a supervisor, a wellness check from the local police authority, escalation to property security, if that's the case, if it were, let's say, a threat of harm against MDM Springfield. Rich, did I miss any of the details? No, you've summed it up pretty well. And one thing I just want to emphasize here is that we try to press authority to take action that needs to be taken to the lowest level possible. And so CS supervisor is one call away from the agents fielding the initial calls and issues from the customer. So they don't have to get to me for us to take care of a customer and send out a police department if that's what's required, for example. So we try to give our supervisors the ability to make decisions on the scene as quickly as possible. Mr. Maynard? No, thank you. What about $10,000 being transferred? Well, so amounts, that's a tricky question when it comes to RG and PG, because $10,000 means a lot different thing to me than it may mean to say or just to Michael Bloomberg or somebody else who has a significant amount of money. So we tend to focus more on behaviors and what the context of that conversation is. If it is, I need to get this deposited because I need to get on a hot streak to put food on the table, then of course we're going to escalate that as quickly as possible because that means something a lot different than, hey, $10,000 is a drop in the bucket for my bankroll because I am of extraordinary means, not me personally, unfortunately. But for those who do have the income and the ability to deposit $10,000, it's usually a customer friction issue rather than a problem gambling issue. So it's all about the context and I think training our employees to understand how to interpret context and the why really helps us to decipher what's going on and if it needs escalation or not. Got it. Can I just back up a little bit when we say live chat? Does that include AI predominantly or is it truly another human being that's just not on the phone? We don't utilize AI at this point. So this is customer arrived. Can I ask what languages are available when somebody calls on the phone? English right now. But we're actually in the process of establishing our Spanish support helpline and websites to provide that support for our patron and user experience. We do have Spanish speaking agents, but it's not formal. Any other plans for any other languages aside from Spanish? I don't know off hand. I'm sorry, but I can look into it and get back to you. That would be great. Thank you. That's really helpful. I'll set commissioners on this and I thought commissioners, I think it's appropriate to the extent that we're looking at the technology that someone who has a purpose has to ask her questions. So commissioners that want to go back to Roman down. He's going to be around. I'm sure if we need to. Okay. Great. Sarah, where is it? Ms. Loney. Are we on? Actually, I think I'm going to hand it back over to our chief compliance officer, Rhea Loney. Thank you. You're great. Thank you. So Ms. Loney, is that the complete completion of your presentation? That concludes our presentation, commissioners. We open it up to you all for questions. Okay. If you could take down the screen, that would be really helpful. Okay. Commissioners, it's 325. We will turn now to our internal experts. We followed our questions on this Ronie and Tom. We start to proceed section by section of the application. I want to offer commissioners the opportunity for a quick break. Or are you all set to proceed with our internal presentation? No one's asking for a break. I'm also set to move forward, Madam Chair. Okay. Then we're going to turn now to thank you first off for the presentation. If I did properly, thank you Ms. Loney. Excellent work by and we love being able to hear from so many members of your team. So thank you. Everybody did an excellent job. Moving on to our own presentation, we're going to hear from, I think, perhaps our Chief Information Officer is available today. Maybe not. But otherwise we have GLI members, as well as our IEV, as well as and my friends at GLI. I want to just make an introduction. There we are. I see Joe. So GLI is the first to write and set theme technical standards are considered to be the industry benchmark worldwide. GLI has continuously responded to the industry by innovating new standards and possibly allowing regulators to feel confident in providing a same responsible method of generation for their stakeholders and preservation of integrity. So I think I see a few representatives. I'm going to let you folks introduce yourselves because they're switching up as we go along. Good afternoon gentlemen. Good afternoon. I have with me Gabriel Benedict, account executive here at GLI who handles your jurisdiction. And Matthew Toller. He's got over 20 years at GLI and technical and compliance. So I'll actually and my name is Joseph Bonaveth, Director of Client Solutions at GLI. Thanks for having us. Madam Chair, members of commission, I'll give an overview of the submittal certification verification process regarding mobile applications and other digital platforms approved by the commission. Before we can take submittals, the mass gaming commission must approve 205CMR 247 and 248. That list has gotten smaller now. Thank you very much for approving 138 and 238 last week, which we drafted in consultation with your staff in an outside live form. After approval, the operators will submit their code bases for the entire sports wagering systems they intend to deploy. The submittal preparation includes the following if the platform, if it's a platform we're familiar with the modification list from last mission to one or more U.S. jurisdictions will be requested and reviewed to set the project plan for Massachusetts, considering any specific changes to the platform and all Massachusetts rules and regulations. If the product is new to the lab, we will review the technology architecture documentation, which is a complete comprehensive and technically accurate description and explanation of all sports wagering systems. This will include a description of all hardware devices in virtual service, all server and client software modules including the software versions, the later of all network communications between the various software and hardware modules, and an explanation of all third party integrated systems. Post the technical documentation review, critical files regarding compliance will be identified in documents. A complete project plan will be put in place, taking into account the unique architecture and design of the platform and the specific Massachusetts gaming commission rules and regulations. The lab will run a supervised complication of those source files, the signature of those files, and the compilation steps, and the signatures of all compiled code. Once complete, the source code can be submitted for testing in a lockdown environment. GLI review the player account management platform known as the PAM for registration, age, identification, verification, account controls, payments, reporting, responsible gaming controls, prior disclosures, and geolocation. Geolocation testing commences in two parts, a field test to verify borders through sampling along the entire border while completing edge case technical tests. A field test will also cover any other restricted areas as defined by the MGC. A subversive workaround detection will commence in the lab, including but not limited to VPN and proxy usage, GPS spoofing, code manipulation, and man in the middle tax. GLI will verify the sportsbook in total if not tested previously for the retail deployment, or review the integration of the sportsbook into the PAM for events, markets, point spreads, bed acceptance, and corresponding time stamps and logging. We'll verify the enforcement of bedding limits in all edge cases, and the pre-invent and live data feeds, post-event bed settling, corresponding time stamps, and all logging and reporting. We also review the change management process and procedures. After all the technical check officer met, certifications can be issued when GLI verifies the changes made for Massachusetts specific deployments, including source code differential and change testing to the latest reviewed version. And GLI has evaluated that all the product has met all the requirements specific to the Massachusetts gaming commission rules. After certifications are issued in MGC acceptance, the sepsum field verification will be conducted in conjunction with the FGC. This procedure will be finalized in the upcoming weeks. During that time, the following will commence verification at the production server, verify all critical file and signatures, and review of internal controls for procedures to operate the book, check the technology for configurations such as proper setup or roles in user-write management assignment, and potentially interview key personnel to ensure they know and will follow procedures from the internal controls. At that point, the operators and suppliers that have met the technical requirements they will be able to operate a sports book according to acceptance by the mass gaming commission. Thank you, Joe. You and your colleagues will be available for questions. We are here. Yes. Thank you so much. Okay. Thank you. Edward, thank you. So next, we'll start to share with you as I take our link to you, as I know. I see it's Kathleen Cramer of our our IEB this afternoon Attorney Cramer. We're going to hear from you as to report on the suitability of the application. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and Commissioners. The IEB submitted a report regarding the preliminary suitability of that MGM LLC. This applicant is seeking a category three license to be tethered to the category one licensee which is MGM Springfield. The IEB performed this review for preliminary suitability in accordance with the standards and criteria set forth in 205 CMR 215.01 subsection two. As a precursor to this review, the licensing division in conjunction with the IEB performed a scoping review of the applicant under section 5B of 23N and we identified four entities and seven individuals that we designated as qualifiers in connection with that that MGM application. Those qualifiers are listed on pages one and two of our report. The licensing division has performed a review of the existing submission for deficiencies and there are no substantial deficiencies. There have been ongoing communication over some pieces. The applicant has been responsive and nothing significant is outstanding. And as mentioned, the IEB's review was performed in accordance with the reg and that is set forth on page three of the IEB's report. I note again that this review was done for a preliminary suitability and we did not perform a full suitability investigation at this time. Our team was comprised of contract investigators including former members of the state police gaming enforcement unit, Attorney Mike Banks and his team, as well as contract investigators from the firm of RSM. And their work was performed with the collaboration and the oversight of the IEB of course. The review for preliminary suitability is summarized in the report and it includes the following. A summary of that MGM's licensing status as disclosed in its application. A summary of its compliance history and other jurisdictions as disclosed in the application. A summary of pending litigation valued at over a hundred thousand as disclosed in the application. A summary of open source review of the applicant. Individual qualifiers but not entity qualifiers pursuant to the right. And with respect to the RSM side that team prepared a report that appears as exhibit one and they reviewed disclosed financial information of the applicant. In this case their review was supplemented by financial filings of the publicly traded ultimate parent company MGM resorts as filed with the SEC. RSM presented financial ratios. They reviewed forecasting submissions submitted by the applicant in its general application and they summarize self reported history of judgments. At this point I would otherwise rest on the report that we submitted to the commission and of course we will have members of both teams available for any question that the commissioners may have. Thank you Kathleen. Now I'll move on to RSM. Thank you. Good afternoon Jeff. Good afternoon Madam Chair. I assume you may have colleagues joining you for you by your home today. There'll be some some that are with are with us but I'll I'll be on my own in terms of presenting. Okay so RSM U.S. self LTV is one of the leading providers of product tax and consultant services in the United States. RSM has been working with the National Gaining Commission to provide insights and analyses to help the commission. And I will Jeff is our lead today and he leads RSM's strategic finance practice and we have asked the team to look at precisely a sections B2 section B's sports wagering experience description sports wagering operation. RSM has been asked to focus on applicants estimated market share with each jurisdiction as well as section C2 the projected revenue section. RSM has been asked to provide insights into all aspects of the applicants projected revenue. We've asked them to also look at G3 financial stability and integrity. RSM has been asked to provide insights into all aspects of the applicants financial stability and integrity. And this exercise is in addition to the work that they get in connection with the suitability record that we just heard from IEP on. Is that a go for you Jeff now? Please feel free to elaborate on your experience. Perfect. Yes. Thank you. Thank you commissioner. Hi everyone. Jeff Katz here. Part of RSM I lead our strategic finance and FPNA practice and I'm based in Boston. You know, it was instructed by the MGC. We conducted a preliminary review of each category three applicants market share submission materials in tandem with other investigators involved in this process regarding the category three temporary license process. Much of the information shared is likely confidential including market share and projections. We're happy to discuss those items in detail in an executive session. We're happy to speak generally about the process by which the applicant shared such information in this public forum. In RSM's preliminary market study the jurisdictional rules and what other nearby markets are doing may impact any of these applicants market size and sports or composition in a given state. For instance, when Massachusetts goes live it is probable that neighboring states will see a decrease in sports wagering activity as patrons stay home and place their bets rather than crossing state lines to do so. Given the evolving nature of the online sports wagering and the varying number of platforms and different jurisdictions it is difficult to predict the ultimate composition of the marketplace even after conducting extensive market research but we can say it is being viewed as a lucrative long-term growth market by operators and industry analysts. Some analysts are predicting plus 10 percent Kager compound annual growth rate. If all applicants currently pending review are ultimately granted a license Massachusetts would end up with an above average number of sports books operating in the market. In jurisdictions where sports betting is legal there are between one in 25 sports books operating in individual states. For example, New Jersey has 25 sports books Pennsylvania has 14 New York has 9 Connecticut has 3 and Rhode Island has 1. That is broadly associated with a larger ultimate market size and a lower hold percentage benefiting the consumer. Hold percentage is for your reference percentage of total wagers or the handle kept by the sports book. And this of course is still developing. It is anticipated that and we're already seeing some consolidation will occur in the industry both through merger activity and operators exiting the business unable to sustain losses. Speaking broadly the online sports wagering experience of the Massachusetts applicant pool has varied levels of industry experience. They are represented by both domestically and international players and some have decades of experience and others are still in the process of building their platform. The commission has received IEB's report addressing the suitability review led by the team and that report has reviewed the applicant's self-disclosed financial submission looking at a select few sections of the application those being section C2 and G3 broadly comprising historical financial performance of sports wagering and other jurisdictions liquidity and ability to fund upstart cost and losses financial projections in Massachusetts and financial impact of compliance risks bankruptcies and other legal items. We understand that the purview of the IEB's report was intentionally limited in scope to provide the commission with facts from which to draw their own conclusion. RSM intends to speak broadly about the applicant in front of you today. Bet MGM is equally owned through a 50-50 partnership between U.S. publicly traded MGM resorts and UK publicly traded Intel PLC. The applicant provided financial disclosures for Bet MGM and NTAIN. MGM resorts has previously been issued a determination of suitability and our view is limited to select public filings. The applicant provided high-level projections for operations in Massachusetts under three operating scenarios. The forecast methodology to estimate the total Massachusetts market size and gross gaming revenue and then apply a market share percentage. This is a different methodology than some of the other applicants but it is entirely valid way to make a forecast. This methodology results in fewer data points to compare to industry standards. For example, there's not a handle or hold but this should not be seen as negative or strike. The projected market share capture rate percentage is constant through the five-year forecast period. The applicant projects growth in the total Massachusetts addressable market each year of the forecast and multiplies these estimates by a static market share percentage. This estimated TAM is very conservative or low in year one of the projections that BEDMGM provided and grows into a reasonable estimate by year five. We know from experience other jurisdictions scaled quickly upon the online sports betting rollout then settled into a single-digit annual growth rate thereafter. If this were seen in Massachusetts and the applicant's projected market share capture were realized they would significantly outperform their projected revenue figures. We view these projections as reasonable and in many ways conservative. Turning to liquidity, as stated earlier BEDMGM is an evenly split joint venture owned equally by MGM resorts and NTAIN. Both parent entities have been providing financial support and technical resources on an as needed basis. Both MGM resorts and NTAIN are publicly traded organizations and are reporting their financials to regulators. As presented in their publicly available London stock exchange traded filings after the second quarter of 2022 NTAIN reported approximately 567 million in available liquidity to support its ongoing operations comprised entirely of cash. RSM has identified that 236 million is payable in the next 12 months on NTAIN's total long-term debt balance. As presented in their publicly available SEC filings as of the third quarter of 2022 MGM resorts has reported 7.3 billion in total liquidity comprised of 5.3 billion in cash and 2 billion in an undrawn revolving credit facility. RSM has identified that one and a half billion is payable in the next 12 months on MGM resorts total long-term debt balance. Both parent companies have a capital cushion from which to fund operations. It is ultimately up to the applicant's parent on how to allocate its financial resources. If faced with future losses there is no guarantee it will continue sports wagering operations in Massachusetts but they seemingly have the resources to do so if they desire. RSM will remain on the line to answer any questions commission may have about this presentation or our written submission. If there are further specific questions on the contents of our report we are happy to discuss those in an executive session. Thank you. Thank you Jeff. Commissioners now we can turn to our own evaluation of the application itself by going through the application on a section by section basis as I've said in the past at the conclusion of our review of each section. I'd ask for any comments you'd like to share and you could get every question answered from both the applicant and our other resources and then we would try to learn whether we have a consensus as to the quality of the response to each application. Before we begin this do we need to take a break it is quarter of four. I could use five minutes. And then perhaps my frequent request is that I too could use five. So if the applicant will bear with us it's quarter of four. We'll come back at 350 commissioners and get right to business. Thank you so much. Thank you Dave. Good to go. Thanks so much. I think that commissioner he'll might be I am I am here just having issues with the video. So yep. Thank you. I just had to find your name. Thank you. He's just transitioning to on that. All right. So this is a reconvening of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission public meeting number 14. And I will take a roll call because we're using a virtual platform. Commissioner O'Brien. I am here. Thank you. Commissioner Hill. I'm here. Commissioner Skinner. I am here. And Commissioner Maynard. I'm here. Okay. So we'll get started. Now we're going to proceed through the application. And I to my notes organize. Which we're going to start with section B and individual questions on section B. Madam Chair. I have a question. Yes. Go right ahead. I'm going to ask you again. Thank you. Madam GM. Are you licensed in Maryland or no? I thought I saw a reference to the application being filed in October 2022. But then I know that there's some activity occurring in that jurisdiction. Could you clarify please? Yes. Commissioner we do now hold licenses in Maryland. That's correct. When we submitted this application we were likely in the process of applying but we are now licensed. Is there any other additional one Ms. Lonny that you want to mention that's updated or is Maryland the only one? I believe that is the only one. Let me confirm. Correct. That's the only one. That's fine. Other questions on section B. I'm just going to follow up with the presentation and then maybe the commissioners will have a chance to look at their notes. You indicated that your compliance department has increased and that's to be commended from a very small handful to now 75 members with 40 on operations. When you, when we're learning we're learning