 We'll get started. Thank you. So today is Thursday, October 6, and we are holding this meeting virtually. So I want to take a roll call. Good morning, Chris, or Brian. Good morning. I am here. Thank you. Good morning, Commissioner Hill. Good morning. I'm present. Good morning, Mr. Schitter. Morning. I'm here. Good morning, Commissioner Maynard. Good morning, Madam Chair. I am here. Excellent. We'll get started and we're sure we have some minutes for today. We do, Madam Chair. So I would move that the commission approve the minutes from the June 9, 2022 public meeting that are included in the commissioner's packet subject, any necessary corrections for typographical errors or other non-material matters. Second. Any discussion? Okay. Commissioner O'Brien. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. And Commissioner Maynard. There's none of members, so I abstain. Okay. And I vote yes, so four and one abstention. Thank you. We're going to turn then right away to item number three on the agenda. Good morning. So our legal division, I think I see both Mr. Grossman and Ms. Monaghan. So I don't know who's taking the lead. Good morning. Good morning. So this morning we wanted to give you a brief update on the status of the racing applications that the commission has received. In advance of October 1st, which was the statutory deadline, we received one application for renewal license for a harness horse racing. And that is of course from PPC, which is located in Plainville. We also received an application for a new thoroughbred race track. And that is from the Commonwealth equine and agricultural center LLC. And the proposed track would be located in Hardwick, Massachusetts. So in order to move through this process, we're going to need a lot of different hearing dates on the schedule and in particular we will need public hearing dates both in Plainville and in Hardwick so that the public can come to us and give us their thoughts on these applications. And so we are in the process of scheduling those and I'll let Crystal go through the dates in a second. We'll also need adjudicatory hearings for each of the applications. And so those are there's time being held on the schedule and the adjudicatory hearings will be followed by deliberation. So Crystal, would you like to go through the dates that we're holding? Sure. Thank you. Yeah, so I have arranged on the calendars for holds October 17, 1828, 31, and then November 1 and 3. We are looking toward a particular process for that that would make sense in order making sure we get the hearings before the 38 and then the deliberations for the latter end there but we still have to firm up some confirmations and locations before I can give you that full schedule. They are in the work scope. And any any questions for Caitlyn commissioners on this on the application. Process. Okay. Hearing that, is there anything else Caitlyn or Todd. Nothing at this time on racing. Thank you. Okay. Next to our chief financial. Your full title is not here, but it is chief financial and accounting officers that correct Eric I don't see him right now. That's correct and the statute it is the chief financial accounting officer but I think we've shortened it for quite a few. Chief financial officer. In your packet today there is a regulation which we have worked quite a bit internally as well as with the legal team and their outside council, it is relative to it. This was for daily fantasy sports and taxation of that but it also deals with the taxation of sports wagering. So we rolled all of those together because it falls pretty closely section 14 of chapter 23 and sets and I don't know if you want back and I know there are a few questions about timing up the regulation when we can put it forward and I know legal's done some work on that or if you'd like me to just walk through the regulation and what we're what we're proposing here. I think walking through the regulation makes great sense commissioners you agree. And then questions as they arise will adjust them. Thank you for the work on this. And I like I said a lot of a lot of hard work by legal on this and we spent a lot of time drafting this and then I know legal spent quite a bit of time fixing our drafting so. I just want to give a lot of credit there to both the internal team and the legal team, but section one deals with the tax rates that will be doing that the statute requires for so it's 15% on adjusted gross sports wagering for in person wagering 20% for on adjusted gross sports wagering receipts for mobile and digital platforms and then 15% on adjusted gross fantasy wagering receipts, which is new to us is regulated by the attorney general but we are there to collect the taxes so a new section was added to the general laws where we would be the tax collecting entity. Section two goes through how we would compute adjusted gross sports wagering and once again we follow along with the statute on this the one thing that we did not include in here that the commission has held off on us how we would handle promotional policies in a traditional place so while it's a defined term it is not. It is not defined in here as to how it be used for for calculation of the taxation process. And I know we have to come back to that later legal told us we can always come back to that later so let's not muddy the waters and let's get something out now to to get this process through. And it does follow the statute where it says you know total wagers less payouts to patrons less the federal excise tax is how you get to the adjusted gross sports wagering receipts and then we take the 15 or 20% from tax from those. The degree of this of this regulation says that you know it's in this is different from gaming. So we had to we had to go through this it's a monthly collection, but we're asked but it requires the statute requires the operators to actually do a daily. process of closing out their adjusted gross sports wagering seats so we asked them to file those with us. We don't give them a deadline for filing them but we just say you'd have to give us those those numbers on a daily basis so when it comes to the filing period by the 15. The reconciliation is much easier we already know what's going on we know any areas that we want to follow up with the operators on. And they're probably a substantial number of operators for this not just three. So, keeping track of this on a daily basis will be will be pretty important for us. If I could just interject. This is a new tax collection, new tax collection. We've never done this before. Well, and not just for us. These, these, the fantasy. Yes, they are fine. Although the Attorney General's Office has regulated there has been a tax so this, this is actually part of the new law 23. Correct so 11th section 11 m in one half was added to chapter 12, which required it to be mass general on chapter 12 which required them to pay taxes, and then chapter 23 and section 14 makes us responsible for collecting those taxes. It's got something new to us. You know we don't know the operators we're going to have to work closely with the, with the Attorney General's Office on enforcement of this but we did have those preliminary meetings with them. So Derek, can I ask you. Absolutely. There's, I got an updated version of this and 24.013 had a sentence added most recently, which reads any person engaged in offering fantasy contest or registered with the commission on a form approved and prescribed by the commission but I do not see a form attached. We have not generated that form yet. So we would come back to the commission with that form and it's going to be pretty much a basic form that says what is your FE ID number. What's your, what's your official name of business, what do you do business as a DBA. Where is your primary location of business and have you registered with DOR basically in the Secretary of State's office so it's going to be very simple just so that we can get the world of operators we're not looking to add a lot we're just trying to figure out who they are. Charlie, whether does the, does the obligation to pay the tax go with the implementation and effective data the statute or the