 Okay. You are all set. Good morning, everyone. I am right now pleased to be convening our next meeting public number 386. But before we can get started on that, we are holding this public meeting virtually and it requires us to do a roll call, which when we do that roll call, we're going to note that we are now a commission. I am delighted to welcome Commissioner Jordan Maynard. We did have a public meeting yesterday. He joined us on Monday. He has been in full swing. I don't think he has slept much. We are delighted to welcome him and to invite him to today's special public meeting. And most of all, wish him a happy birthday. Good morning, Commissioner Maynard. Let's get started with our public roll call. Commissioner O'Brien. Good morning. I am here. Commissioner Hill. Good morning, everyone. I am present. Commissioner Skinner. Morning, everybody. I'm here. Commissioner Maynard. Do you want to say anything? Well, thank you, Chair. And thank you for the birthday wish. And I am present. Great. So we can get started. We are trying to limit this meeting to about an hour and a half, Karen, because we do have some pressing deadlines up against this meeting. So we'll get started today as August 4th. There's public meeting number 386. To order, we have no minutes. We'll turn right over to Executive Director Wells. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. And welcome and happy birthday to Commissioner Maynard on behalf of the whole MGC team. We're very glad to have you on board. So I think it's no surprise that the big item that's going on with the Gaming Commission is the bill that is in the governor's hands right now regarding sports wagering. I want to reiterate, as the chair mentioned at the agenda setting meeting that this bill is not yet law. It has not yet been signed by the governor. We won't be commenting on specific language in the legislation at this point. We are taking a hard look at all the language in the bill and doing a very thorough review right now. As part of the administrative update, I just wanted to note that should the governor sign, we want to highlight a few areas that the commission should start thinking about. We don't need obviously to make any decisions today, but the team is working on their areas of implementation and there will be many issues that come before the commission. So I just wanted to highlight a few of those to get you thinking on those and the staff can support you with any questions or any further information. But we expect these kind of issues will come for you again. One of the preliminary things that we are discussing is the kind of forms we're going to use. We're going to get into the application form later at this meeting. But my expectation staff is going to be recommending that for the qualifiers for the license operators that we would use the multi-jurisdictional personal history disclosure form and the BED, business entity disclosure form, as part of the application process. I think that will make it easier for the applicants and for investigators because that is the form that's used generally across the nation. And that will expedite the process and we are familiar with the form and could use that. So that's something that we will be asking for approval for down the road if the legislation is in fact signed. The other thing I expect is that we would want to fold the operator license levels into our existing structure. As you know, we have the executive key standard, GEL, we have registrants. So whatever we end up doing with the occupational licenses, we would like to fold that into the existing structure that will create some efficiencies in the licensing process. We do expect to be asking for jobs companions from the prospective licensees because then we can enter that into our LMS system and expedite that process as well. So this is just a little bit of a heads up to prospective licensees that that's something we're going to be looking for is my expectation. The other thing we're going to be looking for and we discussed this previously at a very high level is IT certification of mobile platforms. There's much to be done there. IT department has worked with other jurisdictions, learned a lot over last several years on what would need to be done to protect the integrity of those mobile platforms. The other issue, the third issue, just want to highlight a few vendor licensing. That's something that the commission is going to have to think about and discuss. We're familiar with that for the gaming side. We'll have to think about that on the sports wagering side. Another issue is promo play. So we can get into further detail now that has been a hot button issue that's something Mr. Skinner, chair, Jen Stein, and director Lilios and I learned a little bit more about last week. But the issue of how is promo play handled for tax purposes is very important to hot button issue in the industry. The other issue is kiosk locations. For the sports book at the locations, what is the gaming space and what's not and what's allowed to be put where that's something that you're also going to have to be thinking about. So I just wanted to flag some of these issues for you. The staff will continue to inter identify issues for the commission and bring those before you. But the overarching principle that we're operating under is that integrity in the implementation and regulation of sports wagering is of critical importance. You know, we had the discussion last week that we only get one shot to get this right. And we intend to do that and support you as the commission in any way that you need. So we are here for you and we will provide you with any information you need as you take on this responsibility should the legislation be signed. So that's really all I have for the administrative update. I'm certainly available now for any questions or anything like for me or for the rest of the team to be looking into. But I just wanted to highlight there. There's interesting work to be done and we're geared up and ready to proceed if that is the case. So thank you, Karen. Before we turn to questions, I do want to point out and reiterate what Karen said is that of course, the governor has full 10 days to take action on this of the bill was laid on his desk on Monday. And so he is going to be doing his analysis. And as we pointed out, though that we we want to be respectful of that process. But today is an opportunity to take some initial steps to think about should sports wagering be legalized the law passed, you know, the steps that we can take. I want to point out to that legalizing this industry doesn't create a new form of gaming. It brings sports wagering out of the underground economy, where there have been no protections for consumers, no consumers and no responsible gaming initiatives to aid players. So this is a big step toward putting sunshine on a practice that hasn't had any protection. It's noteworthy to and this is something that we would like the public to pause on that that this very moment, while that bill is on the governor's desk, there is no vehicle to place a legal sports wager in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. So there are nefarious operators who may still seek to gain customers in this time of transition. So again, we remind the public that the sports wagering right now is not legal in Massachusetts. We are awaiting the governor's decision consistent with our past practice, however, and according to the opening law, our process will be public about this topic. And our meetings and relevant documents will be publicized as we move forward. Finally, before I turn to my fellow commissioners, we want to note that we appreciate the legislature's competence in gaming commission as the right regulator for this new industry. And we intend as Karen has pointed out to meet our responsibilities fully. And for the benefit, including the health and welfare of the residents of the Commonwealth. And with that, I turn to my fellow commissioners. Any questions for Karen, before we turn to the lineated preparations in the agenda? I don't have any questions at this time, Madam Chair. Thank you, Commissioner Hill, Commissioner Skinner. No questions, Madam Chair. Commissioner O'Brien. Not based on what we talked about. Executive Director spoke about the meeting. Okay. Commissioner Maynard. No questions at this time, but thank you to Karen for all of the work that's been put in already. Okay, then I think Karen, I'll let you lead. I know that you have different members of your team who lead these discussions. Thank you. Correct. So, mindful of the fact that this, as we've said several times, is not law. There are some things that would be helpful to get us going, should it be signed. So one of the first things I'd like to bring to your attention is that under 23K up for the MGC, that the commission has to approve the org chart for the agency. So we have done that in the past. We've done that on an annual basis. I think we did it at the beginning of this past year. So should sports betting pass, I am seeking the commission's approval to add a division of sports wagering. I have had discussions with different jurisdictions about different models to implement sports betting. You could theoretically just fold it into the divisions that we have. However, recommendations made to me convinced me that the right thing to do is to have a division of sports wagering. But that division may not be a large division. I'm seeking for a chief of that division and potentially some employees. But that a division will really work in conjunction with the other divisions within the agency. The sports betting operations really has to work with ID. It has to work with finance. It has to work with legal. It has to work with research and responsible gaming, etc. So it's really important that whoever is leading this division be able to collaborate with the other pieces of this agency. But it is going to be helpful to have a centralized point of contact for not only the licensees, but also the staff on any issues with