as we go in terms of this industry and when there are compliance matters or issues that come up. Can you describe to me the process and how it might flow to I imagine would be with respect to the compliance committee and if you could describe that process and then also the membership of the compliance committee. Yes, Madam Chair, we have a three person compliance committee and we have an overarching compliance plan that's been approved by our board. The three members of our compliance committee are comprised of one member from each of our joint venture parents MGM and one member from Intain and then an independent member. There are requirements to have additional expertise in the gaming industry. The compliance committee does hold quarterly calls and meetings and at that meeting we will go through any matters any incidents we'll follow our compliance plan. We'll go through any vendor due diligence and then that will be reported through the compliance to the compliance committee at that quarterly meeting. In addition, we hold meetings in between each quarterly meeting just due to our growth and scaling and as you all know the industry is changing very frequently. So we do coordinate with them more frequently than quarterly. Thank you. Questions on first section B Commissioner Skinner. Thank you. I have a question about the share my bet feature of the online platform. Not sure who to direct this question to but the individuals who get forwarded a patron's bet information be a text email or social media does that recipient data their information is that retained at all in any capacity by that MGM Commissioner Skinner if you do not mind I would like to ask Roman Rubis with our technical compliant technical governance to join. I believe the answer is no but I'd like him to confirm that for me. And he can share how that's shared. No that's that's correct. We don't store that player's information that's being sent the the bet details. Additionally if I send somebody my bet that I placed on the platform what they receive is essentially access to a logged out state of the sports book. So they would have to go back and whoever I send that to would actually need to go through the KYC process create an account in order to go ahead and place that bet that I just sent them. So what information does a patron excuse me a better need to provide in order to share that that information? So if I select the share my bet option I'm presented with a screen where I can input one of my buddy's email addresses and send them a link to that bets list. And it's just in that example it's just the email address it's not first name last name or any thing. Yeah, no no personal information. Correct. Thank you. Mishir's other questions. One of the question commissioner are you asking and maybe when we have been trying to learn more about the practice of pre-registration of of customers and we have not devised a regulation around that and have been advised by GLI generally that there are no states with regulations on either pre-registration in other words registration of customer conservation and register registration prior to licensure and also no no regulation in any other state that prohibits reloading or loading of the the accounts and in fact GLI said that that is a general practice across the jurisdiction across the industry and when I think I asked that question it wasn't it was really around issues that I think commissioner Maynard and I shared around equity it's because we did decide to launch retail in advance of online gaming commissioner Maynard you can you can chime in I am only speaking as to Massachusetts right now but to the extent that this is a general practice and it's not something that would put anyone at a commercial disadvantage do you know Ms. Loney if that's happening with Massachusetts and also whether there's loading of accounts in other words if this is something that needs to be discussed in executive session I'm fine with that but I am only talking about the the anticipated practice for Massachusetts Madam Chair I will only speak for our operation in that currently we are not doing pre-registration in Massachusetts you know so I think we would ask the commission to have further discussion around you know what what you all would like to do for that I can say that it is generally industry practice to allow some sort of pre-registration our ask would be as you mentioned there to be sort of an equitable time where everyone would be able to begin that practice at the same time Thank you very helpful Todd we could that's on our regular list so thank you and maybe we maybe I know that we we've had some affirmative requests for guidance so another for you executive director DeWales I would say this is another request for guidance so thank you okay any other questions on with respect to section B with respect to marketing strategies or marketing plans do we have any questions on that so Madam Chair I have some questions on that but I didn't know if we were going to do that in responsible gaming or in B do you want to hold until responsible gaining commissioner Brian that's fine too I think any marketing questions that I would have would be primarily concerning how responsible gaming my mostly I have some credit card questions some of the phone number questions we already talked about the call line and then I have a marketing kind of partnership question but I think they all for fallen responsible gaming okay and you know what we're not so structured if you're if we have to get returned back that's fine too okay I guess I'll I'll I'll ask this general question Ms. Lone well I'm assuming that that MGM will use third party affiliates for marketing purposes and promotional purposes that's correct Madam and and can you tell me will that MGM be able to retain full control over the content of any third party affiliates marketing strategies Madam Chair I would ask Sarah Brennan to join for that portion as the general marketing compliance does fall under her department the answer is to some degree yes but she can speak more specifically on this matter thank you hi Sarah hi so our group works closely with the partners and affiliates teams within the marketing department to ensure that the same guidance and guidelines we provide our internal teams with respect to good marketing practice responsible gaming AGA standards the appropriate disclaimers and RG helpline information and then general good ethics and marketing are also communicated to all of our affiliates we do at times vet the materials that are sent but we don't we don't review every asset that a third party affiliate would be marketing um we do however closely monitor what they are putting into the market and there's an affiliate dashboard for them to access the disclaimer information in real time if we ever discover there's an issue there's an immediate action on behalf of our affiliate partnership team reaching out to that third party and saying you need to pull XYZ down if we see something that we don't approve or that is missing the appropriate disclaimers so there's a lot of conversation back and forth a lot of cooperative effort in marketing also our um players when they registered for an account it's all part of the privacy policy in terms of service is an agreement to receive marketing from those partners with which we hold an agreement like Yahoo for example any follow-up questions commissioners on that yes and so what if you do if if one of these third party marketers does something violation of the rules in one or multiple jurisdictions so it depends it's jurisdictionally specific because some third party affiliates are required to hold a license in a jurisdiction so there would be regulatory implications on their licensing status if they were to do something egregious say we would be reevaluating our partnership with them because obviously we wouldn't condone behavior that was in complete disregard of the regulatory parameters especially those by which we'd communicated to them you have a zero tolerance or is it a three strikes you're out or is it a case by case I would say it's a case by case if there's an honest mistake where an affiliate puts leaves off three words of a disclaimer obviously we're not going to sever a relationship with them but let's say they are marketing to underage players that would be cause for complete reevaluation of the partnership can you give me an example of a jurisdiction where they have to be licensed Josh Wiseman can you chime in for me on specifically where in New Jersey there's pretty significant licensing requirements but I'll let Josh she's our licensing expert good afternoon my name is James Wishers let's see what I got so we work with several marketing affiliates that are licensed across the US some of the jurisdictions where they're required to want to license include New Jersey Pennsylvania Indiana Michigan Maryland to name a few and so they all of the licensing requirements that are somewhat different but they all do hold licenses we make sure that the licenses are a good standing before we work with the nature of the jurisdiction and they're thoroughly padded by various regulators across the US and you wouldn't happen to know whether there's reciprocity in the licensing in that regard across New Jersey so the affiliates have to hold their own license similar to our licensing process in Massachusetts we have to the affiliates disclose the other jurisdictions where they have where they hold the license so it can have some influence but they still have to be padded and licensed by by those regulators and department thank you other questions for section B hearing none commissioners I'll take your temperature can we feel that they've met expectations for our ability to evaluate this application importance of the standards that turn a person I feel that that MGM has met expectations on section B not yet thank you commissioner standard commissioner maynard I concur commissioner O'Brien or commissioner hill I concur as well this is commissioner ale now I agree since then thank you commissioner hill you agreed as well correct somebody was it it wasn't confirmation okay thank you so much all right then we'll move on to section C questions on section C commissioner um she's sorry so I guess my question so you anticipate from my understanding maybe one job actually to be located in the commonwealth is that correct commissioner let me bring on my head of licensing as well who who is a little closer to that I believe that is that is correct but josh weisman yeah so betting jam currently has two employees who are located within massachusetts they're remote employees who support the business across the u.s. at the time of our license application we submitted job description and then the other relevant information about a a sports book manager that would be a betting jam hire as we've worked through the process that position is now in all likelihood going to be employed directly by in jim's works by jim's springfield rather than by by betting jam so as it currently stands we'll have the two remote employees but the staffing of the sports book and jim's springfield will be handled by by jim's springfield itself for the retail operation so you're amending the application effectively to say zero added jobs is that a fair statement correct zero international decisions yes okay thanks other questions on section c treasurer maynard thank you madam chair in order to be consistent I have been as my fellow commissioners have been asking about the lottery question I know that mgm and the cat one situation did amend their answer on the record to discuss the mo u that they have in place and their willingness to continue to work with the the lottery and the treasury I'm assuming but I I wanted to get confirmation that bet mgm was willing to work with them also commissioner Joshua Weissman as well would you like to jump in on that one certainly so the answer would be asked as it stands right now that mgm doesn't have a commercial relationship with the lottery but we understand that our friends at mgm springfield supplemented and provided a lot of additional information about the relationship that they have as it pertains to the retail operation and has been as has been discussed when we're working with them very closely with the retail operation and then we have a lot of many involved we have a process there I have a follow-up but maybe are you following up commissioner so I have a follow-up on that you know if you're fortunate to have the treasure come and appear in front of us and make an appeal so we've been keeping her appeal in mind am I right that in your patient engagement you will probably be visiting and making arrangements with local establishments to promote your app is that something you're imagining do you do that we've heard it presented in different ways from other applicants and then I'll have a follow-up on the lottery yes madam chair we would we would do that with local establishments when it would when it makes sense from a marketing perspective correct right so when you're at those local establishments that's probably where the intersection of your online products most mostly are connected with the lottery products particularly Kino or that they sell if they sell or sale the tickets themselves so that's again an opportunity if you'll keep in mind when you're going out to those local establishments that the products are different and they can in fact really complement each other so there's a true opportunity for some kind of an emerging partnership and in Massachusetts we are we're very proud of the the success of the Massachusetts lottery and we're also under our gaining a statute really required to make sure to protect it so we're looking for your partnership in that effort so thank you other other questions or sections Steve I had a a follow-up question somewhat in terms of that section that last one about community engagement you you know may or may not have been on earlier in the day when we were segregating your role as vendor for MGM versus standing on your own in this application and the one part of this that was disappointing to me was you kept referring to MGM's role in terms of their community engagement and their charity support and local support and I didn't really hear very much on what bed MGM is going to bring to the table in terms of adding to that effort so if somebody could speak to what bed MGM and tends to do to complement what MGM itself is already doing I would appreciate it sure and Sarah is this one that you would want to take or would you want marketing to speak to this or Anna? I think Anna is most likely the best person on our team to weigh in on this and as she referenced in her presentation about our continued investment not only within our organization but in the communities within we operate which is something that you know would obviously have more impact once we were live in Massachusetts and could implement a strategy but Anna is still on the line and can pick this up as well can everybody hear me this time? Anna, yes. Okay, great. Yeah, so the way that are giving works at that MGM is it's a little bit different because we are a joint venture so all of our giving actually rolls through our ERGs so however the ERGs have positioned their mission and then the goals that are associated with those missions we have giving mechanisms through that so you know we do have an allotted amount of money for the seven ERGs to have community involvement whether that's volunteer work whether that's just giving whether that's sponsoring events but it does need to be run through the ERGs and so like I mentioned before the Tom Joyner Foundation is one of those examples we went to out and equal this year which was another one afro tech was another one that we did this year so we have different mechanisms for being involved in the community but they do run through the ERGs and do you have any goals in terms of dollar amounts or percentages based on your market share you know anything like that or is it just we don't at this point we just have a budget that's given to the ERGs that split up equally for them to utilize okay so everybody's getting equal okay yeah yeah thanks yeah I think Anna my question and I'm actually going to also defer to Commissioner Skinner I wanted to be clear about goals for diversity spend and goals for workforce and higher to the extent that you have them and otherwise your plans for setting them and meeting them exceeding them exceeding always always pushing to exceed yeah so as I mentioned we have our commitment to have those goals set by early quarter one of 2023 we don't have them currently I have made my suggestion and I have met with our my partner that is in procurement Richard Kim and he is now in the process of running by our agreed goals by our our finance and then once we get sign off then we will start to implement that like I said department by department and that's for Shen correct Anna yes and 2023 is actually I know so are you going to what are you thinking in terms of 2023 yeah so I know that he actually has his meeting this week I my hope is that we have something that is agreed upon by I'm going to just say January by the end of January I'd like it to be starting to roll out in February and that's on the pressure scanner this is really one area that you press on you have other companies I was going to hold them until we got to section D but it's not a problem I'm sorry no worries so I believe Anna you gave the presentation on section D you did highlight you did highlight one positive step in the direction of identifying diversity goals and that is your relationship with your supplier diversity vendor supplier IO can you talk a little bit about what it is that that entity offers and how you're capitalized on that to develop those goals yes so it is a diversity sourcing platform and they have a very large or sorry you're I'm talking about we have two different vendors that we've brought into play this year so that one is for recruitment supplier IO is for our diversity supplier it's a platform and they also have a very large database that they have made available to us for different vendors that meet diversity requirements whether that is minority owned women owned or veteran owned LGBTQ owned or small businesses so they actually have taken we've we've been keeping track we just needed somebody to help us manage it so they've taken all of our list of our vendors and they are currently going through them right now to verify whether or not they qualify as a diverse vendor depending on the qualifications and the state that they're in and whether they have the yeah whether they qualify so once we have that number back then we'll kind of have our baseline to where we start from and and then they will continually keep track and they'll be able to once we roll out our goals to the different departments they will be able to supply us with list of diverse vendors for us to put in the the bidding process to suggest to our departments as part of reaching their goals if I'm hearing you correctly thank you Anna you don't currently have a mechanism to identify your current diverse vendors and and that's where Sophia IO comes in we we did not until this year and so we I created a form so this year maybe at the beginning of I'm trying to remember when I rolled that out it actually might have been at the beginning of 2021 I updated our new vendor form so anything before me we did not have so we had to retroactively like that kind of the bigger list that they're going through is we did not keep track until I came on I updated the the vendor supplier form and so now all new vendors have to fill out a section on diversity supplier requirements so we have been keeping track since 2021 but they are going and through and compiling everything and so since you have I guess instituted this process where whereby you've revised the form and that is now required for vendors to complete do you have any information on what your current diversity spend is to share I do not I can probably get you something that'd be great thank you sure and and sorry go ahead oh I just said mm-hmm yep okay and then lastly you you mentioned that you have an idea of what your goals should be around diversity spend yeah to share what what that is that those because you are they only just tell us a little bit about what those numbers are based on wait yep go go ahead I've got to say we won't hold you to it if you still need to bet it with your other your other yes yes so my my recommendation and like I said Richard Kim who is has has done diversity supplier work at his previous job before coming to bet NGM this year we've agreed that two percent should be an attainable goal across the company you know I would love to shoot for five but I want to make sure that we are able to to meet that so my recommendation is two percent and I will and and that is department by department it's not just company-wide two percent across all categories so the two percent total two percent across the categories okay so two percent in each categories yes okay and what is that two percent based on what's that recommendation based on when we were having these conversations it was he has come from companies that have done up to 10 percent and he said that you know that normally is not a attainable goal and and then he said five percent is kind of where people stick around so by going in at two percent to kind of get us in the in the in the groove how this works and help us meet those goals that was kind of the recommendation that that he had but looking forward to getting more information once the process is cleared by your your colleague yes yes me too the percentages don't really mean a whole lot if we don't understand the universe of you know the number of vendors that that MGM currently works with so right some additional information is going to be really helpful and understanding the process and the goals are definitely thank you Mr. Skinner my apologies my notes I actually wrote don't forget it's in section D so I did jump ahead my apologies so with that really awesome discussion on section D I do want to make sure I don't forget to close out section C and so if you have additional questions on section D hold them and we'll go back anything else on section C my apologies that answered my question I was going to know whether I should dive into D or keep my peace for the moment I'll do that yeah I am I type type out my questions and I just put it out of place my apologies so I have no further questions on section C I'm not hearing any further from commissioner Maynard commissioner Hill commissioner Skinner you're all set as well okay so we have do we feel as though the applicant has met our expectations with respect to the quality of that response commissioner Maynard