effective data by regulation. So that's the area that legal has done the research on so I would do not want to mess this up so I can turn this over this question over to Todd and carrot and carrying Caitlin. Thanks. Questions that we asked about retro activity. Thank you. So, the, the short answer is that we can collect taxes dating back to August 10 2022, which was the effective date of the sports wagering act, which was put into place by the way of emergency preamble so it became effective immediately upon its enactment. The fact that the regulations will get implemented at some date later doesn't have any effect on the obligation of the operators to pay taxes as of the due date which is that August 10 date. So it would be permissible for us to require payment dating back then, not before then certainly, but as of the date that this law was passed. It's really helpful. In terms of the form I know there's also another form that you'll get to that is the actual form of the taxes says something that they could address that. I don't know. Yeah, I mean ideally I'd like to see all of this together, I mean there's the request here to implement this by emergency so I wanted to see what the timing was going to be in that form ideally we do it all together. Yes, and the form is going to be very basic it's going to say what is, you know it's basically the areas down below what are your adjusted, what are your gross sports wagering receipts what are your payouts. What are your excise taxes and what are your adjusted grocery seats so it'll be three lines with their name of the company, and then the tax rate below that the same thing we do for the operators, and then the basis amount and then the big parts going to be going out to their systems. We're going to have to go out and actually understand the backup for each of them to and how they arrive at that. And we realize that's going to take some time for us that we don't have the runway we had for the gaming act where we could see all these systems before they went live these operators are already live. So that's going to be the challenge but the actual form is a word document that has those pieces down below we're not adding anything. And then the calculation and the tax rates that we know what we're what we're required to be getting from them and EFT and the same day they filed their report. So is it possible to do it on the 13th. Absolutely. Okay, did you want to continue then there. Yes. So, the taxes are due on the 15th calendar calendar day of each month following the, the month that the betting took place and unlike the gaming statute, if it has one of these days falls on a weekend or a holiday they have to file it before then, because it will be later than the 15th of the month, where we did not have that language in the gaming statute so if it fell on a holiday or weekend we gave them until the next business data to file it so that's a little bit different. So as you see in section in paragraph two, it lays out what we're looking for on the form, and this is basically what the, what the word document that we're going to send out to them will have it'll have the operators name, and then it'll just have the total gross sports or gross fantasy wagering, the adjusted gross fantasy wagering, adjusted gross sports wagering, the tax amount that's required. And then we will probably ask for the, we will ask for the excise amount to that they're paying so that we can get to that adjusted amount. Another thing that's different about this statute versus gaming it is required that they file these through EFT. They'll probably be doing a wire transfer as EFT takes a little longer so we'll have to set up wiring instructions with each one of these entities who are in the gaming act they could submit a check if they wanted to. That took a while but most of them are on or on wire transfers now, and it'll be a lot less. You know our gaming entities have to do it daily so $7 a day for a wire transfer was a bit to get over at the beginning where this is monthly $7 a month for a wire transfer. And then the section for tracks very close very closely to what we have in the gaming act it just allows us to go in and audit the books and records for fantasy sports, we have talked to the attorney general's office if we are going to do any of that they'd like a heads up. They can be part of it if they'd like to. But for our sports operators this is the exact same language that we have under the gaming act or we have the ability to go in review their transactions if we find any problems they're responsible to pay it to us. They have a certain amount of time where they can dispute it. Ultimately, at the end of the day we have to be happy with whatever they say otherwise they're responsible to pay us the tax amount we say they're responsible for. Can I ask you a couple other questions. Absolutely. 240.02 sub one three C sorry adjusted gross sports wagering receipts. Shall not include any amount received by an operator from credit extended or collected by the operator for purposes other than sports wagering can you give me a for instance on that. This is just saying sports wagering is just sports wagering fantasy sports wagering is just fantasy sports wagering so don't try and collect money from another area that a patron may owe you or say for an outstanding debt. At a restaurant. This is just for taxation of the sports wagering operations and that's a little closer to what was in 23 K, and we thought that might apply to the retail operations. So that's why we left it in there. So we can always take it out. There's not, there aren't many instances but we said you know what in the rare case that they try to collect from patron for something else we want to make sure that we're just collecting here and we're just taxing here for sports wagering operations or fantasy sports wagering operations. And then my second question and maybe this is more for legal is, should we have any cross reference to 940 CMR 34 which is the, the regs the currently exists for the AG looking at the daily fantasy sports. Or at least incorporated by reference exactly somewhere yeah. We could incorporate that of at the top or we sort of talk about the story. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, I think we should do that. Okay. There's other questions on. And I do want to point out commissioner skinner was very helpful. She's been working with us on reg review of all of the finance regs and her treasurer role so she she got this to a place where legal could actually read it and make sense of it so. Thank you. Commissioner Skinner in terms of her role as treasurer and also very capable attorney so thank you. Really helpful. And I think then if we, if we were to vote on this today with the changes that are reflected that reflect a couple tweaks. We could then have the vote on the forms on the 13th and the tax collection process could begin with the retroactivity in place. Is that right Derek and Todd does that work process wise. That's right. So, we don't have to wait on the red today because the forms aren't quite. Correct. The one, the one issue will be getting this word out and we'll have to work on that process to all of the operators that are the unknown entities that are to us that are operating in Massachusetts so the ability to go retroactive is nice because even if we catch up with them. A few months down the road, we'll have the authority to say you're still responsible for paying these taxes even though you weren't registered up until whenever whenever we catch up with them. Well the good news is that this provision I think was in the initial filing from Governor Baker back in 2019 on sports wagering and it kind of stayed and then it stayed in certain proposals and then it didn't stick and then it ended up in 23 yet. I do have a little bit of notice but I think they reckon to your point. I don't know if we've got Tom but we can help get the word out right through our, our public messaging. Absolutely. So, through our website and through our social media outlets right. Any other suggestions. They're doing to work with them and that first or anything else or any, any other suggestions. So