sports wagering. So my recommendation number one, I have a revised work chart with sports wagering with a question mark at the side in your packet. And my suggestion is that today we have a conditional approval of updating the work chart should the sports betting legislation pass so I can get going on that. And after your discussion on that, I'll turn to the division chief position. So Karen, I have a question in terms of where it is in the York chart. Yes. Being in IEB. I see that it's a freestanding unit outside IEB. And that is seen as necessity based on the wording in the statute, because it's not placed within IEB, it has to be placed, you know, lying to you. What's you know, that's that's the question I have in terms of this orchard. Yes. I mean, I think that my understanding based on how sports wagering has it been implemented in other jurisdictions, and then our own structure. So as you know, we have a very unique structure in in Massachusetts. The components of sports wagering really go across the board. So it's almost like there's gaming, and then there's sports wagering, and they mirror each other because they both have licensing, they both have background investigation, but they both have regulations, legal finance, the money's got to come into the finance department. So it's almost as if the chief of the sports wagering division is almost like a mini version of the executive director for sports wagering, but would report to the executive director because there are so many components of sports wagering that touch every area that the executive director oversees. So that is my that is my thinking. If you put it under the IEB, then it I think it's tricky or in working with with legal and finance and all that because you don't have that overarching sector director that is responsible for those divisions. And so in terms of enforcement mechanisms currently used through IEB, is that going to be inherently placed within sports wagering? Or is it reporting in a statute? Yes. And we can clarify that in the job description or further because my my thinking is that enforcement measures for and an investigation of sports sports wagering would fall under the terrorist direction and the and the IEB. So any enforcement action finds license, anything taken with respect to sports wagering, that would fall under the gaming agents division or the IEB Chief Enforcement Council's office. So obviously they would have a big role, but it really just mirrors the structure we have now. This is just someone that would really be the the lead of that division would coordinate with all of these different divisions within the LNGC. That's my thinking, but I'm certainly open to the commission's call. So the only thing I'm struggling with with the current placement on this board chart is that enforcement responsible for that chief. And there's no dotted line over to IEB to care that sort of thing. So that I get where you're putting it. Otherwise, that's the part of this that I'm struggling with. Yeah, I guess I think that I would not put this person above IEB in the No. Right. But is there a component that's either a lateral or a dotted line either up to IEB director or to the chair? That's the question. I guess I was thinking that sort of comes through the chair and the executive director and then back down, but we can change that. I'm open to any discussions you want to have on that. If I could offer the current legislation, I think and Loretta, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that where it's placed now as the legislation's written, it seems appropriate. But certainly in terms of. The commission has oversight over the enforcement vision. So I think that seems appropriate. Yeah, I'm not saying the placement is inappropriate, but I'm saying I still have a question that I think I need clarity on in terms of the enforcement component. And how that IEB interacts with it. Well, maybe Todd can help on that too. But the legislation has written. Seems to contemplate the commission having that oversight, and then we would work with IEB. And so I think it works. Well, I'm just thinking what we may want to do, because in twenty three K, the IEB is still specifically delineated. That's right, right? Very clearly, it's not in this bill, right? Right. So what maybe we could do is, you know, we could bring something forward with the commission on some kind of policy or you know, how this is going to work as far as enforcement measures. I think that I would still keep the sports way during division chief reporting to the executive director. But that's a good idea to to because it's not in the legislation, wash that out and have commission approval on a policy for that. So I can work with Loretta on that and that could be something to bring back before the commission and get commission input on that because, you know, the enforcement measures obviously are critically important to regulation of this. And that's why I was saying that's OK that the commission has the oversight because I think we could we could come up with those procedures and policies and I'm not even sure it has to be regulatory. I agree with Karen's approach. That idea Loretta, do you do you agree with that? I do. I think those are, you know, important points that are raised and that it makes sense to clarify that structure through some kind of policy statement. Yeah. Yeah. OK. Thanks Karen. Further questions for Karen on the or chart or just generally if you don't want to discuss the sports wagering any questions because this is this will be filed for the Secretary of State's office. So this is an opportunity to you have any other questions too. Madam Chair, I don't have a question for Karen, but I would like to comment on her request. And I think this is important that it beats by itself in the org chart. This is a very unique industry and I think we have to have a department that can oversee a very unique industry as you've set up in the org chart for us to take a look at. Just for the public to know the commissioners over the last few months have been attending conferences to try and get updated on what's going on in other jurisdictions. And I think in whether it was Boston, whether it was Maine, whether it was Vegas, whether it was New York, we kept hearing similar concerns from those other jurisdictions. And one of those concerns had to do with their organization of sports wagering within their jurisdictions. And I think out of the comments that we all heard, I think we can all agree that this is a department within our agency that should be separate. So I agree with the intent of what you'd like to do. I think Commissioner O'Brien brought up a very important policy question. And as we've been talking this out, I agree with the route that we probably should go by putting a new policy in place. So I'm okay with that. But overall, the request that you're making, I think I'm okay with and would like to see move forward. I think there'll probably some further questions once the bill is signed. And you'll come back to us with, you know, other suggestions. But as of today, what you forwarded to us so far, I have no problem moving forward with this being a separate division within the mass gaming commission, if we can address Commissioner O'Brien's concerns. Mr. Skinner, do you have any comments or questions for Karen? I don't have anything to add. I also agree that it seems that the course of action that, you know, we apparently have consensus on is the best approach going forward. Commissioner Maynard. I think that I would echo the fellow commissioners, you know, the worst mistake that can be made is not having the right team in place. And it sounds like there's some consensus on having a team for this purpose. Excellent. Well, I echo Commissioner Hill's comments. We we have been, as you know, planning on this and we've gotten the benefit of hearing from fellow regulators. And I think they have indicated that it's always going to take a few more members of your team than you anticipate. So having a leader that you can rely on, Karen, is important. And I know that you're eager to to address the position itself, too. So with respect to the org chart, you need a vote from us, I believe so. Okay. Do I have a motion with respect to the adoption of the org chart as presented? Certainly, Madam Chair, I move that the Commission approved the organizational chart submitted by Director Wells and included in the commissioners packet and further discussed here today. Second. Any further questions? Okay, Commissioner O'Brien. I wish you're Hill. Bye. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. Mr. Maynard. I vote yes. Five zero. Thank you. Okay. Next, Karen. Okay. Thank you very much. So the next item was respect to the division chief for sports wagering. As the Commission adopted, I forget the exact date, but, you know, several months ago, we did put forth for the Commission of Policy about hiring and the Commission adopted a policy where high level policy making positions, we would go, the staff would go before the Commission and notify the Commission of any vacancy or any seeking to hire in those positions. And then the Commission would make a decision about their level of involvement and what they'd like to do. So I have a draft of a job posting for that division chief position. And at this point, I'm just putting this before the Commission pursuant to our policy. And just coming to you to see what level involvement you'd like to have, or how would you like to go about the hiring process for that position? So I'll leave it to you, Chair, to work with your fellow commissioners on what you'd like to do as far as that hiring process. Well, in terms of the hiring process, if you recall correctly, we decided that the statute actually required our approval on really every hiring decision except for the CFO. And that would not lend itself to very productive work for Karen as she keeps her team in place. So we decided that while we reserved our right to intervene in particular hirings at any level, that it would make sense that we really insert ourselves more formally in those positions that are major policy decision making positions, as defined, Todd would say, in 268A. So chapter 268A, which is actually the ethics of the Public of Interest statute, where those folks triggers a certain disclosure for your finances. Those positions have been interpreted to have more supervisory, more policy making obligations and responsibilities. So Karen has determined that this certainly would be in that level. In terms of the process for moving forward on the hiring, if we, I asked Karen what she would like, and Karen said it would be helpful for her to have Commissioner support in the hiring and the interviewing process. So I think that will work with Karen to devise that process a little bit more. And then we will put out, confirm, I guess, the best way Karen is through that process, confirm the job description. And if this becomes law, that job description will get posted immediately. And we would work very hard to turn this around quickly. It's in critically important position. And we think it will also be a position that will garner some great interest and great talent. Karen, am I missing something? No, that's exactly right. We've had great success with Commissioner involvement in some of the upper level hires we've recently made. So that process has been a great benefit to me. So I would encourage that Commissioner involvement. I realize there's a limitation because of the open meeting law on the number. But certainly if there was sort of assigned commissioners to that process of more with them on the job description, thinking based on Irene's comments, we can tweak the job description a little bit and get her input on that as well. And then hopefully if the legislation gets signed, then we can post immediately, as you said. So we'll just stay tuned a little bit more on that, that exact process. But you've gotten the first step taken, at least having the org chart approved, and you'll take the steps to file it in the event, the conditional approval, of course, based on whether or not we're doing it's legalized. So, okay. Moving on then, Karen. Yes. So the next item on the agenda is just a review of draft licensing application outline. And I believe Jacqueline Nett is here. And I would like to publicly thank her for all the work that she's done on this process. It was tricky because we were trying to get as much ahead of things as we could while not having legislation as a guide. So we did get a group together and Jacqueline as part of that group was assigned to look at other jurisdictions, what other jurisdictions asked for how they did the application process, and just gather information on best practices and just some sort of template. So we had a starting point and we weren't just starting from scratch if the legislation passed. So she has a document. I'm going to turn it over to her just to review with you some of the high points. If you have any comments or any thoughts at this point, we certainly welcome them because we'll have to tailor this to the legislation. Obviously, as I said, this was drafted before we had the legislation. So some may or may not be relevant at this point and we'll have to adjust. But she really did a good job identifying what the best practices are and what other jurisdictions are looking for in the licensing process. So I'll turn it over to Jacqueline. The item is in your packet. This is obviously not a final version, but it gives you an idea of things you may want to look for when the commission is making a licensing decision ultimately. So I'll turn it over to Jacqueline just to give you some highlights. Morning, Madam Chair and Commissioners. Good morning, Jacqueline. Thank you, Karen. Yes. So what you are looking at both the outline of the application draft as well as the packet draft are both samples that are a complete compilation of items that we found in other jurisdictions, depending on whether it was a competitive process, what types of information they required, a number of different scoring parameters, questions that were more pertinent in some jurisdictions than in others. And we just wanted to put together a generalized, more generalized idea of what the criteria was with those jurisdictions. So starting with the outline, the application outline, there it is a I do say it is a very long list with a number of bullet points on it. There are some based on reading the potential legislation for the Commonwealth, there are some sections, especially Section four, that may be pulled out because it appears as though a category three license would have to be assigned separate. So there would be a separate application for that, as well as different financial required financial information as well as platform versus operator items. The packet is a complete and total sample just to give an idea on the application process itself and a potential timeline, as well as types of materials submitted. Will it be an online application process submitted through something such as LMS? Will we be requiring hard copies in binders? Will we be requiring electronic copies? So it was really just a kind of a generalized overview of what we could ask for versus what we knew we would need to ask for and how it would come in. So if there's any questions or if anybody has any feedback or comments, all are welcome. You talked about a timeline, but I don't see that. How long would this application process take? Do you think it could take as few as a few months? It could go depending on what wanted what you wanted to be included in that there are some jurisdictions that do it simply on the application that is submitted. There are some that offer each applicant a potential oral presentation to present their entire application. I would say probably the general consensus on the application timeline is somewhere between three and six months for each jurisdiction. There are some that are very short and there are some that are much longer than that. Karen, in light of the bill that has been laid on the governor's desk, how do we assess this assuming that it were to be signed? Well, you know, we are going to have the legal department look at this. So it's on a cursory review. I think that we need to look at these retail versus online. So the retail so the on on-prem. So that would be your three licensees and appears you'd also have the Tucson or Cass facilities. That looks to be as if there's a presumption of licensure there. So that process does not appear to be any kind of competitive process. It's just if you qualify that you can the commission can give them a license. The the mobile cat, you know, the category three mobile one is different. So we'll have to look at that. There is a provision in the legislation about the seven licenses. So that would indicate the competitive process. So you'd have to get information side which of those seven get get licenses. These are the ultimate full licenses that I'm speaking about right now. So that that's what we want to look at. We may be looking at there may be different groupings of licensure. The retail, the online attached to the retail and then the separate online licenses for mobile operations. That makes sense. Yeah. So in terms of today's it is marked up for vote. Do you think that would be? Yeah, you know, we put that in case that there isn't certainly not looking for you to vote on this today. I think that this was just a placeholder in case there was a minor issue. You somehow came up in the conversation, wanted to vote on. But right now we're just putting it out there for you to start thinking about if there is any feedback you have for us or you have some thoughts on the process because we're going to have to figure out a process to get this back in front of the commission. My thinking right now is, you know, we have Jacqueline as the lead legal is going to have to be involved. I don't know if we'll have the, you know, if we get us Director of Sportsway, I mean, I get that person in time. We'd like to move this along. But ultimately we will take this information, work with the legal department and the law, put it together a proposal, come back before the commission for your approval on the process and the actual application itself. So this is basically just a preview. So you see the universe, you have a document, you can think about it while we work out compiling it together in accordance with the law. I just wanted to, before I turn it over to everyone, echo Commissioner Hill's question about timelines because I know that that's a question that is very critical to the public. Correct, Commissioner Hill, there's a lot of discussion about that timeline and our timeline. But even in terms of deadlines for the application, you know, never mind how and when we want them back. The good news is that by doing this work, any many of the interested parties are going to be very familiar, right? Jacqueline, it's the types of information that's going to be expected. Very much so. That's correct, Madam Chair, part of this. And, you know, as I mentioned, the multi jurisdictional personalist you just collage before in the BED, we were trying to get out to prospective licensees. This is generally what we're going to be asking for. So they can start their work and we won't be holding them up by having them wait for us to sort of figure out what we're going to ask for. We give them a general sense. You know, these companies they know how to compile this information so they can start moving now and then there will be less of a delay. Michelle Bryan, you're unmuted. Did you have thoughts? So just in terms of that timeline, that's obviously been something we've discussed quite frequently of late and some of the speculation that's out there. And Brad, just to circle back on your comment to Jacqueline, there's something on page 16 in the packet where you sort of do the hypothetical timeline, you know, assuming something we know got posted on July 9th going through sort of December. Is there anything else in