you're nodding your head yes okay commissioner Skinner yes for me thank you commissioner O'Brien yeah I would have likes I would have liked some more detail but I think it satisfies a threshold okay and commissioner Hill I believe they met expectations excellent thank you okay now appropriately moved to section D with a good introduction and response commissioner Skinner I don't know if you had another question to ask on that or other commissioners questions commissioner Skinner no I'm sorry madam chair I've exhausted my questions okay excellent I yes so my question about diversity equity inclusion have to do with the workforce diversity stats which I had difficulty really identifying what they were and some of the ones that I saw were not great in terms of when I was looking at some of the gender and ethnic diversity but maybe I'm not reading this correctly so if somebody can speak to what your stats are in your general workforce and then also with clarity on your upper level management looking through the stats when he got to C-suite and director and manager I was trying to sort out what your stats were yeah I know those the dashboard can be a little bit difficult so I apologize if the screenshots were not easy to read so yeah currently our breakdown of female male and non-binary is 31 percent 67 percent and 2 percent respectively as far as our ethnic and racial breakdowns we have 8 percent of our population identifies as Asian 16 percent identify as Black 18 percent identify as Hispanic or Latino 3 percent identify as Pacific Islander 52 percent identify as White and 5 percent identify as two or more races within our executive leadership team with the addition of Rhea we have a gender diversity is 25 percent and our racial diversity we actually just have one member of our nine member team who does not identify as White so can you so what I'm sorry can you clarify for me what you're trying what you're trying about your C-suite at this point or where are we yeah or yes yes that's your C-suite so one of how many of nine one of nine and 25 female in the C-suite and correct identify as female I understand right sorry that it's actually probably closer to 22 percent 22 percent yeah two people out of nine and did you say one one of nine does not identify as White as White correct in our C-suite one of nine executive leadership team in the C-suite and the C-suite is nine and then I know you may not have this breakdown and if a national skin commission is always interested in it you went through your numbers over all other besides the C-suite do you have any statistics on leadership development with respect to minorities or gender based um I your director manager you had two other levels in there yeah the director senior director level and then manager yeah I I can get that for you director senior director and manager level yeah at 538 in your app you have a director slash senior director level and then 539 you have a manager level manager but I couldn't really decipher the stats okay and you want and you want the breakdown for gender and then race and ethnicity on those yeah sure I'm happy to get that for you and then just wondering if we we've talked about the the gender issue in particular and some of our other licensees that have pretty robust programs in terms of particularly promoting from within and I'm curious if you have anything specific I know you talked about the one program and forgive me I'm forgetting the name of it now yeah progressive women's leadership platform yeah is there do you have any other programs is that the the the main program that you have we we actually just launched this year take the lead which is it's not gender specific but it is for anybody in our organization that's a people leader and that was a nine month program that dealt with everything from inclusive leadership to well-being to critical conversation so the those kind of core leadership skills so we did that this next year like I said we'll be having the empower mentorship program so because and that is only open to our employee resource group members so because the women's ERG is part of that they will have access to that mentorship program as well so those would probably be the main things that I would point to for for now and I I do want so Brian did mention the bar not get which is lengthy 538 because I thought I'd read it it's the one the one on pf with everything yeah that's a lot and we can provide guidance on so and then on 539 at the director level in that manager level and it is across right now which it was exceptional that you broke out in that ethnic component it's the way you did we don't always hear that right now so I think that's very very helpful commissioners I don't know if you have the scrolled version but pretty sure Brian if you wanted to complete your thoughts I'm seeing in this under two weeks you heard those clearly under the director position the black color we should look at correct female is I'm going to see if I can also look at my platform while you're right while you're looking there so it's a little bit broken down in that I don't really know how to interpret it actually well that's I had difficulty interpreting the graphs because it's all that was my question got any want to maybe it's if there's anyone oh I feel like I need a remedial graph reading exercise so count of employees is on the side women and for white women they make up about 30% of the director positions maybe is that how to look at it and then white male make up you know that doesn't make sense either because then you're leaving out the is that one just a gender yeah this is gender breakdown by ethnic gender breakdown by ethnicity and the director senior director positions okay yeah so that that's because I want to look at the information intersectionally right so I don't want to write just think about our people as as gender and as ethnicity but you know if if black women are having a different experience in getting into leadership roles than white women then I want to be able to see what that looks like so I think that that's probably why that looks that way but I'm not sure exactly what you're looking at so I'm trying to look on my dashboard to see if if I can find my own numbers to explain in your in your but I can't tell what age it is for you I can't tell what it is for me which is a a big page it's the it's so if you go to d3a you guys put some charts in in response to your answer to d3a okay d3 and and I appreciate that intersectionality a lot Anna and understand that it's you're also it's evolving so I understand that so I just wanted to make sure that you were giving credit for being responsive and the fact that we're just having a little trouble navigating it yeah I can offer some support to Anna as well I'm one of the chairs of the women at Bed MGM ERG and I'm also the chairwoman of the development committee within the ERG itself and I think one of the points that we want to stress to you all in our communication about our investment and commitment to DEI is that you know Anna joined the team and prior to Anna you know she's revolutionized this for us at Bed MGM we take it extremely seriously we've had significant investment on behalf of all business functions within Bed MGM representation cross-functionally across the entire company and as a chair of the development committee and a senior director a woman in leadership at Bed MGM I have been able to hear authentically the experience of those who identify as women at Bed MGM and then help to mentor and lead them which I think is a testament to Bed MGM's commitment in this space and as you alluded to we're evolving and we're growing we don't want to you know necessarily say like well our parent company does this and we do that too we would rather come to you authentically and say listen we're in the foundational stages of this but we are all in on it this investment that we are committing to making in 2023 is one that is supported by executive leadership of the company Rhea has been with us just a short time but has been a really solid influential woman leader for us at Bed MGM already in her short time and I think again it's a testament to the business's investment in this space you know Anna is amazing I don't need to tell you that you can probably tell from her testimony here and so looking forward to where these programs continue to grow and proud to be a leader both of the women at Bed MGM ERG but also the development committee which is focused on internal growth Commissioner O'Brien as you had asked I myself have have been promoted twice at Bed MGM just through hard work and commitment and you know the company chose to invest internally I consistently look across my team and look for opportunity for upward mobility both from in the compliance team and external departments we've absorbed individuals from the CS departments who joined the team as entry level folks hourly based who are now salary compliance employees and so I think it's truly a sense of community and investment at Bed MGM and I you know I can't stress enough you know what a great job Anna's done but that we do ask for you to also realize that this is an evolving and growing commitment for us to which we take very seriously but we maybe don't have you know picture perfect responses on it today but we will a year from now for sure and I do have the graph up here so if we're looking at director and senior director okay so that's on for our purposes if you have the 12 version that's by 38 commissioners so out of 29 white director senior director identified employees nine of those are female which is 31.03 percent is that kind of what you're looking for and then I can go it's very helpful okay it's extremely thoughtful but just thank you sure I all credit is due to our our bi team who actually built me this dashboard so that that I can keep track of these things so next we have our Asian identified employees in at this job level and we have six total so five of those are male and one is a female at 16.67 percent of the total population and what what level are we on we're on director and senior director level okay thank you sure and then we have those who identify as Hispanic or Latino and all of those you can see a hundred percent are male and that's three employees that identify that race and ethnicity the last category that we have for self ID is two or more races and we have 5050 breakdown one male and one female so then they're not they're not also captured in the other categories right they're that's the if it's two or more is that a separate category are they also potentially captured no yeah you you only identify at least in our self ID as two or more okay yeah how many director or senior director positions do you have employees excuse me I'd have to do this math really quickly so 29 35 38 40 it looks like at that director senior director level and so what just in terms of raw numbers what is the number people of color you have the minorities in that category let me pull out my calculator really quick so we have six nine so 11 so 11 which would be 28 percent thank you and if I as non-white thank you if you're already I can move to the manager level yes please okay so our manager level those who identify as white we have 54 males and 25 females so that is 31.65 females and those who identify as Asian at this level we have nine males and six identified females which is 40 percent those who identify as black or African-American we have nine males and three females is 25 percent those who identify as Hispanic or Latino five males three females which is 37.5 percent and those who identify as two or more we have two males three females just 60 percent so if you give me a second I will do the math again really fast so two is five I'm pointing out these graphs wasn't necessarily to have to drill down every number because I think I mean we want to be there and I'll be careful here but well I did want to make sure that Anna and team got credit for providing what was told that even though we may have if you didn't have numbers in it and perhaps professionally but it did have a representation so I just think that's brought Anna up I just want to make sure you got full credit for combining I appreciate that it's it's important for sure and I think you appreciate the clarification because people like Commissioner Brian and the chair I had difficulty deciphering the charts yeah of course so I apologize that it was it's it's something that's interactive when I'm in the the actual dashboard I can hover over things so I apologize if it wasn't clear in this no no apologies needed and the it represents a certain degree of nuance that we don't see with all you know public so thank you very much other other questions for Anna I just want to end with a from my point of view I saw and I you know I've reviewed this a bit about this piece anyway but it looked as though you had done some kind of a self-assessment among your colleagues all your fellow employees about inclusion and it looked like a a third party did that surveying for you and I I it's multiple one that you you did that and two that it came out that's actually sounds like that might be your baseline and it was yeah that was the first thing that I did when I started was I engaged culture amp which is industry leader as a third party vendor for surveying to to get a pulse of where we were at to start they also have a really really robust self-identification breakdown so that goes into caregiver socioeconomic status so you can really dive in and see what your people are experiencing at you know different identity levels and we actually we've we have adjusted the way that we do that so now it's not just at annual survey it's part of quarterly survey now that we do so it's it's not as long that's just inclusion focused there is an inclusion survey that we do now in Q3 that is a longer one but there are now I want to say nine or 10 the same questions that we're asking in every survey so whether that's on benefits or whether that is you know work flexibility the different things that we're surveying on throughout the year there is a inclusion piece of that so we can keep a bit better gauge on that throughout the year not just annually but then like I said it's really important that we act on it as well well I am I just wanted to commend you for that and then I think I want to take a pulse of my fellow commissioners with respect to section D and Anna and teams or commissioners I have a clarifying question before I do that Anna first of all thank you so much for walking us through this and thank you for as the chair and as pointed out a a robust set of information though I also needed the clarification Commissioner Skinner asked in the last section if you would be willing to provide us with the information that you do have understanding that you don't have it all up to this point I just wanted to make sure that that was something that you were willing yeah yeah on supplier diversity specifically yes yep I took a note and I will as soon as I am off camera I will reach out and and look to see what our spend has been the only this is the problem with it with the information that we have like I said prior to when I started we weren't tracking and so I don't know how accurate it's going to be so I can give you the the amount of our vendors who identify as diverse suppliers right now from when I came on in 2021 and we changed up that form but from 2018 to 2021 we weren't tracking it and so to me it's not very accurate for me to report on that because we're not getting the full breadth of you know we might be missing a swath of people who will actually do identify as diverse suppliers that wouldn't be captured in that information I'm happy to give you what I have from 2021 on but it doesn't seem very represent representative which is why I didn't supply it there's no information included in the application on that today so anything that you provide would be really helpful yeah of course I'm happy to give you what I've got from 2021 yep and that's perfectly understandable you've stated that on the record why you can't and I appreciate that with that said Madam Chair I would say that they do meet my expectations given the caveat that we're going to get this information yeah agree with that same caveat Madam Chair to Mr. Ryan same here Mr. Hill I agree okay so we're all set then with that additional information move on to thank you everyone I'll get that to you as soon as I can thank you and you know if you don't have to get back to us this moment it's just fine thank you so much okay Section E question this is on responsible gaming and thank you Richard thank you I can yes sorry I'm just I can circle back to sort of the C references that you were making earlier it goes into the responsible gaming plan you've gotten a couple spots in your application you reference the fact that you don't take credit cards as part of your protocols and I'm just wondering do you also have mechanisms that would enforce a reg if we had one that said you can't do credit cards or one step removed from that I'll take the first part of the question and just clarify that that would only apply in Massachusetts or any other jurisdiction where credit cards are prohibited right um perfect just want to make sure actually we can't have credit cards and you know the intent not getting into credit card debt there are some jurisdictions that go beyond that and we may go beyond that saying and you know you also can't one step remove so I'm just wondering if you guys have that and other jurisdictions and to be implemented yeah so if you just clarify I couldn't quite hear or the second part please or one step removed that the whole concept we've been talking about of the one step removed from a direction one step removed I didn't quite hear that term yeah or yeah secondary yeah thank you and for for that part of the question I'm going to defer to my manager of finance Kieran Conlin who can talk a little bit more about the the mechanics of how we receive payments if he's here yep yep hi everyone I just join on for that for this uh topic especially um would you mind repeating the question for me about what exactly about the payments process you'd like to know sure so statutorily get a 23n patrons are not going to be able to place it about using a credit card and there are some jurisdictions that either statutorily or through interpretation go further which we are considering doing that would mean not only can you not use a credit card directly but you can't use it indirectly so you can't say load PayPal or link a credit card to PayPal on PayPal PayPal has a corporate policy when they don't allow it but there have been instances where people have so short short-circuited that I'm curious to know what you guys have in terms of safeguards if our reg says no credit cards either directly or indirectly meaning one step removed is not allowed sure yeah functionally we're fully prepared to just not let not allow anybody to use credit cards on our platform down to the jurisdiction level now I think the probably the deeper part of that question you just posed was what's stopping someone from finding a loophole here and we've actually spent a lot of time over the past year or so with that struggling with that same question because we have we always worry about people committing identity theft or doing exactly what you said where they're able to do transactions under the guise of something different but what I can tell you is to the extent that we're able to see that person's identity and what they're doing behind you know the veil between us and our payment vendors we utilize it wherever we can but there are a lot of privacy clauses that these people take advantage of at third party payment providers where they're allowed to hide their identity behind them and that's something that I think is probably an industry-wide issue of people trying to do that if I may commissioners I may be able to answer your question a bit more pointedly we work with our payment providers in each jurisdiction to ensure that if there is a regulation that requires one step removal of credit as you said that either those providers can properly implement those controls and we would check that and make sure of that and if they could not properly implement those controls we would not activate them in that jurisdiction so that's the same process we would use in Massachusetts okay great and you know I know that we were given the name of at least one jurisdiction that has that Tennessee being one of them do you know of any others that you operate in that function that same way I know that Tennessee and Iowa and neither of them allow credit funding and we strictly comply with both with both states and those would be the only two yeah okay thanks and then we already did the call centers my other question and I'm assuming this will be updated but the the numbers that you put in your it said it said Massachusetts responsible gaming plan but it doesn't have the Massachusetts numbers it's got the national numbers and we do statutorily have to have Massachusetts DPH approved numbers so I know MGM is fully aware of this but I just wanted to flag that in terms of something going forward that I noticed when I was looking through it yeah no we will definitely have 3-2-7-50-50 as the number displayed in Massachusetts that it's typically when we go into a jurisdiction we'll work with the regulators understand which number they'd like us to display and then we'll ensure that our marketing team has that guidance within the marketing plans how does it work on your website in terms of the accessibility and mass obviously is into your into your website is it do you list all of them how does that work yeah so originally what we wanted to do was have a single game sense website all of our platforms to tie into and we quickly realized that given the nuance from jurisdiction to jurisdiction that that wasn't going to be feasible and the last thing I wanted to do was to have a page with 30 numbers listed that nobody would be able to you know get to their number within a timely manner so what we've done is we create clone websites in each of our jurisdictions and so all of the responsible gambling logos and links on the Massachusetts website will go to the Massachusetts game sense page and within the state resources section as well as throughout all of the other content where referenced we will use Massachusetts numbers Massachusetts links and Massachusetts information that IP address base that is going to send you to that it'll be based on it'll be based on the product that you're logged into and so in order to go into Massachusetts betting you would have the game sense links tied in that way got it okay great thank you welcome also commissioner I just wanted to add if you go into the state resources