the Attorney General's Office did say they're going to be as helpful as we need them to be in our meeting so I think that's our next step after we get the right out to have a follow up meeting with them. But they were very, very helpful very accommodating very collaborative in this in this effort. So, I think we have all the enforcement mechanisms we need now it's just getting the word out there and figuring out who those businesses are. Excellent. Any other questions, Commissioner Hill are you leaning in. No, I have a question madam chair just wondering what the plan is for solicitation of public comment on these ranks. Are they going to be posted on the website. I know we talked a little bit about how important it is to get the public to weigh in on our work so I want to spend a little time discussing how that will happen. Tom. Of course, if the commission is inclined to enact this language by way of emergency. What that means is that procedurally, we would follow right up by commencing the ordinary promulgation process which of course includes a public hearing so that public comment can be elicited but it wouldn't be likely for, you know, four to six weeks down the road. So I believe Commissioner Skinner, what you're inquiring about is whether we add in another opportunity earlier on for members of the public to comment to the commission, so that we can gain some perspective, potentially a little bit sooner. And I would submit that we can do that immediately. If the commission is so inclined as to adopt this today by emergency, we could certainly do that with Tom and team to put up on our website solicitation for public input, immediately, so that we can get a sense as to whether there are any issues, anyone sees with what we have done and make any adjustments in the short term. Well with the understanding that the, again, the formal process is underway and there will be certainly opportunity in the very near future to make any adjustments to the language that that comes about by way of public comment. So I think that's that's certainly one way to do it. There may be others but I think that might be the most helpful here. Commissioner Skinner you raise that really good point when we first spoke about emergency regulations in the process because it is different of course in terms of getting the public input. Should we, I don't know if we need a formal vote but do we have a consensus that we would actually like institutionalize this so that are any. Whether it's an emergency or regular regulation that we have in place on our website. A depository for written comments as we move along the regulatory framework. Or do we want to set it aside strictly for emergency and Commissioner Brown and see you nodding. I'm glad Commissioner Skinner beat me to the punch. I mean it's something that I'm concerned about as we go through what's on this agenda and these requests for emergency rags in particular, that I think we need to have institutionalized an access point for what we are considering, even if we're going to be doing these by emergency and so it's a separate link on our website that specifically deposits, all of the regs that we are considering, you know with topic headers etc. We need to do something like that for transparency sake and for public input. So this is maybe the first example, but my hope and expectation would be that that's how we would be moving forward over the coming months. I don't think your sentiments reflect that of all of us, but I want to hear from Commissioner Hill. No, in full agreement. Full agreement. Commissioner Maynard. I love input, but I also love the flexibility that emergency regulations do provide us in times like these. So the combination will work. So, Tom. Yeah, I actually knows the great conversation to have. David and I were putting the finishing touches on a form on our website where the public will be able to weigh in and those comments will be able to be collected and put into a sortable spreadsheet. So the commission can review those comments based on topic. It would be nice to a link to once there is a public hearing date that it be connected to whatever the draft reg is so people really want to come or call into the public meeting they know exactly where it is. Absolutely. Commissioner Skinner I also want to just you might have some thoughts on we're getting that input. It is, it is a process that's actually more transparent than what we're even required to do under law. If we get that input in advance of the hearing that Commissioner O'Brien just mentioned, do you imagine, would you like to be able to do something with that input in terms of a meeting that would address something earlier than even the hearing. I think it would depend on the nature of the comment right. I mean, you know, yeah. And one of the one of the issues might be, you know, if. If there's a hearing, and we have significant comment that we need to respond to what's that process going to going to look like I mean I know we have the ability to amend our regulations. So I just, you know, we don't have to iron this out today, but we do need to look toward a process by which those amendment proposed any proposed amendments will come before the commission for decision and subsequent action by the legal team. Yeah, so my my thought is we would we have a structure of the meet the hearings that will that we normally hold for our regular right process, saying it's in a different compressed in a different order for the emergency. When we are getting this input, if we were to hear immediately that we really took a step in the wrong direction, we can reconvene and address that even sooner. Is that that's fair right. That sounds great. One other request I have is on the proposed spreadsheet repository that Mills just mentioned. So in addition to that I think that's great but I would also like to see the actual comments so if there can be created. Some sort of database, whereby all of the active comments are submitted, then that would be good. Commissioner Skinner absolutely that is part of it. Right, thank you. Excellent. So, other other questions regarding the tax collection process. Except for the one amendment regarding the attorney generals, our collaboration and their involvement. Were there any other edits that we need to think of. I'm sorry. I do have just a general question for Derek, I guess 240.02 subsection to the last line does say that the total of all cash prizes paid to participants shall not include the cash equivalent of any merchandise or think the value awarded as a prize is that pretty standard language. It's part of the statute. That's what I wanted to make sure that was clear. Yep. That's part of the statute. And that's part of the gaming statute too. And it even tracks for poker games and things so they're really just looking at cash here. And it's not promo. It's very different than promo. So that is a policy question for us, Karen, that we need to probably address sooner than later and it has implications on tax so we will be revisiting this regulation. And probably sooner than later. We touched on it a bit in the roundtables but we didn't, we don't have all the input probably we need yet. Commissioner Brian, are you, you're in agreement with that. Yep. Okay. Okay. Anything else then. I think we're moving on the red that's presented today with the idea that we'll look at the two. I think it's just two forms there, right the actual tax one and then the registration one. Correct and we're going to make those as simple as process as simple as possible with the, with the details being in the backup documentation which the accounting team will have to learn when we get out to see these operators. Those are comfortable. Take a motion. Certainly Madam Chair, I'm going to move and I'm going to bifurcate the motion in terms of the substantive language and the emergency request I had mentioned earlier I wanted to do that on the regs going forward. So I moved that the commission approved the small business impact statement in the draft of 205 CMR 240 as included in the packet and discussed and amended here today. Any questions. Thank you. I thought, but any questions are on that commission made. I'm curious to see how the bifurcation is going to work, Madam Chair. What do you think Commissioner Brian, that I was going to move on whether or not staff be authorized to take the step by emergency or not, and that people can make their voice heard on the emergency component of it as opposed to the language and small business. Okay, I understand that. Thank you. All right. And we can revisit this process as we go along. I really haven't necessarily reached a consensus on that. Just on the motion that's in front of us. Any further questions. Okay, Commissioner Brian. Hi. Mr. Hill. Hi. Mr. Senator. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. Hi. I vote yes. Before Commissioner Brian, we get into the emergency red discussion. You know, we're familiar with that what you've raised, but I have the luxury again of having Mr. Hill, which from NK on and he did help us think about the tool of emergency regulations in this context. You have the time to be able to recapture what you shared in an earlier public meeting it might be really helpful for a reminder for us and also any members of the public who missed that last time. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. And I'll just briefly, as we discussed at the prior meeting, emergency regulations are permissible under the state regulatory scheme and indeed. Chapter 23 and makes note that emergency regulations are something that the commission might choose to do. In the appropriate circumstance. In the emergency regulations. It's just that the regulation is submitted prior to the public hearing and public comment process and then goes into effect immediately but can obviously as the commission has noted been revised any point along the way. Whereas the commission has discussed opportunities to take early comment prior to the public hearing along the lines of the website. The standard for an emergency regulation includes public health safety and the general welfare and given the imperative in the legislation to move relatively quickly on sports wagering while at the same time the commission continuing to protect the members of the commission. It seems in the appropriate case that emergency regulations would be warranted. I leave that decision in every case of course to the commission. But in the case where there's taxes well known and again as your general counsel said, able to be collected as of the date of the enactment of the statute. I think a fair opportunity if the commission agrees to move forward now and take public comment thereafter. I would think though that this is a decision that shouldn't be made for the whole set of regulations around sports wagering but is in fact something that should be looked at. In this case how you want to set the votes up is up to the commission but while I think there's broad latitude I think the regulation should be looked at individually in this instance. Is that helpful chair. Thank you so much one. One question I have is what is the significance of the emergency preamble to the legislature. That put this in effect immediately. There are two things that made that whether three, at least three places that showed the legislature's urgency around this in sort of the statutory sense as well as what one hears in the public it was enacted as an emergency. A piece of legislation that means it goes into effect, as Mr. Grossman said upon the signature of the governor. It has a somewhat unique, I know you're not supposed to modify unique but somewhat unique provision of allow specifically calling for emergency regulations, which is not something that I think I've ever seen in a bill before doesn't mean it hasn't been there but it's and thirdly, at least with the current version of the temporary license with a language it shows a legislative imperative to get things moving a lot. So, again, the commission has been discussed at earlier meetings has its obligations to protect the public from a bad system but make sure that it rolls out in a way that is legitimate and appropriate, but this bill does have a certain urgency associated with the drafting of it. Chapter 23 and as well as with sort of information in the public space. Okay, so the request out of legal or the suggestion was that it be adopted by emergency regulations so further questions for either Mr. Bogich or Ernie? I don't have any questions Madam Chair but I said this in a meeting Tuesday I said it again yesterday at the agenda somewhat that I do feel like this is a case by case situation I do feel like the opportunity to be heard and I we talked about how to do that in the I believe Attorney Pove even commented on his experience with post that for the most part regs were not presented and voted on on the same day, even if they were emergency there was at least some period of time for them to be publicly viewed and commented on before they came before us. The one before us today is rather straightforward it mimics what is already statutory language and a mechanism that we have already with the existing licensees I'm not as concerned about this particular one but I do want to point out that the cadence we're going to have going forward I would ask Bakes and not a same day presentation and both. I'm not sure who went first Mr. Skinner. Are you leaving it. I am thank you Madam Chair question. Is there a need for this regulation to be promulgated on an emergency basis given the fact that we have already been advised that the Commission has the authority to collect taxes dating back to the date the bill was signed. It depends how fast you want the money in the public. deposit right I'm going to turn to Commissioner Hill. What would the legislature think. Anytime they can collect taxes they're all for it and they would try and expedite that as quickly as possible. I appreciate the question. The good news is we've identified that this is a requirement of us and we are moving on it today. The goodness that we've learned we can collect retroactivity Commissioner Reiner. Madam chair if you don't mind. Could we could I could be please hear from Todd. Yes. I think actually the chair. captured really the answer that I would I would offer which is it's really more of a policy question I don't think there's really a legal. A requirement that it be put into effect by emergency it really boils down to how quickly you'd like to begin the process of collecting these taxes and whether it's immediately or three months from now. Essentially is really again a policy question for the commission. Thank you and I appreciate that Commissioner Skinner, I should have yielded to our legal team but I was sort of jumping ahead on the policy matter. Thank you Commissioner Maynard and then we'll go back to Commissioner Skinner. I just have a quick question. For attorney povich. Post was brought up. Did post have language that the commission may promulgate emergency rules and regulations in accordance with Apple procedures for the promulgation of emergency rules and regulations. Do they have that in their statute. I don't believe so I'd have to double check but I don't believe so. I'm pretty sure but not certain. And I think what the lessons from post is is that there is flexibility there there are. It's not just an emergency with no comment until the public hearing or the 90 days for public hearing I think that was just one way of flexibility. They were in a bit of a different situation they had a different cadence and different deadlines and they didn't meet as. And they had a they had a different meeting cadence than you've laid out. So I think if there are cases in which you want to discuss in one meeting and voted another meeting. You know you, people are paying attention so I don't think that you need to have an infinite amount of time between meetings but all these things are just case by case basis as the commission would want to do with it. Try to identify a series of tools that will allow things to move in sort of the appropriately brisk but careful fashion that seems to be intended in this legislation. I remember very hard deadlines in the post legislation. Very hard deadlines but they but they but a harder deadline is