these materials or is that sort of a sample that you threw out there for discussion today? That was just the sample for today, as well as the applicant, the evaluation criteria were both just samples to give people an idea on the scoring process. Right, as a jumping off point. Got it. Yep, great. Thank you. And before I mute myself, Jacqueline, I'm sure this was no easy task. So thank you for hoping out to. Thank you. Thank you, Michelle. Did you you're unmuted. Did you have I'm unmuted and I'm trying to think if I want to make a comment now or wait to the end after the presentation. But since you've since you've asked, I want the public to understand as we as commissioners are starting to understand that this isn't something that's going to happen overnight. And I think our public needs to understand that there is going to be a process that we need to go through, not only with licensing, but, you know, certifying those who come before us that, you know, with suitability and things of that sort. And that just doesn't happen overnight. And if anything I've learned over the last year with this commission is we are going to do this right. And in order for us to do this right, we need to take our time a little bit to ensure that we're doing it right and that our staff has the tools that they need to make this right. You know, I've seen some quotes in the newspaper from the public and and others, you know, that they hope to have this thing up and running in a very, very short amount of time. And I just want the public to be clear, at least from my view, I'm not speaking for the whole commission, but from my point of view, this is going to take a little longer than people probably anticipate. And I'm OK with that because I want to do it right. But I think the public needs to understand that this is quite a process that we need to go through any. And we're going to learn very quickly within the next conversation, you know, how long a regulation takes to become a regulation. It doesn't happen overnight. I was going to save that comment to the end, Madam Chair, but since we were discussing it, I made it now. That was all. Well, I think you've just started the conversation that we have all had in our heads. We've also been anticipating that. But I can soften the blow that it's going to take some time with this. And I've said it and every commissioner here, except for Commissioner Maynard, has said it. We have been busy preparing and Commissioner Maynard has been monitoring that. We've been busy preparing. And that does put us in a position that that makes us ahead of the game already. Without a question. And that's the good news. And then the extra point that you made that I know we all echo with that, we will we won't compromise the integrity of gaming and the quality of the product that we are regulating. And I know that every licensee that's given that purest privilege here in Massachusetts will echo that. They want they want to have a gaming landscape here that is consistent with what we've seen over the last 10 years. So Commissioner O'Brien, I don't know if you want to add in Commissioner Skinner, but I think it's just a fine time. Commissioner Hale to mention that. I'm glad that I teed it up and that Commissioner Hale very eloquently laid out, you know, certainly what I've been thinking. This is a process and we move swiftly. We showed it during covid. We have been doing the research we have been able to do while continuing the task at hand and regulating the three already licensed brick and mortar casinos in the Commonwealth. But this is a process and the suitability and the vetting of the applicants and making sure the rules and the regulations are accurate and appropriate to protect the citizens of the Commonwealth in this process is critical to the mission. So we will move expeditiously if and when this is signed. But we will do it in a manner that is consistent with our responsibilities as a regulatory body and protecting the Commonwealth and maximizing the benefit. So I just want to reiterate, I absolutely agree with what Brad said and happy to say it now as opposed to at the end before we get into the details. Mr. Skinner. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think everything that deals with timelines and our process has already been said. I'm glad it was said. I support those comments one hundred percent, but I won't belabor them. Shifting back to the outline, the application outline, Jacqueline, fantastic job. Thank you very much. I'm wondering if there were any jurisdictions in those that you reviewed that have adopted a temporary license application. Did you find that in your research? I did not. That is to be honest, that is not something that I was looking for completely. Understood. And so, Karen, I'll include you in this question. Do we have any idea what other jurisdictions models look like for a temporary application process? You know, we I want to hesitate before I say anything on that because I'm not sure. So let me why don't we research that and then get back to you. Understood. I don't want to speak out of turn. Understood. And my, you know, my I didn't want to assume, but I suspect that that was already on your radar, you know, the task of understanding what that process is like in other jurisdictions and what it should look like here in Massachusetts. Correct. We do have, for example, for our gaming primary vendors, as you know, is the former Division Chief for Licensing. We have a temporary license provision for gaming vendors. Primary. So, you know, we are familiar internally with our own system for that. But we'll I'll research that and get back to you because I want to be sure that we'll say. Thank you. I'm just going to raise is a very important point. The temporary license process is one that I know Karen, you know, you and I recently received some good advice at a conference on that it it too comes with could come with a host of concerns. But it also is a vehicle for for getting things going. It's just one of those processes that again needs to be carefully, carefully implemented. So, Jacqueline, thank you for the work and it's not surprising that you hadn't gotten to the temporary piece because the major application isn't alone a big part of the work. Karen, anything else or Commissioner Maynard, I want to turn to you beforehand. We talked about the timelines that maybe we were all thinking about over the last year before your arrival. Do you want to add? I would just like to say that legislation came to us on August 1 and Jacqueline is here presenting to the full commission on August 4. Obviously, this will have to be revised this outline, given that the legislation is still sitting on the governor's desk for his review. And so I just want our fellow Bay Staters to know that the staff here at the commission is definitely been preparing for this, but they're going to have to look at the legislation. And so to echo some of what's been said by my fellow commissioners, it's going to take some time to look at this, but we are prepared and we have been looking at it. And I say we because I'm happy to join in this effort. And you've already had a whirlwind of four days of preparation. I think that you noted that you may have fallen asleep with a particular piece of legislation in your hand last night. So again, I think the observations, Karen, are that that with the team that you've put in place and Jacqueline's good work. And I know Jacqueline's been relying on a lot of work around the country. So we acknowledge the work of our fellow regulators that you've already positioned as well. So what we could do and I wanted to make sure we were putting you in any kind of a position by not taking a vote. But I think what I'm hearing is that this is something I think we should all take back commissioners and take a look really familiarize ourselves with the topics that we're going to be asking about. See how it lines up with the legislation. See if there's anything else that's missing. Sometimes the omissions are harder than what's in front of us. And then get back to Karen and you'll be bringing this in front of the commission at a later day. Correct. That makes good sense. Thank you. Okay. All right. The next item I'm going to turn over to our general counsel time Grossman and that's and his team and that's an overview of the regulatory process and the timeline for that. So Todd you're on. All right. Thanks Karen. Good morning Madam Chair commissioners and all who are joining us here today. Certainly when faced with the challenge of implementing a complex statutory framework establishing a new legal industry one may reasonably contemplate where to even begin. Of course tremendous work has already been done on the planning preparation side here at the commission and getting the org chart staffing matters in place are key but also if the law is ultimately enacted I would submit to you that one of the other key places to begin is in the design of the regulatory framework that will lead to the promulgation of regulations and that's what we'll introduce to you here today again in the event that the bill is enacted all of the hard work that went into creating the bill which is of course not yet law including placing the regulatory authority under the gaming commission will be brought to life in large part by the regulations. The regulations will animate the directives and capture the intent contained in the statutes and we will of course weave in as well all of the commissions interpretations and sensibilities as part of that process of course regulations are the rules which are generally designed to supplement statutes and that they typically fill in any gaps answer any open questions established procedures and ideally set clear expectations as to what the regulator expects of the affected stakeholders all of the questions that Karen raised earlier including the application that was just discussed by Jacqueline and discussed by the commission will likely be the regulations in some fashion an effective regulatory scheme