section there is a drop down so say you are in New Jersey for example but you're a Pennsylvania resident you could always go into that drop down and it will show you Pennsylvania you click on that and it takes you to the Pennsylvania game sense website for that information that was all I had thank you other questions on section E just a comment madam chair I wanted to thank Mr. Taylor for the the robust discussion around game sense and the work that Massachusetts has done and appreciated that in your presentation you are a leader and responsible gaming for a reason and I think a lot of it is around the adoption of game sense within the Commonwealth so thank you thank you I know the time is I hope Mark is listening that's all I can say well or if we can direct into the recording and if he's not oh there he is there he is and I know that you are all close colleagues so the collaboration with MGM on game sense has always been noted and we appreciate it and now see it extending out to this particular vendor and partner so I know the time is late but I really want to go back to something you raised in presentation average because it caught my eye our ear the epic risk risk management I feel like it's linking to the medical community in a way that we imagine but I might have misunderstood could you just briefly explain it please yeah so so epic risk management was founded by a gentleman named Paul Buck who has publicly talked about his own struggles with gambling addiction in fact it led to him going to prison for a number of years and when he left prison he wanted to do some good and help people who may be in a similar situation that he went through while he was in the depths of his of his addiction and so that team is comprised of those who've experienced gambling addiction including those who are professional athletes throughout Europe so professional rugby players and footballers our soccer their football and what they do is they provide educational seminars and workshops for not only operators but also sports leagues they have deals with NCAA groups and organizations so they'll go in and they'll talk to student athletes about gambling addiction and how athletes are an elevated risk for developing gambling problems and what they need to be on the lookout for and how they can address some of those those issues and those problems and so we went to them and expressed a desire to work together to develop training that would help empower our employees to more quickly identify and take action when concerning communication and behavior is observed similar to the the conversation Commissioner Maynard and I had earlier it's all about the context and understanding the why behind a statement and so this training will help prepare our employees to have those conversations there's really not a whole lot of additional like healthcare or medical you know work that we'll be doing with this group as part of this evolution not to say that they don't they don't do that with others but I can't really speak to that very helpful thank you thank you any other questions on the response we're getting by you know my notations and I anticipated it Richard when I saw your involvement that it would be outstanding and I think probably somewhat because of our bias to the game set involvement so thank you any other questions okay I'll take seek a consensus commissioners do we find a thing that expectations with respect to this particular section Richard Maynard I do thank you commissioner I'll see you here yep okay mr. Skinner yes and commissioner hill I'm fine expectations okay great and so we're all set to move on to sections and then we'll close out with G questions on section starting with geobensing any questions one was answered for me with respect to your dual factor authentication I think Roman answered that it's an opt-in as opposed to a requirement to have that second I forget how you refer to it Roman but the customers can opt in for that second layer of protection correct yeah that's correct it's a player option thank you with respect to from my perspective reading the answers all of them I said that they were very full some responses and really educational for me with respect to geobensing and KYC any any particular questions commissioners one thing I would note the potential regulation I'm not sure if this is done in other jurisdictions but it appears that you keep the five years records on either what you refer to as the obvious errors where there's accuracy and timeline issues with respect to data feeds as well as there was another area I guess on suspicious behavior five-year records and then you do your own auditing I'm not sure that's something that we want to kind of piggyback on if regulators do that I'm turning to my general counsel if you could just make a note but what I do see is that you keep those five-year records and you do your own self auditing and to hold I suspect if there was a compliance issue you'd be pummeling it right up to your compliance committee if you saw any trending problems is that fair that's correct that's great any other questions or clarifications you're seeking on section app now I'm chair of the question relative to section F3 okay knowledge expertise and reliability has to do with the security of patron data as it relates to the confidential investigation that that MGM disclosed so that would be so sure if we should hold it until section G or not but I'm just throwing it out there as an option to address now and that would be an area where we'd want to go into a executive session appropriately commissioner and and counsel Grunschman yes I believe that's right we would request we would request executive session on that matter certainly okay anything else on section F okay so if we we will we'll hold on seeking a consensus on that pending executive session and then turn to to section G questions I I do I have a number of questions about the corporate structure and in particular the 50% ownership entity in terms of entain and entain compliance history I think an article was attached in the report I think there's been some discussion of a recent pretty substantial fine that I think I'd like to hear addressed and am I right that that would also be something that the applicant would want in in an executive session or is it public executive session please counsel Grunschman can I just throw that I think commissioner Brian do you have the page of the application this is on well the corporate structure is in the beginning of the suitability report and I think there is a description early on when they talk about themselves in the beginning of B they talk about sort of the history and the derivation of the company but there are references within G for example page 1135 G3 believe it's H they talk about like bankruptcies for example and they say not applicable to the bed MGM however MGM and and Tain would provide any applicable responses directly with their applications and Tain is really before us as a qualifier with your application bed MGM MGM has already gone through its process historically and then most recently this morning so I have a number of questions about that about the internal controls that pertain to and Tain in particular so I know the fact of that fine was public there have been some articles that in general talk about sort of the historical violations that were cited in some of the ML anti-monitoring incidences that were captured in that but I would like you to drill down on that more for me and I'm assuming you based on the request Todd that there's a a fair amount of the detail they may share that would be maybe you know it not trade secrets then would put them in competitive advantage if they shared it publicly it certainly sounds like at least parts of it would be competitively sensitive the only part I'm unfamiliar with is how much is public information and to the extent there is there are parts that have been publicly reported on that is not really the proper topic for executive session discussion so if I'm happy to to give a summary there was a reference to an article that I think was out there published the in August 22nd that talks that on at bonus.com that talks about bed MGM's reputation being linked with Entain in Leo Vegas and Entain obviously being one of the entity qualifiers in this matter and it talked about a fine that the UK Gambling Commission was levying I think it's a 17 million pound settlement that had recently been reached is that correct that sounds accurate yeah yeah it talks about I believe there were aspects to it I think it was a 14 and a three there were two separate fines really for the total of the 17 and maybe it's better coming from the company field stating publicly in terms of summarizing that article in terms of the the historical violations in terms of the sanctions in terms of so we do have we do have Entain Council on the line to help you know discuss anything that's Entain specific what I would say related to that fine specifically is Bet MGM does have its own AML compliance and Sarah Brennan or Rio Lone he can speak more about that so that is all in-house so that is not one of the services that Entain provides but certainly Entain Councils on the line to speak specifically about anything Entain related they want to give a summary of that now oh sorry Commissioners I don't know I was just going to know Commissioner O'Brien that the response that that MGM gave to G3 G has that same language not applicable to Bet MGM and that the parents right will provide information separately and that's information that I would be looking for relative to administrative or judicial proceedings in which the applicant was found to have violated a statute or regulation governing its operation so just throwing that out there for Council Grossman to consider as to whether or not that is an appropriate topic to discuss an executive session if that is the applicant's desire or request Commissioner Skinner can you just I know the language but can you remind me of the exact G3G G it's page 1134 if you're in the consolidated application and while there is reference to certain actions in the IEV report none of that was disclosed directly in this application as far as I can see I don't know if I'm missing it no there were a number of them that were answered that way that sort of preferred to MGM to NTAIN like it was filing its own application which is not exactly the posture that they're in front for us I guess NTAIN doesn't have to provide an application so no they're an entity they're an entity qualifier so they do need to be suitable but they don't need to fill out a separate application that's right that's exactly right and of course the suitability will process under is underway right so to the extent and then I have I had one other area in terms of marketing associations where there was just an entity that I'm not it's not mentioned anywhere else either in the IB report as an entity qualifier but and to be blunt I don't know whether I should say this to attorney growth an offline or not because I don't even know if the fact that the association is public or not but there is a reference I think it's at page 954 there are certain marketing agreements they're referred and there's another entity that's in there that is just not referenced anywhere else that I'd like to just understand the association with what's that everybody get caught up you're looking right in the middle of the page just one second because I went I switched over to the section by section analysis so now I've got to get into the bigger document it's got a load so just just while that's being pulled up I might be able to help with one of the previous statement with the entity application from a high level just understand the process so with this application Mr. Weissman I'm sorry I'm having trouble hearing you answer yeah you know we you sound a little bit like you're in the the aquarium before it was not bad but now it's getting a little bit more bubbly is it is it better now it is okay that's better yeah I'm not in the aquarium I can I can assure you the so so just structurally and procedurally what we do what we did with this application is this consistent what we do what we do in other jurisdictions where because of the the ownership of that MGM we file you know our our information we have directly and then with some of the questions like the one that was referenced we get in team or MGM to file their responses as they pertain to those entities directly just to preserve confidentiality between all the entities I just wanted to just wanted to say that in case it pops our file one minute oh getting closer nine fifty four for sure Brian I believe so yes that's what I wrote in my notes yes that's right and the app it wants to look at and then maybe they can alert me as to whether or not I'm say that publicly before we narrow our list of executive session issues getting closer this is why this is not October nine fifty nine I'm trying not to over you can talk to the page there is a way to fix it I should I should I'm not I'm not manipulating this that well so that's really good to know commissioner right you can show me that function yeah okay so I've got it nine fifty four what paragraph I think it's toward the middle of the page is that right Todd if you've got it up let's see do you see it after subsection B the first word it's the bold good information and right in the middle I believe oh yeah that's the the corporate reference the right that I just don't know if that's something that's for public consumption it's a it's a mutual access agreement dated a certain date to entities right it's just not a name I'm familiar with and I don't know if it's for public consumption I just wanted to ask for the details the bolder one not the the bolder one one this is on is this this is within section 2.1.1 of article two correct correct I I think we'd like to say manage executive session if we could okay I'm sorry said they would like to discuss in an executive session okay great thank you we have that matter and then we have Todd what else do we have I'm just scrolling back to the other issues so there were judicial I'm sorry hold on a second I lost the page here when I scrolled up it's it's page okay so it's I'm sorry it's page 1134 I think this is the one Commissioner Skinner was asking about where the question calls for a description of any administrative or judicial proceedings that was one of the issues as a general matter those tend to be matters of public records so we need some kind of showing that those are not public record before we move into executive session to talk about those we're trying to get back to the other question that was Commissioner O'Brien I think you started off with the first one that was so the first reference was in particular end pain and the UK fine that was recently levied the details beyond sort of the general discussion we just had there was also one litigation which to the extent they can discuss it it was a I want to be careful with the reference that I make I think in the suitability report there's a pending litigation matter I'm assuming it's the fact of it is public would be the patent infringement case whether that bears at all on any technological capacity I would assume any discussion in that regard would be trade secret and or competitive disadvantage and so more appropriate for executive session that's right yeah and it is an active in the litigation so so the complaint itself is likely public right yeah because the public biolings are certainly so I'm pretty sure care the pleadings with you but any specifics as to the technology certainly we would consider to be commercially sensitive right and my question really is whether or not any adverse ruling in that matter would impact sort of the technological capacity of the applicant right so I think he's saying any specific questions around it was right it's not just trying to be more narrow with the question not the litigation itself it's publicly out there that was my next sort of the impact question I think that would be that would fall under the protection of the executive session right yeah absolutely that would be that would be a fair that one's clear the reference that I just made to 954 and then entain in general to the extent that they referenced it if they're saying they would answer separately if if entain council is available if there's anything in terms of bankruptcies withdrawals that sort of thing would be interested to get an answer in that regard to the extent that it is in any way relevant to the suitability that we're looking at the preliminary suitability we're trying to get here thank you for relating to so at 1135 the answer to g3h and earning bankruptcies was very specifically limited to that mgm and they refer you to the other respective applications there is nothing in front of us in that regard for entain but I would be interested in this maybe something we can discuss publicly with entain's lawyer on the call because I assume those would be public whether there's in fact been any bankruptcy filings relating to entain was that your question Mr. Skinner you're supposed to be relating to bankruptcies is it relating to yes I'm interested in that but I my question was specific to g3g which is the administrative filing disciplinary action disciplinary action right and g3j has internal control changes I think and does the same sort of language so one of I think as far as entain is concerned if I entain is a public company is if I have that right which would suggest that any bankruptcy filings would be matters of public record so we'd need to be precise as to what part of that would be sensitive competitively sensitive I don't actually think that one would be I I think given that entain council's on the line that might be something that could just be answered right now possibly in the negative I don't know but I think that would be public information what's your precise question Mr. O'Brien whether or not entain in response to the question of as asked in general of I think it's g3h the bankruptcies question where they specifically tell us to refer directly to mgm and entain I'm just looking for an answer to see if any commissioners if if we could have a five minute recess to get the relevant folks for maintain on to be able to answer those questions or provide the references for an executive session that would probably assist us in moving this forward we're happy to do that it's five twenty three why don't we return at five thirty this only that enough time at five thirty return I believe that is Madame Trone okay thank you okay I'm not sure if everyone is set but we can take down the slide we'll give them the applicant time this one there we go okay commissioners I'm just looking for commissioner hill I see his box madame chair yeah commissioner hill if you could just check in let's see we'll proceed commissioners are you are you prepared for us to proceed no I don't just one second my document's got but I just need to do our sign in commissioners as you know this is the naming commission's public meeting number four fourteen we're reconvening and I need to just take a roll call because we're holding this virtual commissioner brown I am here commissioner hill commissioner spinner I'm here commissioner maynard I'm here okay we're all set to proceed I think commissioner hill will join us shortly okay so now we'll turn to you Ms. Loney we we left you with a question that you need to get further information yes thank thank you commissioners and madam chair I would like to introduce to you Martin Licka he's the SVP of American Regulatory Affairs and Responsible Gaming Fertain he will be able to give you an update in brief you on the fine that you would raise earlier that would be commissioner O'Brien raised earlier is that right I believe that is correct yes yeah okay I only make that clarification to make sure that your questions are all satisfied in the end commissioner yep okay thank you it looks dark there madam chair commissioners very good afternoon I can hear myself okay we can hear you just fine thank you okay well it's it's it's really nice to it's really nice to meet you thanks for taking the time and my colleagues from bed MGM have summoned me if you will to address the issue related to the UK matter that you have raised with them so the first point I would like to make in that regard is that it's not a fine it might have been reported as such in the press but that is not correct it's a regulatory settlement that entain has reached with the UK gambling commission the other key point to make in that regard is that the regulatory settlement relates to issues that occurred between June 2019 and June 2020 so of course we admit that at that period we have we did not handle those matters to the to the liken to the full liken of the UK gambling commission but we have further improved enhanced and bettered all entains governance processes with particular focus on responsible gambling and anti-money laundering since secondly I believe that it's also a matter of public record that originally the counts of indictment if you will that the UKGC raised in relation to the period time period we're talking about that there have been over 70 of them so many many more and at the end of the day we were found guilty if you will only of six of those in other words entain managed to successfully walk the UK regulator through all those through all those issues and convince them that in a shattering majority of them there was no case to answer to be fair if you are asking yourself the question whether we should have contested the remaining ones further the answer to that question is yes we could have in theory we could have taken the UK regulator to to court but we decided not to do it I suppose for largely for obvious reasons the key one being that we've we've improved all of our processes since and secondly we've always taken a positive and and cooperative approach to all our regulators so we felt that a regulatory settlement was the most efficient and the most friendly way of settling that matter so hopefully that is an answer to the question that that you have raised before I had a chance to join the the session so thank you for that this is Commissioner Brian Mr. Liga my question is is to the extent that you can publicly describe what exactly the infractions were that resulted in the settlement and then what it is exactly that you guys did in terms of increasing internal control particularly with the AML and to the extent that you can give some of that publicly and if there's part you feel you need to do privately an executive session I'd ask you to give as much as you can publicly and then flag for us when you hit the point where you feel you would need to go in another setting if you need to sure so let me start by talking about the