immediately. Right. So, so they had hard deadlines, but they were not set up they were they were brand new commission they weren't at set up at all. So, they had to start from scratch you have a lot of foundation here in the regulation of the of the casinos that you can avail yourself of but some new things that you have to do pretty quickly. So, I think they're all tools. Thanks. Immediately is all relative to when you're talking about a new industry. So, Richard skater. I guess I'd be interested in the policy question around, you know, whether it makes sense to pass this along on an emergency basis or not. I mean, you know, what is the, what's the compelling reason. I don't think it needs to be pushed forward on an emergency basis. I mean, I, you know, again, given the fact that we do have the ability to act with but for active to August 10. I just, you know, it will the emergency nature of this be defeated by whatever attempts are made internally to get this system up and running whereby we are able to successfully collect taxes. I mean, we don't want to, you know, hurry up and wait, if you will. I know we have the tax form that we have that will be presented next week. We have the registration form that will be presented next week. I just, you know, willing to be convinced why does this need to be moved forward on an emergency basis and I'm not sure who made that recommendation. If it's legal. I'd like to hear from legal as to what the thought is on that the thinking is. I think this option. I don't want to put words in, in your mouth, but it did. It was presented in draft motion. So, Todd, do you want to elaborate? Certainly. I apologize if it came off as a recommendation. I think we just wanted to frame the issue so the commission could make that decision. I don't have an opinion on that it's not a legal matter as as we've said, the obligation to pay taxes accrued as of August 10 and it will continue to accrue. It's just a question as to when we begin to collect. Can I ask Todd is a lot of the monies that we collect on the casino environment are dedicated to certain funds. Where do the monies go on the DFS tax, is it dedicated to gambling services, you know, what is it, if anything, or does it just go to the general fund. I believe the fund is actually already established to collect it correct Eric. So the gaming and the sports wagering revenue fund is established to collect it and it goes to I don't have the citations in front of me but it goes to six or seven other funds. So the general fund some is the public health trust fund some is a competitive workforce trust fund so the legislature set up six or seven different funds that the money goes to. And all with the exception of the public health trust fund are subject to appropriation. So legislature would would deal with where they spend it in the budget. And the percentage percent actually does go to the general fund. I don't know if you mentioned that Derek, sorry, but I know commissioner Brian was asking that question specifically. I'm sorry. I don't have the benefit of the experience that Commissioner Skinner has working through some of this so the monies that are dedicated to the other funds are they. They get remitted through the legislature and the appropriations process they do not get remitted monthly to the various funds is that correct. They do get remitted monthly to the various funds but those on a monthly basis but those funds, just like every other fund in the in the budget process, basically rely on some sort of tax tax and tax coming in for either a special purpose and if the money is not there for. And this is kind of behind the scenes and commissioner hill can probably talk about this because it's been 20 years since I was in ways and means, but if the if the money isn't there. What I do is short term borrowing and there's a whole there's a whole line item in the in the budget where the treasurer's office can do short term borrowing to supplement various funds until the tax revenues are received that are relying on those tax revenues. Thank you. Welcome. Can you see a benefit and in proceeding you and your team proceeding with the tax collection for fantasy sports operators up now before the the taxing process for sports operators kicks in whenever they're they're launched. Could you could you could you benefit from this or this timeframe in advance of the full launch of mobile sports major. So, so there are pros and cons to both. I think we talked about the pros getting the revenue in ahead of time. We talked about the problems that we're going to face as far as finding all the registrants right so if, but three months from now we might not find all the registrants either they may come in a year later, and you know they'll be do, giving us the taxes but it does give us time to get a bigger group of people. We're not going to hire another revenue accountant until we're about a month away from a month or two away from sports, wagering category three operators coming online because that's when we'll get the bulk of it. You know not having an assessment not having all of that. So, you know it is more work to put on the current team but talking to them. They've never said no to more work. So there's pros and cons to all of it and you know we're here, we're going to carry out the, the requirements and the whatever decision the commission makes but I understand the pressure we're never going to say no to more time to get prepared, but I also understand that the legislature wants to see the money. So, you know that that's the policy discussion we're never going to say no to more time to get prepared. And the fact that we can get the regulation out there, the fact that we can get notification out there that we need to start collecting these taxes and the people are responsible for them. I think that's huge. I think that's, that's the biggest part so I'm really happy about the vote that happened this morning. And we will implement whatever the commission decides from this policy discussion. The fact that there is a regulation that's been promulgated on an emergency basis does not necessarily mean that the work to implement the regulation has to be an emergency. It's understood that the work needs to move along as quickly and as reasonably possible but I just wanted to make that that note to your comment in particular. Yes, completely understand we will, we will be doing all that work that's why I said we're never going to say no to more time to prepare and get this done. But we are, we are very ready to do whatever the commission decides today and that's why we had the meeting with the Attorney General's office. And that's why we're ready to have the forms, even if we don't start collecting, we're going to have those forms for you on the 13th, so that we can start registering people. Thank you. Good questions on policy, because I am going to call the question here shortly. Many of these questions for Derek. Do you think that registrants would benefit from getting this, let's say the whole process took 90 days before regulation went to effect. Would they benefit from getting it now versus the 90 days later or with the Commonwealth, would there be some detriment to the Commonwealth in not beginning these conversations with the registrants now versus 90 days from now. That's a good question for the smaller operators that may not be accruing this and may not understand what their liability is it could be a problem if they're not setting this aside. We do our marketing right and we, you know, have all the faith and and Tom Mills and you know all the work he can do and getting this out as long as we people know they need to be setting this aside and timing of when we get the money is is always, you know once again that's a policy discussion and I don't think there was a lot set aside in the budget for this, but that being said it is a short term borrowing act for the treasure of the office in between whenever the money comes in so you know those are those are enough discussions and what they would see as far as as budget gaps. But the more messaging we can do to notify people you better start accruing for this you better start setting this