ultimately will be clear comprehensive and fair and will offer a precise framework for all essential components of attaining licensure and operating in a regulated environment the regulations will ultimately serve as the how to manual for the regulated parties and for the commission's own staff in many regards so how do we accomplish all this well we've got a plan to present to you here today in a moment I'll ask our two deputy general counsels to discuss the regulatory framework we've prepared for your review and consideration and then turn to the process that's required to implement the plan Caitlin monahan will begin by reviewing a draft framework of the regulations that we believe will be required to implement the law it will include proposed priority levels for each category of regulations designed to allow the commission to implement the law in phases if we were to choose to go down that path if you will as opposed to doing everything all at once you'll see that the process is designed so that we need not reinvent the wheel if you will where regulations may already exist in other jurisdictions or otherwise a close review of other jurisdictions will certainly play a key role in this process similarly as the commission discussed just a few weeks back there are some existing standards we may be able to look to and to adopt and to put those in place as opposed to writing and drafting new regulations from whole cloth and I'm speaking there particularly about certain GLI technical standards that govern the technology that's typically employed in the most way during space including kiosks at the brick and mortar sports courts after Caitlin reviews that framework, Carrie Terese will discuss the regulation promulgation process that we've been through on a number of occasions these are the steps that the law requires to be followed in order to turn draft language that the commission will prepare into an actual regulation it's important to recognize of course at the heart of the regulatory process is transparency and public input and Carrie will discuss that as well so that anybody who's interested in a particular regulation will be invited to offer their views prior to the commission taking any final action to adopt it and so with that Madam Chair and commissioners if I may unless there are any questions I'll turn things over to Caitlin and we'll of course invite the comments and questions along the way as always if that would be helpful Good morning Caitlin Good morning, alright let's get started so as Todd mentioned I'm going to be discussing the process that we have put in place to draft the regulations leading up to the promulgation process and then Carrie will talk about the promulgation process and in a moment I'm going to share a chart that is our living document that is tracking all the different things that we need to do where it is in process all of those things and what I do really want to emphasize about this document is that it's a living document it's going to change as we move through the process as we decide that maybe we don't need certain regs maybe we do need other regs maybe the titles need to change a lot of different things are going to happen and this is not set in stone and I will also note that it is likely a little bit over inclusive in the first instance so if you give me one second I'm going to share my screen can everybody see that great wonderful maybe if you can make it just a tad bigger I don't know if I can bottom right I like this like that can everyone see okay I'm going to walk through so if anyone is having any trouble just let me know so as you'll see the first few columns of this spreadsheet set out the different types of regulations that we're going to need and the way that we created this list was by looking at our current regulations for gaming 205 CMR and pulling over what we thought we might need to duplicate or modify for sports wagering we've also started looking at other jurisdictions regulations and pulled in things that we think we may need here in Massachusetts and then finally now that we have the legislation that is on the governor's desk we've walked through and added things to the chart that are specifically called out in the legislation as requiring or potentially requiring regulations so this is a long list I once broke the whole thing right now but it's about 225 regulations including sub-regulations so as you know regulations can be you know 205 CMR 100.01, 0.02, 0.03 we've included all of those in this chart they're then broken down by subject and subcategory so that you can quickly sort and filter and see what types of categories the different regulations are under and then we get into our actual process so the way that we envision getting these regulations drafted in before the commission is as follows an attorney will be assigned to each regulation and that attorney will then work with the stakeholders listed in column I here as you can see on drafting that piece of regulation hopefully we'll be able to use templates and models not recreate the wheel when we don't have to but legal work very closely with the stakeholders on the various regulations once and we will track when that's in progress just for our own sanity as you can see here in column J once we have a draft that will go you know to legal legal will approve the draft internally and say it's ready to move on it will then be forwarded to the commission for for putting on an agenda for a public meeting for discussion will track that then when it's approved by the commission to move forward into the promulgation process will track that as well and Kerry again we'll talk about the promulgation process in a minute I'll note that this is all happening prior to promulgation this is actually just getting the draft ready for promulgation and then there's a column to the far right of the spreadsheet that I won't scroll to at this second that just notes that when it's done so we can track everything that's done there are a couple of other things on the spreadsheet that I think will be helpful as we move through the process and again these will absolutely be updated so you'll see that there's a column for sample regulations for you know where what we can look to as a model and we'll continue to add to this as we as we research other jurisdictions there's also a column for 23 ends or where the governing authority comes from so for instance for this regulation you know came from section 16a of the new of the new statute and then you may be asking yourself well how are you going to get through 225 regulations we have to prioritize them in some way shape or form so we have created three priority tiers of our regulations priority tier 1 is the ones that we'll tackle first priority tier 2 second priority tier 3 and the way we've looked at it is what do we need first to start setting up this process and moving to the process so sort of naturally as you may be guessing the application process is in tier 1 the licensing process is in tier 1 the technology standards such as the GLI standards that Todd had mentioned are in tier 1 those are the you know first thing off the ground that we need to get moving will be those types of standards and this is not a comprehensive list but it's in the document and again these standards these priorities may change as we move then we get into category 2 again everything is important but we have to prioritize in some way so that will include a lot of the internal controls such as geolocation that's going to be given out those kind of things and then also responsible gaming which is obviously critical and will take a lot of thought and work that's going to be in our tier 2 and then tier 3 is going to be the stuff that hopefully is a little bit easier and not quite as urgent so some of the administrative regulations such as adjudicatory hearings and ideally we will be able to take some of 23k and just amend it we will have to again look at every section but that would be the plan it would also include things like the capital expenditure plans for the new sports books things like that that don't have to happen on day 1 so I'm going to stop sharing so so yeah so that is our general process very very happy to take questions on that as I mentioned we'll continue to update and refine this as we go and we're excited to get started next week who would like to ask Caitlin or Todd a question about this process so far I know you've got your second staff that you want to go to Todd Kerri you want to wait for Kerri okay Todd do you want to introduce Kerri sure well next up as reference prior Kerri Terisi will now go through the regulation promulgation process which is certainly familiar to some of our existing regulations up and running but I think it'll be helpful just to refresh our memories as to what the process actually entails Kerri all right thank you Todd good morning madam chair and commissioners so in terms of the promulgation process after we get through this drafting process that Caitlin just discussed then a regulation enters the formal promulgation process which excuse me approximately two to three months so I'll just sort of walk you through kind of high level here what happens during those two to three months after the commission has voted to begin the process and up until the regulation is officially adopted pardon me Kerri if you'd like to take time to get some water that's fine I might continue so I apologize no problem so the first thing is that we are required to file a notice with the local government advisory committee notifying them of the proposed regulation changes asking for any comment that they might have and informing them of a public hearing date that notice is required to be filed 14 days before the public hearing is going to occur pardon me 14 days before the notice of hearing can be filed with the secretary's office before the notice of hearing is published in a newspaper I'll get to those requirements in a moment so sorry and then the next thing that is required to be done is the notice of a