improvements and enhancements we have made to our both AML and responsible gambling systems with material increase the size of the team that looked after that look after all these issues so that's the first point secondly and these days we have about 600 people across the government's team so that's the legal team anti-money laundering team the compliance team the responsible gambling teams and my own function i.e. regulatory affairs so we brought many many more people that allows us to monitor all the applicable regulatory and legal developments in this space to an even more granular extent we've stepped up our internal we've stepped up our internal trainings we brought a third party to review all our governance processes and we presented the results of that review at our Nevada Nevada renewal licensing renewal hearing and they they were found satisfactory on the responsible gambling side of things and Tane launched a brand new responsible gambling program which is called advanced responsibility and care that revolves around two key pillars the first key pillar being leveraging of technology and effectively it's technology that in the past has been used for bonusing so we've started using that technology to detect patterns of negative gaming behaviors so that we can provide our customers with as personalized care as possible and in parallel to that because there's of course a strong human element to all this besides materially increasing the number of staff that looks after all these matters we've also trained a team that is dedicated to responsible gambling matters originally that team used to be part of the why the customer service function but we've separated them out and these folks only deal with problem and responsible gambling matters these days so in other words it's not as though you as a customer you'd have the same person offering you the latest bonus on the one hand and on the other hand they would be talking to you about the gambling issue that you may have this all has been separated so that long story short we've made changes to personnel we have enhanced our training we've introduced new forms of technology to address the shortcomings that the UKGC the UK regulator identified for the past period that I have been alluding to and can you give any factual description of the seven areas where that form the basis of the settlement then we'd have to move to the executive session I'm afraid okay and then again and if you can't answer this out in the setting let me know too also but I noted that Adam Greenblatt who is the CEO of FedMGM at one time was with Entain and was his employment in any way connected to the event set issue in the settlement that we're talking about it is correct that Adam Greenblatt was employed by LUT Brokes and Entain at that point GVC acquired the LUT Brokes color color business back in late 2017 early 2018 to my knowledge Adam Greenblatt would not have been involved in any of those issues that resulted in the regulatory settlement that we have just discussed and then can you state whether or not Entain has had any bankruptcies now to my knowledge Entain has never had any bankruptcies Entain as I'm sure my colleagues would have pointed out is London listed public company these days amongst 40 or 50 biggest companies we've just successfully that's been announced to the markets in the last few weeks negotiate, refine and think of our existing loans so needless to say had we ever gone bankrupt we wouldn't have been able to do any of these things so that's a long long-winded way of saying no Commissioner if I might go back one question just to add on that as Rich Taylor presented fairly extensively earlier in his presentation we have a very separate responsible gaming operation so none of the responsible gaming operations are conducted by Entain personnel they're all in house you've seen the growth the numbers the analysts that we keep adding to the responsible gaming team so that's very separate apart from Entain and what occurred in the past in addition to AML we have our own AML policy that governs but MGM's AML processes we have an AML director of AML we have a very large AML and risk team so all of those processes are also handled in-house by that MGM not Entain function great thank you so other than knowing wanting a little more detail on the seven episodes that caused that are the basis of the settlement agreement I think that that answers the questions that I had relative to Entain I don't know if any of my fellow commissioners had any questions commissioners so we would not need to go to a second session on that point Misha about I only out so much of it it gives a description of the seven incidents that form the basis of the settlement right for that please see well okay correct Misha Skinner any further questions for you so can you tell me what time it is for you right now I'm on the I'm on the east coast so oh okay darker than it looks here right now so I thought I wondered if you had pulled you out of bed okay good okay I don't have any questions for Ms. Silica okay anyone else have any other questions for okay where are we in terms of outstanding questions commissioner and councillor Grosven so let's see I take it commissioner brian have we answered the bankruptcy question satisfactorily okay yes well there'll be but the follow up do you want well no that was a separate one no no the follow up that's a separate issue that's the the compliance in terms of a past reported fine okay and I have the the patent infringement case impact question and then the just enough in any more detail the most recent Maryland incident and then the reference to page 945 with the entity that I had not been familiar with right from my point 945 and I think we decided that's all good and then commissioners get her my questions pertain to the disciplinary action directed toward bedroom GM I was also interested in getting an understanding of that just the Maryland one commissioner Skinner or no in addition to the Maryland one anything that is responsive to the request in and I don't know if that is if that warrants an executive session but hoping to get a little bit more detail on those incidents and again they're detailed or they're not detailed they're mentioned in the IEB report but I would be interested in getting some a little bit more of the a summary of the facts surrounding mutual incidents but then also I wanted to understand wanted to gain some additional information relative to the confidential investigation that that MGM disclosed on Friday yeah so that what we know is clearly in the realm of a commercially sensitive I'm actually the last one Council member else would do we need to go through the individual items that she alluded to to know whether they are appropriate in the second session unfortunately we're really persuasive here so bear with us this will need and change yeah so I think the answer to that question Madam Chair so we're talking about I think from age 1134 G3G in reference to any administrative or judicial proceedings I think we would need to identify which ones we're talking about and determine that they're not matters of public record to begin with that's right so we have to do that in a way that is is comfortable for for all parties right perhaps Council member you can assist here rather than having even commissioner Skinner struggle through yeah so let me open up the suitability report Council member and this been multiple references to page numbers and I don't I'm not on the same page as any of you I know the single file so where can I find that please you know what it's it's it is it isn't there for us to use a single file because each of us are looking at different at different different sets of documents they're all the same documents but they're put in different orders so to be fair to commissioner Skinner she's looking at section by section and some are looking at the page so commissioner Skinner the section that you should be looking at council Grossman is so that one the commissioner Skinner was g3g as you identified it just happens to be on page of the consolidated document I don't have in front of me the broken down page number but you're on the the right she I think it's oh one the administrative and or judicial proceedings and it says right refer to the application about mgmlc for responses related to mgm resource continuing national so and this of course is all public it's part of the application so it does this says interestingly enough does mgm let's go commissioner Skinner are you seeing the same thing I'm seeing that's sort of response to question oh on the administrative of a traditional pre-d proceeding during the last 10 years in which the applicant or any entity that owns five percent of greater share was found to violate a statute of regulation governing its operation is that the one that you're asking about commissioner Skinner it is I was just trying to get back to what I have too many windows open so that's g3g g3 not applicable to the response is not applicable to bet mgm bet mgm's parent companies mgm and untane will provide any slickable responses directly to their applications but of course untane doesn't have to have an application but they are qualified chair just to clarify untane has as a as an entity qualifier they have submitted a b e d form but part of our review the i e b's review included the applicant level entities only but they have submitted and you know I think that's part of the materials that licensing has reviewed yeah so for untane of course doesn't have the application but they have cooperated with respect to all the expectations of the qualifier that's underway outside so so so the and just looking at the self-disclosed compliance history I mean we we can go through that less but this might take a while just to kind of cue this up for everyone if that's what we want is that so this is in this is on page eight of the i e b report okay it goes from page eight to page 11 we can go through each of them but again this will take a while so if if we want to do that we can jump in I don't think we necessarily have to go through all of them so you're saying they start on page eight and go through is that what you said Todd yes so those that goes through the compliance issues and then the litigation yep and then the litigation as well let's talk the songs do we commissioner skitter did you really did you intend to ask questions on each of those items I would just like more of of the sort of a summary of exactly what what is referenced there and essentially I'm looking for a response to the question in the application so I mean we don't have to review those at this point during the public meeting but if if we could you know have a written response to those so that we can add it to the record I'm happy to do that we'd be happy to provide an additional response or as much as possible take these in executive session and answer any additional questions that the commission might have beyond what is publicly disclosed on each of these fines so let's just be clear so what you're saying commissioner skitters that it says that I'm looking for a response from that MGM to G 3G right so just they did put in a response and they said not applicable to that MGM so they might have misunderstood what the question was if that if you think the response is what's set forth in the that they self disclosed to IEB because it says in which the applicant or any entity that owns five percent or greater share so so then I'll ask that MGM it is is the answer that you provided in your application in response to G 3G accurate so I would I would say commissioner that we provided the fines that that MGM has received and in Tain provided their separately as part of their documents and filings to the commission that MGM provided that information where where is that in the applications that IEB has correct Josh would you like to provide the exact attachment or if we know a page number what I'm looking at is that won't help me because I don't have access to those applications so just to be clear I'm looking at the response second G 3G and your response is essentially not applicable to that MGM and commissioner Skinner is wondering is that accurate and if not how can we solve so I think I can help with this so we we provided information about all regulatory fines and proceedings in section E3 app and then it's also worth knowing that we've received the decisions and noticed relatively recently from and I'm sorry I can't I'm having a really hard time hearing so we're not we're not hearing you we're not understanding you sorry can you hear me not try again just can you hear me not we can hear you it's understanding you that's the challenge try a little bit again please so in the in the application our fines and our regulatory fines and warnings were provided in and I believe it was section E3 app and I also just wanted to know that we received after submitting our application we received a deficiency notice from MGC which we provided response to it breaks down all of the the proceedings and fines by jurisdiction and that and I don't know that maybe director Lilias can add in here whether that is what's included on page 8 of the report yeah I think the they ended up responding to the deficiency notice and we summarized the disclosures those are the ones taught that you're pointing out but they are bad MGM specific which is what we were charged with reviewing right the only question is you know what components of these are not public information and I don't know the answer there are a number of jurisdictions that are included here it is possible that some are confidential and some are just public I can't answer that question which is why I'm loath to even mention where they're from or how many there are or anything like that so I think that's what we're looking for a little bit more information about so are you looking would you like us to address the IEB report in chronological order and we can go through each of these and the commission can indicate in order if they'd like additional information and we can provide a provide a summary as possible publicly and then if we if it's the commission's pleasure to have additional information on that we can request the reasoning and go into executive session would that be the most efficient way to cover some of these thank you that would be ideal the more we can discuss publicly the better by far and we can see if that satisfies okay so why don't we do it this way looking at does everybody have the suitability report in front of them okay so page eight I'm not going to mention the state unnecessarily right or should I can I or should I not Todd well let me ask Ms. Loney and Ms. Brennan maybe do you have the IAB report in front of you yes we do okay so we're on page eight you see what we're looking at can you just maybe if you I don't want them to feel compelled to read every single violation I want to see or if our commissioners are really interested not because of the nature of these it's because really you know is it necessary to read each one and go right ahead Sarah I'm happy to provide some sort of I don't want to say anonymous but blanket statements about these in generalities that I think will provide the clarity that commissioner Skinner is looking for while also preserving our privacy with respect to these and if we would like there are a couple that we should likely discuss in closed session because the conditions of such are not public but most I can speak to and again reference our earlier statements about the expansion of compliance of the business which will help add some clarity to how the fines occurred or how the violations occurred to begin with is that helpful or would you I go right ahead whatever you're comfortable with doing I just want to make sure that no one feels compelled to read every word into the record and we'll ask if a commissioner has a question about it I'm looking at the first one and the first bullet is there any question no yes that directed to commissioners I just what I'm asking for is a summary of each of those incidents there are numerous incidents and the company is a very young one so I'm concerned about the the multiple violations in different jurisdictions so I'm asking that the applicants speak to those on a very broad level but I would look like some additional detail more detail than is provided for in the IEV report and I don't think that's unreasonable no no it's not unreasonable but I'm just looking at what it says and just wondering okay go right ahead Sarah if you can help we're starting with might as well should we say the state Todd to all public record the state I mean yeah why don't we just turn it over to Ms. Loni, Ms. Brennan if you want to just if you can say the state say the state and you can start going through them and if you know very high level and we can stop you if you're going into too much detail okay I'm going to do my best and everything just closed hold on one there with me one second okay there with me one second because my IEV report just closed a seven-year-old distracted me on her way to dance class I apologize okay so point one bullet point one bullet point two this was well I guess I'll give some background many of the errors that were trading in nature were due to manual errors in the beginning of our operations again at the time we didn't have a dedicated trading compliance team and so we're operating under best practice of three years ago which now has dramatically improved which includes comprehensive thinking about this is fine to say publicly but comprehensive sports activation grids which indicate to the business what's permitted and what's not across every jurisdiction and so our trading team uses these compliance references to ensure that they're not offering any markets or events that are prohibited in jurisdictions and obviously there's quite a bit of jurisdictional specificity with permissible markets and prohibited events and so you'll find that the root cause of many of these issues on this list and Commissioner Skinner I completely understand the concern when you look at a list that is long but take some comfort in knowing that the processes internally and the internal controls and the compliance documentation have served to mitigate risk and decrease these types of errors from occurring it's also something that we track internally very closely in terms of trends of errors and violations in order to evaluate whether or not previous remedial actions that were put in place effectively prohibited further instances of these types of violations so with that sort of stage set I'll go through these to the best of my ability there's a couple that I may not be able to address but can take away and then provide further explanation the first was a manual error these were mistakenly offered in the jurisdiction referenced because to my earlier point they were allowed in other jurisdictions but prohibited in that specific state the trader had failed to effectively reference the appropriate compliance documentations and mistakenly thought that they were permitted similarly to bullet point E it was the same root cause of prohibited events being allowed manually by a trader who did not understand the restriction that's an in-house trader right because I think earlier you said that MGM has its own internal it's okay bullet point two unfortunately upon research I was not able to find further details on but I can take back and see if I can get more background on for you but same jurisdiction am I understanding on a cursory level is that it was the same root cause a manual error and permitting a market that was prohibited to be posted bullet point three this was a combination of errors in one letter and I have a couple of reference guides open one second so this had to do with a license application that was submitted late in that jurisdiction as well as a self-reported trading issue of a past posting on basketball that we accepted waiters minutes after the market should have been closed this was also with respect to a responsible gaming issue and a license and an employee who was working in the jurisdiction who did not hold the appropriate occupational license all of the issues that were addressed in this warning letter or identified in the warning letter were subsequently addressed by that MGM and remediated internally but that particular fine encompassed four separate issues and but may I may I just make a suggestion I think it would be a better use of all of our time to have the applicant supplement the response to G 3G I don't know how my fellow commissioners feel about that but I you know I don't think this is a good use of our time at this hour um I guess I'm wondering if I could ask them I'm going to ask IEB and GLI when you see these entries because we don't have you know to commissioners scanner's point we don't have but she's seeing different you know there's quite a list and in some ways I feel like that may be the reality of this industry but I don't have any point of comparison and I also don't know how much we should expect from an applicant to give on details of this this is standard we're not standard and and so I'm I guess I'm I'm asking Director Lilias and maybe at GLI if they had a chance to look at this applicant application is this a reasonable response because I'm at a commissioners scanner's point you know she may want more information but I also want to be fair to the applicant if they are if they're if they're compiling responses that are standard across the you know the country that I want to be fair to them too so I don't know if GLI is still on Madam Madam Chair if I if I may I believe we do have an attachment that was submitted as part of our license application that will be helpful for the commission now I'm not looking at the same page numbers so I may need assistance to determine what I would be looking at that we submitted versus what you have I feel like I might have seen a long list somewhere but I'm not sure attachment 30B or is that to the submitted is that that's that's a BED that is a grid to the BED I mean that is available to you if you would like to see that that is it's part of the BED we don't typically see I'll make that part of our review and in some of that we've gone into some detail about these fines that is in addition to what is disclosed in the report so that may be of assistance if that's something that you would like to view or we could supplement if there's anything else that's not on there that you would like us to supplement but I believe that that will answer some of the questions being raised right now on these particular fines I think that would be helpful because like Commissioner Schinner I have questions about it and this is not the typical way the suitability is done so we are going into new territory so I