aside because you are responsible for 15% of your of your adjusted grocery seats is better off. And for those who aren't going to do it, or aren't going to listen the quicker we get to them the better off because then they aren't getting into a negative call. But that's for the smaller operators the bigger operators they probably already know about this and they're, they're, they're probably accruing accruing for it. What's the consequence. I do need to ask Commissioner Hill, and then I'll turn to you, Commissioner Hill do you have any comments we haven't heard from you. I really don't have any comments but what Derek just said, raised a red flag for me with our smaller companies, who I think could benefit from this being an emergency regulation. I'm very concerned that they don't know that this is going to be happening and history has shown me that whenever we go retroactive a lot of these businesses aren't aware of it the smaller ones the big ones for sure now. And I'm very concerned that that this could be a financial hit to a lot of these companies because they weren't expecting it. So, I really have no problem with this particular regulation going through as an emergency, for that reason alone just to protect and help our smaller companies. And I also feel very strongly that this is one of those regulations I just don't see there's a lot of controversy with it. And why wouldn't we do it and get it over with quite frankly. Not controversial at all that I can see. And if we can move this forward, you know, sooner rather than later I'd rather do that and get it out of the way, take it off our plate for now to be totally honest with you. Now, I'm sorry I just need to make sure I'm reading the windows. So, I guess my question and this whole conversation has also prompted me to ask there's nothing in the language of this reg that talks about the consequences for failure to comply. So, is that something that we need to be addressing by reg or is that address somewhere else statutorily in terms of the loss the right to conduct the DFS. The Attorney General's Office. And Todd can cover this because we actually did talk about that whether to put it in our regs, or just refer instances of that back over to the investigation side of the Attorney General's Office and they had opted that we refer back to them but I'll let Todd capture the better essence of that conversation because I was more focused on should it be in our reg or shouldn't it. I think the one we probably need to spend a little bit more time on but to Derek's point I think the criminal enforcement would certainly fall with the AG's office and I'd have to spend a little more time, determining what that the statute that applies there would be and what the criminal penalties for non payment of taxes are precisely there is a section just for everyone to be aware of in chapter 23 and it's section 21 a that talks about the commission imposing simple penalties, not to exceed $2,000 for each violation or $5,000 for violations arising out of the same series of events for violations of chapter 23 and so that is potentially an avenue that could be explored for something like this. So I think it's important just to recall that there are criminal penalties and then civil penalties that may potentially apply here. Okay, so I guess something to consider is whether we have the authority. Since we have this cross regulatory authority the AG's office it's a little different if somebody doesn't pay under the existing casino statute that would be arguably a violation of their license and then there's a mechanism there it does not appear to be as clean in this, in this setting is that a fair statement on. I think so because based on my understanding of the Attorney General's regulations that the operators are not licensed by the AG's office or certainly by us. So that's a it is different in that way we can't take action against a license per se. It's really more of a fine or a criminal penalty that we're looking at a non compliance. Okay, I guess only question and this is not going back on the boat we just took in the language but maybe to consider whether we want to amend it further to just make reference to consequences as we flush that out. So, in terms of reflecting coordination with the Attorney General's office. Or even just our as we go forward in this 23 and 21 a whether we want to make it clear in the reg to people like to Commissioner Hill's common even maybe smaller operators that there is potentially a civil consequence as well. So are we comfortable that, as we said, reflecting discussion today that incorporates Commissioner O'Brien's series of questions just now. I know we took the vote beforehand or do we need to take further vote to clarify that commissioners are we comfortable. I'm happy to move again if we feel like I would be more comfortable if we could take another vote. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Okay, certainly. So ground hug day, Madam Chair I move. Again that the Commission approved the small business impact statement as well as the draft of 205 CMR 240 as included in the packet and as further discussed and amended here today. Second. Hey, ground hog day any questions. Alrighty, Commissioner Brian. I, Commissioner Hill. Commissioner Skinner. Commissioner Maynard. And I vote yes then I would like to call the question on the approach we're going to take with respect to the regulatory process do I have a motion. Madam Chair, I further move that staff be authorized to take the steps necessary to file the required documentation with Secretary of the Commonwealth by emergency and thereafter to begin the regulation promulgation process. Further move staff be authorized to modify chapter or section numbers or titles to file additional regulation sections as reserved or to make any other administered changes as necessary to execute the regulation promulgation process. Is that new Commissioner Hill. Thank you. Any further questions or. Okay, my, my, my, just my vote in favor will be with the understanding that the finance team will have adequate time to prepare for implementation of this regulation. We also for our team and making sure they have the time and resources they need. Is there a consensus there everyone that we mean. And, and, and I turn to Executive Director Wells that she will always inform us of that that's very much on our minds. So thank you, Commissioner Skinner. Alrighty. Then Commissioner O'Brien. I, Commissioner Hill. Hi, Mr Skinner. Hi, Mr Maynard. I, and I vote yes. All right, so we got through that. I know that our folks at a and K had some scheduling challenges but I will just, I'm hoping that Mr Mackie you're available over our next piece of information. Mr Povich and I know that your team will be we're figuring on the vendor licensing around 130 so that that works for your timing. Right now for the application and the scoring process we're looking around hoping to get through them. We're just only about 15 minutes behind or so, but we're thinking about this time to about 1215, 1230. Does that work for the NKT? That works for me. I'm available for the next agenda item. Okay. And, and for our team, I appreciate that you are available. So thank you so much. Great. And we're going to turn to director Wells on the excellent work that has been done on the application and we want to thank you. I want to take time to thank Mr Maynard. I know he was also involved in the development of the application. Derek and I believe Caitlin you might have been the legal resource on this, but I also want to thank Jacqueline who for a second came in who really started being the whole process cared at your great suggestions. She did a wonderful job. So yes, so we have three components and the agenda item for the sports wagering application this morning one is a regulation. And two is a presentation of the draft. And third is a discussion of the sports wagering process whether it's a scoring process or evaluation process. Once that conversation takes place, the legal department will go back based on the commission's direction at this meeting and go back and we'll come back at a further meeting regulation regarding