public hearing identifying the date on which the public hearing will be held and a small business impact statement are required to be filed with the secretary's office these must be published in the Massachusetts register at least seven days before the public hearing the register itself runs on a bi-weekly deadline and publication schedule and filings are due two weeks before they're published so for example if we were to file something tomorrow August 5th it would publish on August 19th if we weren't ready to file tomorrow and we waited and we filed next Friday August 12th it wouldn't publish until September 2nd because the next filing deadline after August 5th is August 19th this is just sort of an example of the timeline we can bump up up against sometimes depending on when we are prepared to file so those dates are factored in here in setting the actual date for the public hearing of the publication of the notice of hearing must be seven days before the public hearing occurs that notice of hearing also needs to be posted on our website and in a local newspaper at least 21 days before the public hearing the public hearing is then held on the date identified and at that public hearing an opportunity is provided for members of the public to give comment either in person or in writing the public hearing is typically presided over by a member of the commission or multiple members of the commission after that the draft regulation comes back to the full commission along with an amended small business impact statement for a vote to finalize the promulgation process and to file the regulations with the secretary's office so after the vote from the commission we would then file the final regulations and their effective date would be dependent on that same biweekly Massachusetts register publication schedule that I just discussed so that's the general process for after after the drafting is complete and the commission has voted on final approval and it runs through the formal process now all that being said there is also a process in the commonwealth for adopting emergency regulations and there is language related to emergency regulations in the bill which the legal department is currently reviewing so just to kind of give you some information on how emergency regulations would work when regulations are adopted by emergency they can be filed immediately so they don't need to go through this process before they're filed essentially what happens is they are filed immediately they stay in effect for three months and during that three month period you run through this promulgation process that I just discussed and then after you run through the process they are formally filed and the process is completed so that's generally how I'm sorry that's generally how emergency regulations work and as I mentioned we are reviewing the bill to kind of see how that works here but happy to answer any questions that you might have on the promulgation process I have a clarifying question madam chair yes Carrie can you and I'm sorry I know you haven't been feeling well so I hate asking you a question however the emergency regulation I think has a caveat to it there can only be certain reasons that you do an emergency regulation can you just touch upon that so the public understands what the emergency regulation is absolutely so under chapter 30a an emergency regulation can only be filed just got the language here so I can read this to you when the immediate adoption amendment or repeal of a regulation is necessary for the preservation of the public health safety or general welfare and that observance of the requirements of notice would be contrary to the public interest so that's the general ability that boards and commissions and agencies have to file regulations by emergency the reason I mention it is the term you know sort of emergency regulations it is mentioned in the bill but it's not entirely clear whether the authority in the bill is broader than the authority under chapter 30a so we are just taking a look at that and I think it will require further discussion thank you thank you for the clarification questions for Caitlin and Carrie and Todd well the absence of questions doesn't mean that it's not complicated it probably means more that we are quite familiar with the process ourselves and this is an opportunity to let the public know about the timeframes and what goes into a single the regulation the promulgation of a single regulation excuse me and Caitlin how many do you right now anticipate at the very least about 225 right and so that's that's a number that I assume that you've come up with based on all the research you've done in anticipation of today over the last year by looking at other regulatory bodies across the United States perhaps even into Canada so thank you that's a very helpful a primer for those of us who are not as familiar with this process Commissioner Maynard do you have any questions no questions at this time okay excellent Commissioner Skinner I'll say okay so Todd are you all set with your presentation yes thank you I think we have completed okay great so I'll turn it back to you Karen so the next item under the preparations agenda item is the overview of the plan for the investiture process so I'll turn that over to Director Williams thank you Karen good morning chair good morning commissioners so on the investigation side we have taken steps to plan for conducting suitability investigations on entities and individuals connected with sports wagering applications our existing processes and experience will lend themselves here so for instance the scoping process that was used on the original gaming applicants as well as the scoping process that we routinely used on the initial and renewal applications for our gaming vendors I expect will lend itself well here anticipate that we will be responsible for conducting both a general integrity review to include general character integrity and reputation as well as a financial stability integrity and financial background review on the general background review side we've had a statement of work drafted for some time now I expect to be able to finalize it when the final bill is signed into law and we're preparing and planning to assemble a team of contract investigators and planning to utilize experienced gaming investigators from the ranks of retired members of our GEU I believe that this will be a very efficient and effective way of performing that general background review aspect of the background investigations on the financial investigation side we also have drafted a statement of work that will be finalized when we have a signed law similarly we're planning to utilize contract investigators for this aspect as well and I've been working with our financial team with Derek and John to be able to identify someone likely or a firm likely on the statewide contract list that can assist with this aspect of the reviews previously I submitted to Karen anticipated FTE hires and included in that was a hire for an additional financial investigator for our financial investigations team that I expect would assist with overseeing this aspect of the contract on the financial review reevaluating all of our FTE requests that we preliminary submitted as we continue to look at anticipated volume here and what the universe of applicants would be so we're planning to utilize these external contract measures to complement our existing resources and accomplish the reviews as Karen alluded to I fully expect to be coming back to the commission for guidance from the commission on interpretation of criteria things like on interpretation standard of review more guidance on what we may be doing with vendors for instance so that we can have reasonable and realistic expectations on the scope of the reviews and on the timeline so that we can reach that balance of expeditious completed investigations but thorough investigations the guidance that the commission gives up so that's a high level review of the planning that we've done so far Questions Missioners I I'm sorry I keep asking questions of the staff today because I know a lot of these questions will be answered one when the bill if the bill is signed and two as we start looking at other jurisdictions I have a couple of I don't want to call them concerns yet but suitability Loretta can you walk me through what was going on back when the casinos employees were up for suitability and how that's going to be possibly different for what we're trying to do here with sports wagering because if I understand and I've only talked to you briefly about this in the past there were quite a few hundred people that we needed to do suitability background checks on and if that was the case back then I'm assuming that maybe the case moving forward with sports wagering can you help me understand what the process will be if we have that many people coming for suitability looks yeah so of course I mentioned the term volume and that is something that we're trying to define working hard to define more thoroughly the bill that we have now does specify that for the investigations can rely on information that was gathered in the 23K for 128 investigations so you know that could save us we could rely on existing information that we have with our existing licensees for instance but the initial licenses for the gaming licenses they were competitive licenses we did outsource those investigations as well and they were you know very lengthy thorough investigations that took a considerable amount of time I did mention the standards of review here 23K did specify not a standard of review a burden of proof of a clear and convincing standard the applicant was required to satisfy the bill in front of us does not specify that standard and that would be a factor in the investigations and that's something that if this bill were signed into law we would need to address in regulations but there's no doubt about it investigations on the gaming side were done thoroughly and they took a significant amount of time the