think in terms of trying to get a sense of what's out there what this company has gone through in this area I think looking at attachment 30B would be helpful for me okay Commissioner Bryant thank you Commissioner Schinner I know I would like to hear from Director Lillios I'd like to hear from Executive Director Wells so that when this application was complete and the standard of review and Councillor Grossman I want to make sure that you know where we're not asking the applicants and I don't know the answer to this question are we asking the applicant to do more than what we asked in the application and and so I want to just be there Commissioner Schinner you know and maybe that we both may have expected different response but I just don't know if this is meeting you know what is typical expectations on this on these entries we can get more information I'm just being I wanted just to hear from the experts here Director Lillios and Director Wells I mean listen this is like casino gaming it's a highly regulated field and you have an operator here who operates in many jurisdictions so of course you would expect to see violations it means that regulators are doing their jobs and you know this is a relatively new industry so it's not a surprise to see violations from any operator in this arena now what we look at when we evaluate self-disclosed information is we look at things like whether there are multiple incidents in the same with the same problem that went unaddressed for a lengthy period of time whether the operator self-identified and self-disclosed the information whether the fines were timely paid whether they have implemented remedial actions including things like audit functions to identify on a forward-looking basis so you know the conduct doesn't it doesn't repeat itself whether infractions were intentional or inadvertent so all of the that type of assessment is a very fact-specific assessment we haven't done that for purposes of this review in this preliminary report that's before you but I can certainly say and I think it's common sense that it's not a surprise that an operator that operates in many jurisdictions has violations that's as part of its history and Karen I don't know if you have anything to any more light to shed on that or anything else helpful but we can't hear you Karen are you no nope now you're mute I'm not on mute you're okay so yeah I absolutely agree with what Loretta is saying I think we also have to remember that we have not been sports wagering regulars on new jurisdiction so that it will take some time for us to evaluate you know we just you know the IEB gets a list we're not in a position right now to say that's a massive list that's that's out you know that's way beyond the norm because we have not had the opportunity as Loretta said to dive into that that will be part of the suitability investigation that's ongoing but it's not as if IEB could comment at this point on the breadth and scope of those violations but she is correct that it is not unexpected for a company that is in operating multiple jurisdictions to have violations by regulator so can I just add on and then turn back to Trisha Skinner because this is her primary question when the IEB saw these this list of self-disclosed both the pending mitigation and then self-disclosed compliance history did you I understand you haven't any kind of a deep dive on it one will that be part of the ultimate suitability review and as you know in accordance with our regulation and then two if something jumped out at you like a trend that you saw would you have reported that in here you know really we were trying to adhere very close to the regulation which is to present you with a summary of the self-disclosed history um so you know I'm not really in a position to a pine or something jumped out at me is you know really bad and like you Karen said we are all learning now so so you know I think is I think it's you know in terms of repetitiveness you know that really is meant to show itself in the history that's presented for you and then so these are the entries are really a summation that that how I he did that's correct and yes part of the full review for durable suitability we will be looking more closely at these and speaking both to regulators as well as to as well as to the operator that's helpful to me Commissioner Skinner I didn't mean to I am struggling with this and this in in the way of not having anything per state of comparison but that was helpful to me Commissioner Skinner you are asking or what were you asking for precisely the idea is not to assess whether the nature or number of these disciplinary actions is standard or normal or to be expected I am looking for a response to G 3G because if I am hearing correctly I understand that that MGM provided that information or provided information in connection with the the application a different answer to the to a similar question in that application that is different from the answer they gave in the general application here so I am expecting that question to be answered as other applicants have done and again at the very least there's an inconsistent response between the general application and the BED that that MGM has provided so I'm looking to understand I'm looking to have that rectified so and again so we're going back to that language where it said it doesn't it's not applicable that's right right so and I I asked this question early and I don't know if I got a response but is the answer to B 3G in the general application accurate and I I agree we did not get a precise response to that question and I had wondered if there was a misinterpretation of that question or is is it that you put in it doesn't apply but now you actually realize you meant to include what is now summarized in this IED before yes so I may be able to assist or Josh you can assist but it Josh correct me if I'm wrong the answer the question specifically asked about judicial proceedings and it is not applicable for judicial proceedings now that doesn't mean we haven't had fines assessed as a result of regulatory settlements but the way we interpreted that question it's not applicable to bed MGM because there's been no regulatory violations or fines that have come out of judicial proceedings or administrative proceedings that I believe commissioner Skinner is is what you're asking I think maybe administrative proceedings would include your regulations yeah that's my interpretation would have been that it does administrative would be the type of thing that would be you know so 38 to the BD and that answer if you if you believe that that would include settlements that's not how we read it but certainly the attachment to 30 B would be the answer if we're including regulatory settlements right and I think there's just a disconnect because of how this was requested out we the commissioners don't get the BED and so we the commissioners are looking for all the information and so because of that interpretation we didn't get attachment 30 B and we probably should have and now I'm hearing that there was some confusion as to what administrative is versus judicial versus right settlement so that that's helpful so now if we just assume that that was inadvertent this could you point to us where the that question is answered if it is answered and in the materials that are submitted to first the commission and then necessary second to IEB yeah so can you can you hear me okay yep yeah now yep you're good I can hear you I just can't understand you well I feel so bad because you're gonna have to get a t-shirt that says that at the end of this sorry I'll I'll do my best so just to add additional color to this what what Jeremy just outlined is correct on December 7th we received a deficiency notice from MGCS any traditional information and and then item 30 B which was just referenced outlines all of the information what we've done is we've provided even if there was no fine assess if there was just a regulatory warning you've included that information basically in response we've taken as conservative approach as possible and we've provided response to if it was a warning of fine any sort of violation whatsoever that's that's has all known been been provided to something in our application Miss Lonnie I think we might need a little bit of a translation on that where do we go so I think what Mr. Weisman is is indicating is that we did receive a deficiency notice and that we did provide the responses back and it's in the exhibit or the attachment 30 B and he's indicating that even if that does include all settlements all fines all warning letters so they all are referenced in 30 B and so we we are happy to update the application and reference them in any additional sections but I don't think there's any unless you'd like additional information outside of what was provided in 30 B which we're happy to provide for you but you know a review of that would probably be the most beneficial to go through that we're happy to provide it again can we how long of a document is that Loretta it's three pages could we share that now with the commissioners and take a a little bit of a break does that make sense commissioner skinner would you be more comfortable all right that's that work is that is that the solve commissioner skinner I think we got to the at least the bottom of why they answered perhaps the way they answered does that make sense I know it's 630 take a 10 minute break commissioners got me some feedback sorry and then we're going to still have I'm trying to get a sense of how much longer because I do have commitments in a little bit so I'm just trying to see how much longer we're going to do this or whether it makes sense to break and finish this first thing in the morning we have an executive session to to have right wondering for the Todd is can you continue it tomorrow if it's not noticed because we have another it's everything was day to day isn't it though isn't it listed to we didn't do a day to day I'll have to look at the meeting notice for tomorrow to see if this was referenced on there I think it's covered I believe I thought it was the way it was written I think so too and and continuing this tomorrow I think makes sense to me particularly given that we have to go go into detail about the Maryland issue that I am in the applicant has requested to go into executive session for as well as the confidential investigation moment is not noticed pardon me yeah tomorrow's tomorrow is just Caesars and Plainville and PPC so this is not on for tomorrow which means we can't do it tomorrow what if we decide what if we don't close out today and we just roll it over first thing in the morning that's not a good practice it does expose us but that's not what I want to hear as an answer so there we go so that's not going to happen commissioners it's 6 30 can we try to round this up in one half hour we can try but I'm not hopeful that that would happen I'm also sure that's a realistic we can certainly try but I don't think it's realistic yeah I agree can we take a dinner break and come back I I have child care issues when we get past seven so me not leaving here around seven creates issues for me which may require me to leave the meeting not to mention it is now more than it's now been more than eight hours I know commissioners part of where I'm just trying to make sure that we we close things out where we can can we or we not provide it to the agenda to the definition pardon me we cannot revise the agenda we've posted we could just revise can we not we could amend it Todd these are circumstances it's it's it if you think this is an emergency I think that's what the law talks about then we could probably amend the agenda counselor I mean the key is that people be put on notice as to what you'll be talking about tomorrow and and there's no clear clearly as your game available tomorrow morning yes madam chair we are and we would wave any any notice requirements or anything and appear before you in the morning without any problem it's not necessarily their notification it's the public notification we're worried about our regulators so we want to make sure to do it right Todd Christel brought up a good point if we if we were to amend right now it does have to be under an emergency circumstance because of the 48 hour rule and given that we are coming upon the holiday season we won't be meeting until January it would be helpful to me in our organization to be able to keep this one in continuity and not break from this and then resume you know a couple of weeks from now just so that we're fresh you know there's been several questions and how better have been addressed and so commissioners I I'm I turn to our our council if if that's valid I do think that that's probably the fairest most efficient way for us to accomplish this law which does have a sense of urgency and emergency to it and commissioner I don't know how you feel but I'm afraid I'm gonna have I'd have to be completely refreshed in another two weeks I don't know if you feel the same way but that's why I'm looking for them to continue it in the morning and then we would continue to ceasers what do you think commissioners I'm fine with that proposal I just deferred legal council as to whether it's something that fits within the parameters I mean I we'd have I we took a look at this issue a little bit once before and I believe there is not a great deal of jurisprudence on this specific issue I think if you do it there is some risk of exposure that claim could be made that it was done improperly but if everyone's willing to assume that risk then by all means oh counciler I'm gonna ask for a five minute break please okay and then we'll we'll come back and we'll make sure that we do this right thanks thanks day okay we're waiting for just a couple folks Karen are you coming on you're sorry I just run on my camera I'll be back okay and then commissioner skinner commissioner hill are you available yep I'm here great my preference would be for us to try to continue and I director lilios wanted to make a point of clarification around the reporting first and if we could if we could try to finish up commissioner albright is amenable to that I think director wells has a big calendar out and this is just looking at timing so and I do think otherwise if we run into a real problem I do believe council grossman if you could just look into how we amended in the past to see if we if this would would would work but let's see how we do kind of director lilios what you're talking about hi thanks chair so we've been speaking about the 30 b supplement the chart that was provided by the applicant that outlines it's regulatory and disciplinary actions it is a one page document and I have reviewed the document I've also spoken with the lead investigator on this particular case Joe Duggan who is on the line now and it appears that pretty much everything of consequence on that document is in the IEB's report I think Rhea maybe it was you who suggested that there might be more detail in the in the attachment I don't know that there is anything that consequential difference in the in the attachment that's in the report I think the report is a pretty fair a pretty robust summary of what was submitted so with that background you know I wanted the commission to have that background and Joe I see you're you're on the line you're on the pulse maybe you could either confirm or you know shed any more light on that all right so I received their compliance history bet MGM's it wasn't where it was supposed to be but it came in this supplement from the business entity disclosure 30B and what they sent I summarized in my report just about every but just as much detail really is was in what they sent but it's all it looks like it's all in there and is that detail consistent with practice or does it seem leaner than what you're used to on these well I actually haven't been doing this for that long this particular piece but I would expect even doing ngvs there's always litigation and fines regulatory fines there's a lot of I don't know I mean it's probably a couple from each jurisdiction or one from a jurisdiction there but in terms of the actual entry director on the answer and I it's Mr. Duggan or is it yes ma'am yeah Duggan I wondered if I should be using your former title so forgive me no no Joe Duggan is very good Mr. Duggan thank you so Director Lillios is that the nature of that summary typical or you know chair I'd rely on what we relied on in our reg which was that along with this application the applicant had to attest to the veracity of its submission so the IEB is going to go back and do a full suitability and the applicant knows that if they are found to have been intentionally or recklessly you know misleading in this document that they've submitted that their license is at stake and the commission found that to be a compelling paradigm you know to move forward with so I can't really say is this typical is that you know what we don't have enough of the universe we haven't been doing this for a long time but you've got a whole system they've signed under oath that this is true you know they didn't submit it at first and that's not unusual we have had some you know misunderstandings and we've we've had to go back the licensing division went back and this is the you know the one page document they they submitted okay can I ask this question then because I'm trying to get I want to make sure Commissioner Skinner and all of us are comfortable is that entry are those entries redacted or are they part of the public record I don't think Todd I'd have to defer to you I'm not looking at a redacted document because I'm looking at what's was filed with licensing that I know that the licensee would or the the applicant was invited to propose redactions so I don't know if that occurred I know with respect to at least one sounds like they want so commissioners so Commissioner Skinner we could circulate that one page or I think Director Lilio's wanted to point out it's probably not going to really illuminate things much more so I would probably only be through conversation that we could we would really be able to listen more details and we would navigate that in the public forum and to the extent appropriate in in a private session so I do think we probably need to be somewhat precise on what what you you know what you would like to hear more detail on so that we can assess whether it's appropriate for an executive session I don't know how I was to say it I mean I've said it a couple times over the last hour I'm looking for supplement to the answer G3G and and and I don't fault that MGM for the misunderstanding or the misinterpretation and answering that question but I am looking for that and that question to be supplemented and I believe it was Miss Loney who referenced the three or four page document when there was a proposal earlier in the evening to circulate that to be reviewed on a break so I don't know if there's still a disconnect between what that MGM thinks they have relative to these disciplinary actions or what they think they submitted versus what IEB actually has but I'm I'm not going to back off of my request I'm not asking to back up and ask you to clarify okay so Miss Loney it sounds as though you said three to four page document seems as though Miss Director Lillios thinks it's a one page document are we talking about the same thing and perhaps just different pages so commissioners the document that I'm looking at is a excel sheet that looks like or a table sheet that's been turned into an PDF attachment and it is labeled attachment 30B licenses confidential and it has our state the license we hold and any disciplinary action and this is just a hair over three pages and it does go by each state so it could be easy to follow along there is one additional document that does separately that was provided with our original primary application which is E3F attachment and that does have our warning letter history as well so that is the other one that was referenced and I apologize earlier I thought those were contained in this 30B but that is separate 30B was supplemented commissioners however you would like us to do this if it's your preference for us to provide this information prior to the morning for you to review it in a single document if you would like to take a look at these documents if you'd like us to walk through them it's really whatever your preferences for how we address these I think that's I in fact I know I stopped I think it was Sarah or Ann I'm not really sure I stopped someone from discussing each of these incidents action by action and I'm just in the time that we've taken to sort of flush out this request and we could have gone through each of each of the incidents right in that amount of time so I was just trying to make it easier and to have a better use of our time so I'm fine with accepting that supplement the supplemented documentation but I'm also fine with having the discussion in public if that's what is deemed necessary and chair excuse me I can confirm that there is a supplemental document that did did not come in before the excuse me before the IEB submitted a report so we haven't put eyes on that so it may be something that you'd like to see yeah that changes things for me so Ms. Loney you have a document and you have not submitted to us is that what I'm hearing that you would like to submit now as a supplement to your application no madam madam chair we we have these documents that I'm referencing are before you but if it's your pleasure we would be happy to provide a supplement provide a little more information if that's your request we're happy to do to do that as well so I'm very sorry I am now completely confused because I'm hearing and and I know Dr. Lillios you have a little bit of a slight throw so are you saying that the document that Ms. Loney referenced you don't have or you do have I I do now have it it did not make it in full into the preliminary report I see so would it have been part of our report I haven't reviewed the whole document but I expect yes if it itemizes additional disciplinary actions yes okay so you're going to need time to review that all right so we have that issue that would be for Commissioner Skinner it we're going to have I think it's for I but I think it's for all of us I think that information is very different than what we believe before the break because now I understand that Director Lillios doesn't didn't have something or had so that's fine so now we're going to have to definitely roll this over because we need to give IEB some time actually chair we can you know but we we haven't been considering you know supplementals like that this is just a chart we could provide you with the chart okay so we're already doing a truncated suitability process though and