the process of the evaluation. So I'll turn it off with drafted tool. I've seen our 211 the category one category two category three sports wagering operator license applications. So I'll turn it over I think Carrie's going to handle this I'll turn it over to Carrie Todd. Thank you Karen good morning Madam chair and commissioners. I just want to note before I get started on this reg we do anticipate changing the number of this reg from 211 to 210 just so that it fits better within the larger framework that we're working on but the motion language should allow for that but I just want to give you a heads up that and as Karen mentioned, you know we anticipating bringing that full operator licensing framework, which this regulation is a part of to you. So for today, this regulation 205 CMR 211 or 210 outlines the requirements that must be met by an applicant to submit an application for sports wagering operator license, including the type of information that will be included on the application, which holds from the application that you'll be discussing today and the required fees. This regulation is a combination of language pulled from comparable regulations in the 100 series on the gaming side, and also a similar regulation from Indiana related to submission of application so we just look at that as well. So I thought if you'd like I could just briefly summarize each section I know this is a short regulation but I could just run through each number and let you know what it does and then happy to take questions along the way that sounds good. So section one requires applicants to submit their applications on the form that is issued by the Commission, following all instructions included on the form. And it notes that the Commission has no obligation to accept or review an incomplete application or an application submitted after the established deadline. And feel free to jump in with any questions along the way here. Section one a requires an applicant to submit the scoping survey, which I believe is also going to be discussed at today's meeting at a later point. Using the form, the applicable form by any deadline established and I just want to point out here with this section that the way it's drafted now. It says that failure to do so shall result in the commission deeming the application incomplete and administratively closed. I have included it as a shell so you know that's quite definitive but of course open to discussion if the commission would like that to be a may and to have more discussion there, but I did just want to point that out to that's the the last sentence of one a. Pause for that right now. Just to make clear what we're thinking about in terms of what that is that scope being survey should, should we ask maybe direct and the leo's to just go on that briefly. Good idea. Very thank you. Yeah, of course. Good morning. The scoping survey is it appears on starting on page 20 of your packet. It is a survey that we have used in the gaming context as well and it is a very helpful kickoff that assists us in identifying the qualifiers at both the entity level in the individual level for each applicant. It is provided by the statutory factors of what makes a qualifier based on ownership and control of the company. And the survey asks the applicant to provide us with information, including a number of attachments, which you'll see listed on the survey. And those are things like the table of organization a list of the members of the board, board of directors, a table of executive leadership and so forth. So we send this survey to applicants we asked them to respond below the survey, provide us with the attachments and then we have a team who reviews the materials and looks at the statutory factors on who controls the organization and we then designate the entities and individuals that need to submit to the background review process and the first step in that process is submitting the suitability applications. So I hope that gives you a general understanding of what the scoping survey is designed to do but happy to try to answer any questions. So let's survey itself which are scared just clarifying the survey would be required to be submitted prior to the application, the license application. That's right. Prior to the application is it part of the application. We need the step before the application submission process. Yeah, I mean I think the way sort of it's a little bit of semantics I think as far as the reg is concerned we are considering it part of the application. But we need that scoping survey in order to identify who are the individual identity qualifiers will then later have to fill in presumably if the commission is in agreement with the recommendation from the staff, the business entity disclosure form and the multi-jurisdictional personal history disclosure form. So we can't tell them who needs to submit or what companies need to submit those forms until we do the scoping survey. So for purposes of sort of a regulatory approach, it's part of the application process. However, if we think of it in pieces, it's the first piece Loretta and team will need to do the scoping work, then they would need to submit additional information along with what I'll call the general application form. So I guess the second due date would correspond to the $200,000 application fee, the submission of the materials. It's all part of the application just feels a little different because it's a prerequisite. I guess I'm struggling with the language of 211.01a, in particular that last sentence, the failure to submit such survey shall result in the commission deeming the applicants application incomplete and administratively closed. How can an application be deemed incomplete and administratively closed when it hasn't even been submitted yet? I think that's why it's important to clarify whether it's part of the application with a, it's a prerequisite. That's the way I'm thinking with some kind of a deadline attached. I don't know if that's the team that we want to elaborate. I think I've been thinking that way, Commissioner Skinner, but I might be thinking incorrectly. I think that's right. If you want this to be the process for it to be part of the review, it is part of the application. It's just that it would come in first and then the second piece, the larger application form that you're going to review next, I believe, on the agenda would come in second, but it is part of the application. I agree. That's the way we would treat it. And the administrative closure piece says to us that we're not able to proceed. We're closing it. That can be cured by a compliance and, you know, receiving it. But if there are deadlines involved in this process, reopening it may not cure the deadline, would not cure the deadline. So we're trying to assign a deadline to this process given some of the anticipated timelines. And I understand that I'm just struggling still. How do you close an application that you haven't received, right? If the survey is the required first step, the survey is not the application, right? Yeah, I think it may be a bit helpful here. It is a threshold requirement to submitting a complete application. So this would give us some, and you could do a May, as Carrie mentioned, but under this structure, the way it's written now, part, if you don't complete part A of the application, you're out. So it's part of the application. It's just not the entire application. So you basically have two due dates for the application. If you don't meet the first due date under this regulation, you're done. Could I make one suggestion with the language that might help with your question, Commissioner Skinner? I don't think it's clear to potential applicants. You could amend the second sentence of one A to end after the word incomplete. So it would read failure to submit such survey shall results in the commission deeming the applicants application incomplete. And then you refer back to section one, which as the last sentence says the commission shall have no obligation to accept or review an incomplete application. So it would be incomplete because it had not met the threshold question and then the commission has