bill here does have that temporary provision that would need to be flushed out here but that may be a tool that we can use in a way that can achieve a comfort level that the commission has can reach while at the same time be a tool for timeliness so this is what I'm fighting with myself about is the temporary license language and I'm speaking as one I don't want to see us lower our standards whether it's a temporary license or a regular license in terms of suitability and how we come to that conclusion I don't know yet and I'm sure as the bill gets finalized and the staff goes through the language and the commission has our conversations which I love hearing everybody's opinion on different things I learned so much from them I'm concerned a little bit that moving forward even though we have jurisdictions where people have been licensed here in Massachusetts we have very high standards and I think we have a reputation for that whether it's people like it or don't like it we have a reputation I think it's a good thing I don't want to see us lower those standards at any point during the process in terms of suitability especially when it comes to the temporary licenses how we can make me feel more comfortable I'm sure as a conversation that will take place very soon but as of today I just want you and everybody to know that it's something I'm concerned about and that I don't think is addressed as well as I would like to have seen in the legislation so I just putting it out there for conversation and I know we'll deal with this in the very near future but as one member I just want you to know that yeah I mean that's very helpful for me to hear I'm sure it's very helpful for the whole IEB team to hear and those are the kinds of things we'll be looking to the commission for direction on and I'm sorry Kathy that's okay director Lillios and I'm sorry there are a number of people not dealing well today and yet you are all hard at work and for that I am grateful that Commissioner Hill has touched on issues on with respect to the piece of legislation all of us are examining that very closely and we can't speak among ourselves because of open meeting I know that our legal team is working very hard to analyze that legal team that legislation for us to give us proper guidance moving forward and it is what does come before us and it may be the law that will give us the roadmap that we'll have to comply with but I think all of us would echo that we core to our responsibilities Commissioner Hill is the deeming of entities and individuals being suitable and that's clear in this piece of legislation how it's wrapped into the overall process is a question to your first question Commissioner Hill you were really asking about volume and I just thought and I'll go back to my fellow commissioners I thought that it might be helpful Commissioner Hill mentioned individuals under the current proposal there would be two types of licenses correct and then could you just also explain the possibility it's not necessarily just with respect to the individuals it's also with respect to the entities and maybe that and I see Commissioner O'Brien do you think it might be helpful for the public to understand that piece because it's a high enough on watching the time a little bit thank you sure so the existing bill talks about two types of licenses operator licenses and occupational licenses operator licenses would belong to the companies that are conducting the sports wagering operations and they are that's an entity and it may have other entities involved in it and then like any company it is made up of individuals so when I spoke about the scoping process what we do when we have an entity, a company that is an applicant is we look at the company and this particular bill would require us to identify who is in control of the company and this particular bill defines control in terms of ownership and the ability to impact the company and then this bill also gives a discretionary clause that regardless of ownership the commission can identify individuals within the company who can affect operations in Massachusetts so we would go through that scoping process and we would identify which entities associated with that applicant and which individuals associated with that applicant would have to submit to the qualification process and that would include ownership, boards of directors executives at the corporate level and could lead to an application packet of many entities and many individuals so that's what would be involved with the corporate applicants for the operator licenses and this particular bill also speaks to occupational licenses and those are for folks that are directly working with the sports wagering operator in its Massachusetts operations and this bill talks about licensing individuals at the supervisor level and above and Karen already mentioned would be recommending that the license applications for those individuals correspond to what we have on the gaming side and that we will be asking for jobs compendium we will be putting together a jobs compendium and assigning jobs codes for those particular positions so I hope that those individuals would not be subject to the suitability analysis that you just described for the entities and those in control of the entities those individuals because they are subject to licensure would be required to submit applications and a suitability background review is performed on them can measure it with their role and the particular risk that they pose based on their job responsibilities and that is through the licensing and division in cooperation with the GEU questions now that we have just heard because I thought Commissioner Hill's question about volume was so critical it really highlights the role of IEB and the intensity of what I do believe you so carefully outlined the legislature was looking carefully at those elements of suitability that we're very familiar with Michelle Bryan you're unmuted yes just following up on Commissioner Hill's concerns and the questions that he raised with IEB Director Lillios that I want to reiterate in terms of people's expectations that I concur with everything Commissioner Hill said and that while we are on it and we are going to move quickly we are not going to be lowering our standards in any way and that the expectation is in my view that the same suitability standards apply now maybe the statute is silent and that would require a further step in terms of regulatory drafting and implementation but I agree with you Commissioner Hill that in my view there's no reduction in suitability standards as far as I'm concerned unless we're directed specifically otherwise thank you and again we don't have a proposal in front of us and I think that's my only reason why I'm being a little bit careful here to say right now there's a proposal in front of us and we'll see what comes out of the governor's office Commissioner Maynard Commissioner Skinner Madam Chair I think I just hearing Loretta's update want to make sure that she believes that the investigators and the financial investigators that there's enough out there to me it's all about staffing and so if you're trying to do something both correctly but also efficiently you have to make sure that you have the right team in place and have to make sure that you have the right resources available so everyone's competing for resources right now in this economy are those folks available and are there enough DU retired members interested in coming back do you have the staff and support that you will need to do the job I mean absolutely appreciate that input and that is the key reason why we're looking to the contract solution rather than an in-house solution certainly helpful that this bill does have a the funding mechanism and the requirement of the coverage for the investigation falling on the applicant that is a helpful component I have initiated discussions multiple discussions with the general background review and that team and again there are questions about what our volume would be there are some unanswered questions about vendors for instance so I understand the critical aspect of what you're saying and we're doing what we can to make sure that we both are able to assemble that on the contract side and revisiting the FTE side as well thank you any further questions commissioner Skinner commissioner Helen and commissioner O'Brien I just want to say thank you for your comments I share your concern and just want to go on record as being in agreement with you both I think I should probably intercept here because I don't want the absence of my voicing opinion to make any assumption about how I feel about the piece of legislation none of us have looked at that legislation together it's not in front of us we're not looking at the language together and I think I think all of us and commissioner Maynard I want to speak up to it doesn't mean that because I'm not voicing I don't claim it and commissioner Hill's nodding my head right now we are looking at this legislation our legal department is looking at the legislation we don't have in front of us and also the governor's office has full 10 days to be evaluating the legislation so that's why I premised and that's why Karen premised it's not law yet I'm just being careful not to be either critical or assume anything about how it's written because quite honestly I'm still waiting to hear from our legal team so I'm being cautious here commissioner Maynard I shared the chairs caution on this issue and I know that this body will be able to have this discussion openly very soon I hope assuming that the governor does sign it and that it is properly noticed for an open meeting discussion and I look forward to putting my input but I think it's clear from the fellow commissioners and from what you have heard today that this commission cares a lot about the public safety aspects of the job that we do thank you I am hearing my fellow commissioners here but I just didn't want you to interpret any reluctance I am again but today