so this the idea that that's not going to be at least getting first eyes on from you guys was really not my understanding how this is going to go I don't know what the document is would that be I don't either I mean that's is that document typically would be something that you would have considered and Heather would have considered as he just quickly chime in I apologize I don't mean interrupt chair and I haven't reviewed it you know with a fine tooth comb but the three page supplemental document that is in the deficiency folder that shows the deficiency responses that came into licensing and I you know attorney Loney might be able to clarify this it appears to actually reference the same fines that are referenced in the IEB's report it's a more it's a longer list it has all of the licensing information and with respect to different jurisdictions some of which there were regulatory actions taken others there weren't so that's why it appears to be longer now again I haven't gone through it with a fine tooth comb but it does appear that the the fines and the regulatory action that are referenced in the IEB's report seem to be consistent with this document and attorney Loney may be able to supplement that response thank you and I can add on that it does give just it gives a slightly more information on each one of these fines if you look at the report it references it's it's the same fines that are listed in there with just with a little bit more information on the subject matter of the fine and if it's the end we're going to be on the lines of what Ms. Brennan started to walk us through this evening then I would be interested in seeing that to the extent that it does not contain that information I request that you supplement your general application so commissioners some we have a decision point to make here commissioner Skinner is asking for a supplement I think what I'm hearing is that within right now in our organization we have a document that we could review right now this moment and Ms. Loney could maybe even read the entries except for those that are commercially sensitive and and then we could by we could decide to incorporate it by reference into and supplement the the application or commissioners are you satisfied with what we have in front of us given what we've been told Mr. Skinner I hear you saying you would like it supplemented I think it needs to be supplemented Commissioner O'Brien okay Commissioner Maynard I would be happy looking at the document before I make any decisions on how I would move forward past looking at the document this is definitely a symptom of listing out these questions separate from the jurisdictional form and and I wish that I could say that I did wish I I couldn't say I told you so but I did tell the commission that this was a real possibility when we decided to put similar questions in two different places okay and Commissioner Hill well I think at this time Madam Chair we should get the information that's being requested take a look at it and then move forward after we get the information okay so and when will we do that Commissioner Hill what's your recommendation well as soon as possible I would have liked to obviously have had it tonight but that's not going to be possible I don't think so I for I for one am trying to understand why we can't recess till tomorrow I did hear from our general council that that's not the not the preferred way of doing business but I have no issue doing that until unless I can hear something different and why we shouldn't be doing that what's the downside of it well the downside is that any action you take at an improperly noticed meeting could be invalidated that is the downside is it notice that we amend it tonight Councillor you know we we're looking at some cases I mean again I repeat myself there's not a ton of jurisprudence on this point boards have done it before we're looking at one case now where the AG's office which oversees the other meeting law found it to be a violation where a board continued a meeting before we go down that road can I ask whether resolution would be we go into executive session on the four points that are still there we have them supplement give it to us if we were to do this wrap up could we take a vote on this and make the vote conditional upon further review by this commission that we're satisfied with the supplement could we move forward tonight as properly noticed today and put that as a condition on the vote I'm sorry he can't tell that I'm looking at him but I'm I'm deferring to council girlsman sounds like a reasonable resolution I just want to make sure that that's an appropriate condition to attach because we could then further review that at a properly noticed meeting and take any sort of action if we needed to if there was something that was raised in that but then we could take what is in front of us get through the executive session and ideally not have to deal with re noticing for tomorrow we have to get that document to you immediately that would be great and but I'm going to think commissioner brian is saying if you're going to the second session address the other issues and if we actually have and maybe once we all get a chance to look at that document if we accept the fact that that is going to be a supplement because commissioners can is quite right that question wasn't answered so we need to correct that on the record so that that would be that the response make a look at this evening or we don't have if we don't have time make it a condition tell us what is that is that it seems like it seems like a a solution to this so we can plow through the rest of this this evening yeah I mean that that's how we go into that can I just raise the the the issue of precedent right I mean is this what we're proposing is we undertake that then it's game for other applicants to also request to go down that road so I just want you know to note for the record that you know if we do proceed in that fashion you know it's where does it end where does it end and what are we what are we what are we giving up in terms of the integrity of the process if we are prepared to issue licenses conditioned upon the provision of some additional crucial in my mind information that's very relevant to the issue and some of the application itself let's see if we can solve it tonight can I just be really clarify I understand the issue about precedent and where it might end but honestly I bet that all of us attach a different amount of weight to the question that you're asking and so I think let's let's try to get through we know we've isolated that issue we now have a potential fix that director Lilias is going to pass it around what I'd like to do is perhaps go back to the issues for the executive session and have Todd read those in and see if we want to even go into executive session and if we decide to vote to go into executive session we'll do that and then we'll talk about by then that document may have come to us does that could just one step at a time and then if we decide you know it should be a condition or shouldn't be a condition and can't be a condition we'll get to that does that work definitely definitely you know interested in compromise and and then moving things along yeah just just I feel like we can get to to that to do and and maybe as we're doing that to do something will come to us or or our counselor our legal staff to give us some further clarity in as well as IAB okay so Todd want to walk us through the outstanding issues and thank you everybody for bearing with us on this hour but we're trying to work but the one thing I want a message is this is not to compromise so I am I am completely aware of Commissioner Skinner's point so let's just talk about right now what's in front of us for running the session thank you so we have matters related to confidential investigations that's one number two there is a collaboration reference well I was going to use a page number but I believe it's relative to a marketing agreement that we were looking for more information on the particulars there is the pending litigation relative to a patent infringement matter that's number three there are the seven episodes relative to the regulatory settlement that were described in the end-tane matter from I believe it was June 2019 to June 2020 although I just want to confirm the dates but I think that was right then there are the matters you were just discussing with the chart and the judicial and administrative procedures but those can't all be discussed in it's actually just the one it's just that some of what was redacted originally has since been made public but not all of it and so it's so much of the Maryland episode that can't be further discussed without violating I think competitive disadvantage right okay okay so I think let me just double check the list so those five that's five matters yeah five matters and I believe they all fall under the umbrella of being and this is where we'll kind of just turn to the Ms. Lone and Ms. Brennan perhaps to confirm that the theory is that they're all the competitively sensitive to the point that I've discussed publicly would place that MGM at a competitive disadvantage that's correct great and they do all seem to fall within those parameters so with that said and which matters if I look for my packet here with me this was it so the commission anticipates that it may meet an executive statute in conjunction with its review of the BET MGM LLC application in accordance with GL Chapter 30A Section 21A Subsection 7 and GL Chapter 23N Section 6 Subsection I to consider information submitted by the applicant and the course of its application or an operator license that is a trade secret competitively sensitive or proprietary and when it public disclosed publicly would place the applicant at a competitive disadvantage do we have a motion with respect to the matters that were outlined by Councillor Grossman to go into executive session at this hour Madam Chair I move that we go into executive session for the specific reasons delineated by Council Grossman just prior to your summary second thank you any discussion okay Commissioner O'Brien aye Commissioner Hill aye Commissioner Skinner aye Commissioner Maynard aye and I vote yes thank you now you need to have an invitation to the virtual room and Christo who I believe is still here will make sure who do you have a proper contact who can forward it to the proper appropriate parties or Ms. Loney either one of us and we'll make sure that the correct people receive it okay Christo are you all set with that contact information I actually don't think I have Ms. Loney's contact information who else was you can send it to do you have Sarah's you can send it to her I can send it to Ms. Loney I have her email if you can make sure to include Christo okay so you'll get that and we're going to to the public if anybody is still with us we do anticipate returning to this public form but we are going to go in executive session at this point thanks so much I'll set the okay Dave thank you I know it's a long long day do you thank you so much we are now returning to the skin commission public meeting that began at 10 this morning and it's public meeting number four 14 we're returning for an executive session and I need to take a roll call because we're holding this meeting on a virtual platform Commissioner O'Brien good evening I'm here Commissioner Hill I'm here Commissioner Skinner I'm here Commissioner Maynard I'm here all right so we'll get started we are returning after that for the executive section to our agenda and if I am correct I believe that we did manage to get take our temperature on E but not F and G am I right could you repeat that I need to take I'm not sure if I think I think Commissioner Skinner that we and I and I need some help here from somebody who is taking notes for us I assume that you are correct in your assessment Madam Chair that it is just G and F and G that we need to assess the response the quality of the response that we got through E did we get through F we did not I thought all right so now before I think it's G that will turn to separately in light of the responses and the information that we received in the executive session and overall the information we received in the application in the presentation do we feel now the well do we feel that the application and the applicant needs expectations Madam Chair or F F Section F if I recall correctly I noted that I thought it was a very wholesome response in the application but I think it was something that one one commissioner can respond by the objective to an F and we did not yeah that that perhaps was was me relative to the confidential investigation and I'm satisfied that what we've heard in executive session now I believe that this section meets expectations and perhaps in connection with the the litigation to that Commissioner O'Brien raised so Commissioner O'Brien a thank you Commissioner Skinner thank you Commissioner O'Brien no I after executive session I'm satisfied you find it okay does it meet I find that F meets expectation Madam Chair thank you Commissioner Hill and Commissioner Mayer it meets expectations Madam Chair thank you and I'm all set and with respect to section G we did receive a document that was has been submitted to supplement the response that Commissioner Skinner pointed out as perhaps inadvertently as it turns out inadequate but in any case inadequate and that document has been submitted to supplement what was also included in the IEP report Commissioner Skinner I'll turn to you first on that have you had a chance to review it I have and I'm satisfied on each of the items with the exception of the unlicensed supplier matter as well as the unauthorized credit card transactions so wondering if the applicant can just briefly summarize the circumstances the root cause of the issue and what you did to mitigate any future violations Commissioner we'd be happy to we're going to take them in reverse order if you don't mind and discuss the credit card one I would ask Sarah Brennan to join us and she will give you an overview on that one Hi, thank you and Commissioner Skinner happy to provide more detail as referenced earlier in the hearing we do prohibit credit card use in the jurisdictions which by regulation prohibit the use of credit on our platform that MGM's controls were in place unfortunately this was a failure on the part of our vendor site line who was providing the credit services to us or rather deposit method services to us where on their end with their third party world pay there was a coding issue which allowed credit transactions to go through because the BIN number was not properly prohibited from making transactions now this impacted all operators and it impacted that MGM there was 911 credit card transactions amounting to $266,878 as soon as we were notified of this issue we did an immediate audit of all transactions to ensure that no further credit transactions had taken place at the point of notification the issue had already been identified by site line and a stop in place we did subsequent audits to ensure that no other credit transactions had taken place in the coming six months and year after the notification of violation we also revised our internal controls revised our patron facing terms of service and added additional language to our cashier that's patron facing which explicitly says credit card use is prohibited in Iowa now you couldn't actually take a credit card anyway and transact on the Iowa website your transaction would not go through but we added that language just so it was out of an abundance of caution and clarity to patrons I did appear in Iowa to testify on bed MGM's behalf this past September where site line did also testify and accept responsibility for having allowed these transactions so the credit cards were used to deposit funds into the wagering accounts yes ma'am I thought you said um okay sorry and so were those were those funds able to be put towards bets? at that time yes they were used for wagering activity okay and there was a fine associated with the violation but not anything further required by by bed MGM no ma'am just proof that we had taken it back implemented remediation measures worked with site line both contractually but also an evaluation of their internal compliance functions to ensure that they had deployed controls to prevent further recurrence of this issue thank you when when was it when did you realize the period of time was from January 5th 2021 until July 22nd 2021 yes that that this report how did you how did that come to your attention I guess um site line actually self reported to the regulator and had notified operators as well and then we did a self audit in parallel with the audit they did of all operators platforms to identify the violation and and number of occurrences per platform so six months of activity was allowed during that period of time it's pretty significant yes and I'd have to check I think the wagering activity was actually less than what was a for betting jams platform I think it was March to July I can fact check that for you in my incident report but the time frame was slightly shorter than what the actual impact across all operators was thank you and then on the the supplier data issue the unlicensed vendor yes commissioner josh weissman our head of licensing will be discussing that as it is relating to a fine a fine relating to a licensing issue fine so hopefully my sound is a little bit better I did show that so um 50 um as as many of you know why and I'm gonna I'm gonna say it again we we're still having that issue hard time understanding you um but I probably should have given my fellow commissioners the opportunity to ask any questions around the um credit card violations issue that's okay okay they would have spoken up I think it's I did actually have a follow-up okay basically and maybe you said it already and I it's been a long day so if you did I apologize but you have protocols in place to spot check these things now yes yes um we do UAT testing prior to deployment of uh application in a new jurisdiction but then we do continued compliance testing both within my team and the cashier team and because this whenever there's a significant issue you know we we do learn our lesson right for violations and regulatory issues and so this becomes part of our compliance checklist in an ongoing way to ensure that regular audits are done of the cashier of patron facing language on the website and any anything you see in this list that's been addressed as as an issue it becomes part of our regular compliance audit routine okay thanks terrific now that any other follow-up questions on the credit card okay cashier Skinner and and thank you for that and I'm presuming that there there hasn't been another there's nothing another but nothing else depending on our are on a similar issue in a different jurisdiction no ma'am thank you okay cashier Skinner I would I would turn it back over to Mr. Weisman assuming oh that can I I just to sound a little bit so we can understand that sorry about that I'm giving giving that's another another try can you hear me okay now that is much better for me yes good okay okay so betmgm works with several third party vendors who provides data when for this issue in particular when we were going live and in one of the jurisdictions there was an internal communication about the licensing status of one of the vendors and we inadvertently relied on their services at the time of our launch even though they had applied to the regulator in question for a license but they had yet been improved been approved sorry so subsequently they were licensed and they have been licensed in several other jurisdictions but that was the the root of the the issue here was an internal communication since that time our licensing team has has grown significantly and we also have a much more structured process in place that has safeguards baked into it to to prevent this from happening again so there's a set line of communication with relevant parties that need to effectively sign off on the status of the the vendors before the the flip is switched and they're turned on so to speak thank you question is our former chief licensing officer so that one resonates there we go okay Richard Skinner are you all set on those two I'm all set on those two thank you okay anything else not respect respect to section G not for me and so I do think with that additional information that section meets expectations I agree madam chair okay and commissioner O'Brien that you're videoed off but perhaps you're hearing commissioner Sumaynard meets expectations and commissioner O'Brien yeah it meets expectations okay so we have a consensus there and thank you for all the everybody's attention on all the matters and the the good questions raised and also the applicants nymphomess and being responsive and and quick to use all of your resources to really help us understand the responses and very very helpful so commissioners we have made it to then the next the next item on the agenda if we are comfortable and that is number nine where bet MGM we can consider making a determination with respect to the licensing question with the guidance up would you like to proceed based on that an overall assessment of the application okay we're here at 830 madam chair so we might as well keep plugging along I think that makes good sense okay so Todd now this is where as we've done our other licensing applications Todd will go through the factors and the evidence evidentiary standard that we must find in order to make an ultimate determination which is does this applicant would it benefit I'll let you do all that good work thanks Todd thank you so we'll focus our attention on section 218.06 subsection five of the regulations you'll recall that the umbrella standard in determining whether to award a license of this sort is whether it would benefit the Commonwealth and in reaching that conclusion the regulation sets out a series of factors that we discussed earlier you'll recall further though that within each factor there are a series of sub factors so I'll go through those now bearing in mind of course that the standard by which you have to view these is whether there is substantial evidence in the record whether from the application itself or testimony presented during this meeting so the first factor is to look at the applicant's experience and expertise related to sports wagering including the applicant's background in sports wagering the applicant's experience and licensure and other jurisdictions with sports wagering and a description of the applicant's proposed sports wagering operation or description technical features and operation of the sports wagering platform the second one is the economic impact and other benefits to the Commonwealth if the applicant is awarded a license including employment opportunities within the Commonwealth the projected revenue from wagering operations and tax revenue to the Commonwealth and community engagement there is one other one that does not apply here the next factor is the applicant's proposed measures related to responsible gaming including the applicant's responsible gaming policies the applicant's advertising and promotional plans and the applicant's history of demonstrating commitment to responsible gaming the next factor is a description of the applicant's willingness to foster racial ethnic and gender diversity equity and inclusion including within the applicant's workforce through the applicant's supplier spend and in the applicant's corporate structure the next factor is the technology that the applicant intends to use in its operation including geofencing know your customer measures and technological expertise and reliability the next factor is the suitability of the applicant and its qualifiers and we can of course come back to discuss this in a little bit more detail but the sub factors are whether the applicant can be or has been determined suitable in accordance with 205-CMR-215 the applicants and all parties in interest to the licensees integrity honesty good character and reputation the applicant's financial stability integrity and background the applicant's business practices and business ability to establish and maintain a successful sportsway during operation the applicant's history of compliance with gaming or sportsway during licensing requirements and other jurisdictions and whether the applicant is a defendant in litigation involving its business practices and finally any other appropriate factor in the commission's discretion so those are the that's the standard and the factors that the commission has to apply here the other issue that might be helpful to circle back on is the suitability standard you'll recall that there are two possible options here one is a durable finding of suitability which can only be awarded if the applicant has been subjected to an adjudicatory proceeding under section 101 of the regulations which has not happened in this instance and the second option is that a preliminary finding of suitability may be awarded and that is detailed further based primarily upon the certifications made by the applicant and the IEB's report which you have taken a look at as part of this review so those are the elements and the factors to be considered of course there are a series of automatic conditions that would attach to any award but before we get into those we have customarily taken a look at any additional conditions that the commission would consider attaching to the award of any license I don't have any specific conditions that were identified that there were a series of issues that were raised so Madam Chair I'll pause there for purposes of maybe talking about conditions or any other issues relative to the factors that just discussed Commissioners are there any conditions that we would want to attach should we proceed if we were to go ahead and put the findings if you want I know I guess I'd like you to be thinking about that and we can then go through the vote I know that we've done the vote in the past but there's the standard conditions is there anything that's been discussed today in both public and executive sessions public meeting and executive session think about for a condition so with that said you want to walk through the what we need in order for us to move ahead what we must find I'm sorry to you mean relative to the conditions no not relative to the conditions I think we would make we have voted first and then impose conditions second so well no we need to because some some people's votes may depend on conditions so okay the the only I guess I let me backtrack a little of what I said the only thing I did make a note of was the supplier diversity spend information which the applicant has agreed to provide so that is one issue that would be consistent that would be consistent was it two parts commissioner Maynard and commissioner Skinner just like we did last time was it just one part I was just going to speak to they actually answered the second part verbally to us at that two percent rate across the categories so I took that answer to not be conditional I don't know how commissioner Skinner feels about it yeah I would still I would still want to see the total number of vendors in order to put that two percent in context that's what I was going to say the first the first part which was that twenty twenty one information forward to be consistent I would like to see that information that's the bender list yes okay and and and you're satisfied with two percent and let's see how that evolves I'm satisfied that they gave us an answer on the question right right yeah I understand okay is there any other condition that we might want to explore I would like a minute to just check in on something bear with me one minute please thank you one two minutes sorry that was more than a minute thank you Dave so if you want we'll just reconvene and quickly for that roll call Commissioner O'Brien I am still here and then Commissioner Hill I'm here thank you Commissioner Skinner I'm here and Commissioner Maynard I'm here thank you only taking that roll call because we're holding this reconvening of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission public meeting number four hundred and fourteen at this hour I'm now nine o'clock I appreciate everyone's attention and patience so we now have had Council Grossman go through the factors in if you could remind it's A A through G with the exception of an F there would need to be a finding that is supported by substantial evidence of each of those factors and sub factors being met is that there do I have a motion with respect to that Oh or we want to talk about conditions first I think we should talk about conditions first to make sure if anybody has anything else that I know we talked about the supplier diversity the vendor diversity list and Todd was indulging us I wanted to know how okay so just so you know my phone just told me to go to sleep so just so we're all aware that's how long we've been on in turn I'm just saying drink water and stand so here we go seven o'clock eleven hours at the nine o'clock hour yeah just saying this is it this is it so and I don't think I'm the only one feeling this way but I do want to put this out for discussion which is putting a condition if this license were to be voted in the affirmative in addition to the diversity list that we place a requirement on bet MGM to provide timely and ongoing notice to IEB about any developments in either of the matters the confidential investigations that were first disclosed on the 16th and that were further discussed in executive session I feel like for me anyway that's a given the posture that we're in that to me would be a condition that I would suggest and I thank attorney Grossman for working the language with precision but that was the language that I feel comfortable with I throw that out for discussion no objection from me I think that is makes eminent sense agreed it's so reasonable Mr. O'Brien that I assumed that it was going to happen anyways as you know I'm a pessimist and I like to bootstrap so again so we would have those two conditions that would attach and then of course the standard conditions that Todd has read into record earlier today but we should hear them again sure so that's in again section 220.01 of the commission's regulations and it talks about the automatic conditions that attach to any award of a sports wagering operator license and the conditions are as follows that the operator obtain an operation certificate before conducting any sports wagering on the commonwealth that the operator comply with all terms and conditions of its license and operation certificate that the operator comply with general law chapter 23n and all rules and regulations of the commission that the operator make all required payments to the commission in a timely manner which in this instance would be the $1 million fee for a temporary license which we can talk about momentarily the next one is that the operator maintain its suitability to hold a sports wagering license and the final one is that the operator conducts sports wagering in accordance with its approved system of internal controls consistent with 205CMR and in accordance with its approved house rules in accordance with general law chapter 23n section 10a and consistent with 205CMR so those are the conditions at play it's important to recognize and I apologize I don't know if you've actually even discussed this that they would presumptively be awarded the preliminary a finding of suitability and not the durable finding that is a finding that the commission will have to make if that's the case that makes them eligible to apply for a temporary license which is discussed in section 219 of the regulations and as we've talked about before executive director Wells and I will work with the presumptive licensee as to how to go about doing that which will come back before the commission that I later did so that was a lot of words but that's I just wanted to put all that out there for you so with that said and the conditions spoke the two that were advanced by commissioner O'Brien as well as the standard ones and with the reviewing A sections A through G with the exception of F do I have a motion regarding a finding that we have met those with the meeting that the evidentiary burden of substantial evidence and I did not frame that one but I have a motion Councilor Grossman you may need to help a little bit absolutely Chair yeah I'm going to take a swing at this thank you our former secretary commissioner O'Brien has been helping me be a good secretary here teaching me how to do a few of these things so let me take a little try at this okay great and then we we can amend if necessary so just bear with me because I have been working on this so madam chair I would move that the commission find that the application applicant that MGM LLC through its application submitted and as discussed here today and subject to the conditions discussed here today has this has established by substantial evidence and met the criteria set for in 205 CMR 218.065 A through E and G and further that any award of the category three licensed to the applicant would be to the benefit of the commonwealth I have a second second do we need to amend that to include the conditions for those I can certainly I can read them if we need clarity the first condition would be that the licensee provide the vendor diversity list as requested here today and second that that MGM provide timely and ongoing updates concerning any developments connected to the two confidential investigations that were first disclosed to the IEB on 121622 and further discussed in executive session today I certainly am all right with that change Commissioner O'Brien okay with that amendment I seconded it with that amendment thank you very much any further discussion clarification we have that recorded okay Councillor Grossman yes right on okay commissioner O'Brien aye commissioner Hill aye commissioner Skinner aye commissioner Maynard aye and I vote yes now commissioner Hill with respect to the outstanding subsection let me take another shot at it Madam Chair thank you and move that the Commission find that the applicant that MGM LLC be found to have established by its application filing reviewed by the IEB and the discussion here today by clear and convincing evidence its suitability consistent with 205 CMR 218.065 F and that any conditions subject to a finding of suitability also reference the obligations outlined in 205 CMR 220.01 if I could just offer a call it a friendly amendment though I don't have standing to do that I forgot about the adjudicatory yeah it's actually not clear and convincing in this case it's just substantial evidence that they have established their preliminary suitability because there was no adjudicatory proceeding but otherwise commissioner Hill I think you got it hey is the 218 is the subsection reference correct as well or was that the was that the full suitability reference no that's actually the reference to just suitability I'll double check that I think that's yeah I just want to double check that 218.065 F a swing and a miss I try not at all no that's that's a double not a home run but that's no that's just this the factor that talks about suitability that's not the suitability so the 218.07 is that the suitability is that the preliminary suitability preliminary suitability is discussed in 215.01 B so is that I'm sorry 2.012 A and B just B yeah so we just need I think we just amend to make sure we're referencing that as well commissioner Hill do you want to withdraw your motion and start and we can start over is that the easiest way I would withdraw it with no problem okay but with the new sections and the new language unless somebody else has it in front of them yeah we'll need some help I'll need some help yeah exactly so I think I think what you're we'd like to do is move to find that the applicant bet MGM LLC has demonstrated by substantial evidence it's that a preliminary finding of suitability may be issued in accordance with 215.012 and accordingly they are eligible to apply for a temporary license I'm sorry commissioner Hill but this is this is um this is not so it's not that tough by substantial evidence it's suitability consistent with 205 CMR 215.01 is that what I heard accurate 215.01 subsection 2 yes and we would continue on in the condition subject to a finding of suitability also referencing the obligations outlined in 205 CMR 220.01 that remains yes those conditions attach automatically okay so I'm just going to read it not in record I move that the commission find the applicant the that MGM LLC be found to have established by its application filing reviewed by the IEB and the discussion here today by substantial evidence and suitability consistent with 205 CMR 215.012 and that any condition subject to a finding of suitability also reference the obligations outlined in 205 CMR 220.01 can I forget anything there sound good that does make them eligible for a temporary license that doesn't need to be part of the motion okay so I will um I'm going to read it all just like that that's all right madam chair I move that the commission find that the applicant bet MGM LLC be found to have established by its application filing reviewed by the IEB and the discussion here today by substantial evidence its suitability consistent with 205 CMR 215.012 and that any condition subject to a finding of suitability also reference the obligations outlined in 205 CMR 220.01 second do we need to insert the word preliminary or no is that covered the site references preliminary suitability so I think it's covered and I think everyone is of the same understand that we I'm certain I can move to insert preliminarily is a friendly amendment preliminary yep insert in front of suitability prior to suitability do you accept that if I second that friendly amendment if commissioner hill accept I accept that friendly amendment thank you thank you commissioner brian all right any further discussion all right commissioner brian hi commissioner hill hi commissioner skitter hi and commissioner maynard hi and I vote yes 5-0 and that concludes this portion of the agenda congratulations to bet MGM madam chair commissioner staff thank you very much it's been a very long day for all of you we're very appreciative of that thank you for the thoughtful discussion it's very appreciated by that MGM if you need anything from us you know where to reach us thank you commissioners would you like to say anything other than good night just get you beat me to it madam good luck and good night good luck and good night congratulations congratulations you know it is a late night but the the business is concluded so thank you so much I see executive director wells is leaving it just one quick matter so tomorrow we have on the agenda finishing up caesars the sports book at ppc and pen interactive we also have fanatics sort of on the tail end and they have everybody on call just in case of what they were inquiring whether they should remain on call because they have a bunch of their executives but I didn't want to I can't imagine we get to it but I also I have to be blunt that I think after the day that we've had to use commissioner skinner's phrase I don't think we're doing the applicant any favors by putting them on at the end of the day tomorrow given today's list and tomorrow's list and I don't want to do this again tomorrow right I think we need to be realistic about them I don't think we'd reach them yeah so I would say let's say the excuse fanatics and then we're going to see them now in terms of tomorrow we will be starting the caesars missionaries we will then be moving into a cap on for ppc and is it and then it's realistic then that we can at least begin with psi we've been given the supplemental that they were going to be providing because we had asked them to supplement ppc no caesars similar to the list that was supplemented I don't know have we reached I don't know if we've received from IEB the piece that's missing because that's what we're waiting for yeah Kara did forward you this much earlier in the day their supplement on the discipline but she has not forwarded the BED they hadn't submitted the the BED and she's been on all day Kara has maybe on now so let's see we have one piece that you're waiting for but you don't have the other piece oh she said they've submitted okay so the question is is I don't think you were preparing to review it but if you want to you can what we were prepared to do was to have the licensing division report on whether it is substantially complete you remember this was an entity qualifier the IEB in this process does not do a review of the entity qualifier applications but it was also them supplement it was akin to today where they did not give a full some list we have that have to have that Kara got what's said earlier today but the piece that Loretta is now addressing is the piece where it was just we inadvertently left something out and they needed to respond they did respond and I guess my question is if you've been able to do what you need to IEB design to be done so that tomorrow morning when we start we would be able to have a checklist yes the licensing did Kara has told me that she will be prepared to do the preliminary review of the application for administrative completeness and she'll be able to report on that so yeah you'll be ready for Caesars okay thank you we'll be this is a process for tomorrow we'll start with Caesars and then move to PPC's cap one application it's a resumption right word we're resuming the review of their application we were last in an executive session with them and we will resume that review with an update from them everybody received that update from okay and then we would go into the cap three commissioners one one of us is not does not have a 9 a.m. matter because of a recusal I am asking councillor Grossman if we could just miss your update if we could roll that matter over to another date given the late hour I will be meeting every second I can to get organized tomorrow to resume at 10 I think that's imminently reasonable if there's any way to squeeze it in this week that would be ideal and I know that's a challenge but we have Thursday the 22nd you do whatever you need to market after that at the conclusion of that public meeting or before Crystal is that even I don't I don't I know that there's the change in some commissioners plans so is that even a fair thing to I really I'm actually wondering if we can finish this maybe you guys finish this offline yeah well honestly because I if I'm here now I'm sure Brian might I just am changing you know I I'm going to be in the office for to cheer the meetings on these matters so I'm going to I'm going to leave the meeting early before you guys conclude I'm recused from the other matter so I will see everyone at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning okay see you at 10 thanks everybody we should adjourn this meeting first well you can adjourn without me adjourn without her she's just fine okay Thursday already starts at 9 30 and looks pretty lengthy so I don't thank you about putting something after that has proven a few times that we run over too late so I wouldn't think we could do it Thursday and what about the nine o'clock hour on that one I mean the meeting starts at 9 30 at what time 9 30 it was already set early because of commissioner schedules yeah pulling up my Wednesday schedule I was going to say we can potentially do it Wednesday but I think that's one commissioner unavailable no I don't think we have to to commissioners unavailable at least no let's see I this is where I struggle now that company's managing the schedules I can't do anything I can't okay that's okay crystal commissioners I'm leaving the white flag for tomorrow morning because I am going to be commuting in here um and I and I need the time to prepare so Todd will we'll have to figure out if this needs we need to know seriously what the timing on this has to be if it could be I know it's the week after Christmas I don't think you're available that we but we could we could schedule for that day we have one of our other lawyers handling it and you can um probably try I don't know if the commissioners are available then is there a time is there what is the timing on this matter it's just it's a there's no set time it's just a matter of getting it done and chair if it helps I'm available the week after Christmas then that might maybe we could squeeze it in then and have another attorney cover it Commissioner Maynard you get back that Thursday or Friday and Commissioner Hill I'm not sure what your week looks like I'm kind of up in the air waiting to see what we need to do and not do before yeah I I I guess um well you know what let's just it's not going to be tomorrow we'll work on it a different date going forward but it will not it will not be on for tomorrow that was a commissioner update it was a matter unrelated to the agenda matter for minute adjudicatory hearing that we are that we must deal with unrelated to today's agenda so thank you commissioners um with that take that off for nine thank you for all your good work thank you to the entire team who's hung in here thank you to the applicant appreciate everyone to have a motion to adjourn move to adjourn second don't all jump all right thank you commissioners um commissioner hill hi commissioner skinner hi commissioner maynard hi I vote yes that's four four zero commissioner bryan um left a little early thanks