the agenda wasn't to discuss the legislation but it's all on our mind every word and we are both excited but we're also looking to see how we implement so everyone's concerns raised are legitimate and again I am looking forward to learning more from our legal department okay other questions or comments okay so Madam Chair just to circle back on the reddit reminded me the only other thing to put on your radar screen is that right now the commission approved a budget and an FTE count so as we mentioned we have this additional position and then we potentially have other additional positions we've already been working with HR and have prepared for that in advance we kind of see how the legislation flushes out and then we'll do an assessment but I expect we'll be coming before you spoken with our CFAO Derek Lennon and we'll come before you about the process to allow for potential additional hires so that's coming as well excellent and I think if I may have misheard but at our next public meeting I would love assuming particularly if there is a law in front of us for Derek to go through the implications of the financial implications for both the organization and for the state I think that would be really helpful for us to hear Karen thank you okay turning then to the commissioner update Karen if you're all set I'm all set thank you so commissioners we've talked about this briefly yesterday and I had a chance to work with staff a little bit more to think about next steps and it's my hope that if the governor does legalize sports wagering here in the Commonwealth that we can convene at the first available date a series of public roundtables to learn from key stakeholders their thoughts on the new law this is a practice that's happened that we were encouraged to do by our licensees and by fellow regulators to get that input first we get our input always in the public the legislation on the governor's desk envisions our current licensees as sports wagering operators if that product is in their business plans and they meet the requirements that forth by the legislature so after speaking with members of the team I'd recommend as a first step to invite representatives from Uncle Boston Harbor MGM Springfield Plain Ridge Park Casino Rainham Park and Suffolk Downs to join commissioners and MGC staff at a public meeting to discuss their plans for sports wagering it would be the first roundtable that limited group and I'd like to just offer an outline and get your feedback on this is again based on some conversations with team members but just as we did in Commissioner O'Brien you'll remember this when we were developing the COVID pandemic guidelines we asked representatives from these companies to be prepared to answer questions focused on then a limited number of topics would like for us to think about what those topics might be for our current licensees we'd also welcome those groups to post questions to the commission as we prepare to regulate the sports wagering industry under the law in the weeks and months ahead we would convene similar roundtables with prospective sports betting operators that aim to offer the digital mobile sports wagering in additional meetings as I mentioned publicly we focus on responsible gaming with the responsible gaming community at the table so that we can continue to put player safety at the forefront of our work and then it's important to always remind the public that these meetings would be announced publicly and that those interested in taking part would be asked to connect with the MGC ahead of time I think I would emphasize and Commissioner let's think about this that participation in these roundtables would not be required or expected to ultimately participate in any legalized sports wagering market this would be an opportunity for us to get critical input as we've done so often in the past from the public and stakeholders so that we can be well prepared to regulate the new industry with the high standards that we hold and which have been clearly expressed today these meetings would of course be also streamed to our YouTube channel just as it is today in relevant materials would be on our website always available for public access so Commissioner that's the outline of the imagining so the first date Karen after if the governor takes action to legalize sports betting would be to really confine to our licensees missioners what are your thoughts I would be fine with me Madam Chair and I support that as well Madam Chair except you know I know we can't require participation but I would like to strongly encourage participation by our licensees yes yes I think I think that they've already expressed that interest in terms of preparing but certainly down the road maybe an organization that's less familiar with our process we wouldn't want them to feel obligated but we would certainly encourage and then Commissioner O'Brien you're unmuted yeah I mean this was incredibly helpful to me when we were dealing with the COVID rules that we had to establish to reopen the casinos I can't imagine any of the licensees so I yeah I think starting with that group as the first roundtable is absolutely the way to go yeah and in fact all of the same group did participate right Commissioner O'Brien we did separately because there were unique challenges in that regard but putting them all together for this makes sense okay thank you and then Commissioner Maynard what are your thoughts thank you well thank you and I know that you had already expressed you know really the need for that kind of input it will get us going I think Karen it will help the team really flesh out some of their concerns as they seek to implement their work I want to reiterate that we're really fortunate that in their current licensees they've been doing for the last several years a great job in terms of their compliance and collaboration Director Lillios Director Wells you can attest to that in your former positions and in your current positions we're very lucky that they are partners those in which we have very productive relationships with them and we certainly did during COVID so I guess the one thing that is outstanding of those topics that would frame the discussion it is 1030 I'm cognizant of the time I think we had four categories Eileen and it was kind of now it looks so straightforward they were screening and distancing and communication plans and you know in this case I think I would put out that we would certainly want to hear from them how they plan to implement and address consumer protections and responsible gaming outside of that even special on table that we anticipate do you want to throw out some topics and can we revisit I mean my memory of the COVID in particular is they presented us with their proposed plans in advance so if there's anything that they have as a prospectus obviously not asking them to disclose something that even during the application suitability process that wouldn't be public but to the extent that they can share that with us that helps guide us even as we're drafting the regulations that would be incredibly helpful Karen it might be helpful to sort of break it out into retail what they plan to do for retail and then what they plan to do for mobile because the regulations are very different it's really kind of a different animal and that may help the commissioner sort of digest and especially if it's the licensees at this point given the way the legislation is that they're in a different category for the on-site so that may be helpful to you that's just a suggestion I'm also wondering if we have a separate category about responsible gaming and just what they intend to do to address that in connection with both okay other thoughts I see everybody's muted so let's we'll I'm not sure when we meet again but Karen perhaps first step would be to reach out in coordination with crystal to the licensees and maybe they could even give us what they think are the top the key top five topics for our consideration that might really effectively frame a conversation I'm anticipating I think crystal you are thinking about a two hour round table and we've identified a few dates but we'll look to see what the governor's action is to determine that date but perhaps maybe crystal we could float out to the licensees those few possible dates that we've set up and then and crystal could work with them to Karen on developing those those topics and then somehow circulate back to the commissioners and if they have the commissioners have any particular topic that hasn't been identified in that group we can be flexible certainly we can get our questions answered one way or another we have a little bit of time to put that process in place does that work yes commissioners alright anything else commissioners for further business I'm trying to use the reaction button after nine months I know to be clear we were way ahead on our virtual platform March 14th 2020 we had an effective virtual public meeting one of probably the first however we did not have reaction so if everybody is happy to use those tools that's great I think actually maybe that was a good thing we would have been terribly distracted by them Brad anything else okay Karen is there anything else that we have missed today that would be helpful for you at this point we're good but more to come we have more meetings and our cadence of public meetings will probably shift to be clear we also are hard at work at our regular obligations and so to that point I am very appreciative and grateful for your efforts and the efforts of my fellow commissioners each and every one of you have a lot on your plate and their Monday presented what we anticipated with that comes enormous responsibilities and additional tasks so thank you alrighty with that I would move to adjourn Madam Chair second any further discussion alright hi Misha Hill Misha Skinner and Misha Maynard hi Misha Maynard have a great day happy birthday again and I will yes I'm zero thank you again everyone appreciate it thank you to the public for joining us