discretion to review or not review the application because it was incomplete. This is to director Wells. Isn't this really an incentive to make sure that central licensees fill out this portion and do it in a timely manner. So, Laura and our team have time to review it. Yeah. That's exactly right. This is this is a timeline issue. Yeah. One part of the computer comes from the description of application because the application is done like a singular document in this rag when in reality, there are, there's the application force corners of it. Then there is this form. So we need to delineate in in one that there are two components to this where you call it an application packet whether you further delineate the existence of the survey but I do think there needs to be clarity on that and then in terms of one a you could say it's administratively closed without prejudice to curing prior to the deadline, which would mean you can fix it as long as the deadline hasn't gone past. I'm not too, because I did see that point when I looked at the survey last night, that it doesn't say it's part of the application, but I think that was that part of the application. I think, I don't know. I'm thinking that even like kids who applied to college, sometimes there's a part one, you got to get that on and that, you know, your interest and that maybe because they're trying to figure out their own numbers. But that part one of the application part A part B, you know, part A is you got to make a deadline that indicate your interest. We don't have to put that $200,000 on it. And that has to be a deadline. And otherwise, you are no longer viable applicant. That's really what I've imagined as a tool for us to understand the landscape of interest as well as to get work going. And then the rest of the application would be, you know, what we've seen in part B. So perhaps it would be commissioner Brian clarifying not only in the rag itself on the application document. Understanding it is a single application with two parts, a prerequisite part that clearly is a requirement for continuing on the process. I don't think that's unusual construct. And I actually have to say, you know, I think it was a combination of perhaps a director of the leadership director Wales of figuring this out. So thank you. But, but I can see commissioner scanner says right now the language can be used. So, what do you think, Michelle Brian, the combination might work. Well, I'm curious if Loretta, do you have any thoughts or Karen on operationally what the chair described would work for us we really can't proceed with taking in the applications without this first step. How to break that down in the rag then. I like the part a and part part B. And then make it really fine as being the survey and B as being the four corners of the application so we also have to include the BED, which is embedded in the application for the BED and the multi jurisdictional and the mass. So we don't want to make we want to make sure those are all included part of the application if the commission commission hasn't voted on this yet so I just want to make sure you give difference. But this is just to the precise question around and it's a really important one. I've seen it more to the atmosphere scanner and you saw it to the red language. So that I think it's at least the intent of the team's recommendation. So, maybe we should ask the policy question. Are there concerns about using the scoping survey in this fashion. I don't have any concerns. No, I don't know. All right, so then the clarity needs to come from the combined right and right. So. Carrie. With that said, what do you think I'm not hearing that an objection that it be actually a mandated requirement, rather than discretionary or is there concern. I'm not commissioners. That's what the coping. No, on the part A, that being a pre-react, because I think Carrie was suggesting maybe it could be a discretionary tool. But I, I think I'm not hearing that that's, I think Loretta said she needs it. No, no, no. Oh, no, I think she needs it. I'm just saying that, yeah, that it's a must that it's a pre-react as opposed to the other language Carrie was giving us as an alternative. Does that make sense, Carrie? Yes, that makes sense. You say in the first section, Carrie, that an applicant must submit a fully completed scope of licensing survey and a fully executed original application. Yeah, so what I was thinking was what if we amend one to say must submit a fully executed original application to commission, which shall consist of, and then I would use the appropriate Yeah, coping survey and application using the deadlines established on each of those forms respectively. And then we could kind of work a into one rather than having a one a it would be part of one. That would work for the licensing division and the IED. There are things quite a bit for me on the confusion side. Okay, and If you'd like I can work on that during the meeting and we could maybe come back later today and look at updated language or we could come back next week. I know I have to go through the rest but however you prefer I think this will be a long meeting so I should have some time to draft some new language. Carrie. Let's see how it rolls out but that's a fair point I think we all getting an adjusted where we're going at least right now, but we, we do need maybe somebody to walk us through the the regs still carry and I know that Okay, so continuing on section two outlines the types of information that are requested on the application form. These categories are just pulled right from the application form that you're going to look at next. And we've kept it general here of course there's much more detail on the application form itself. Section three points out that the application will include language that permits an applicant to refer the IED and the commission to prior application submitted or previous information otherwise obtained by the Bureau about an applicant. This course could expedite the process if we already have certain information that is being requested on an application if we already have it within our within our records. Section four requires that all fees required pursuant to chapter 23 and be submitted in a format prescribed in the application form. Section five states that the applicant has an affirmative obligation to abide by all statements in the application. And that any misrepresentations or emissions may be grounds for denial of an application or application of a license issued. Section six states that an applicant has a continuing duty to disclose any changes to the application. Section seven notes that the application form may include information regarding how certain materials submitted in the course of the application may be withheld from public disclosure under the public records law. This of course refers to language in chapter 23 and that exempts from disclosure certain types of information that are submitted during the application process would be a statutory exemption. I put a may here because I believe this is going to be part of the discussion of the application as well the type of how much material is to be included in the application regarding public records. And this came from the gaming side, excuse me, where we did include detailed information about what types of information would would be exempt pursuant to the statutory exemption. And then section eight gives the commission discretion to extend the time for filing an application under certain circumstances. So are there any other questions on any of the other sections. Yeah, I carry I have a couple section five. Affirmative obligation to abide by every statement and maybe this is the exact language from, you know, are they want to do in the casinos, but it says may be grounds for denial as opposed to shall. Is there any delineation between intentional versus negligent misrepresentation or omission. Um, this did come from the. Yeah, this did come from the gaming side. But that's certainly, you know, something that's up to the commission, how you'd like to work that here. You'd like it to be a mayor or shell. Was that the same language they used for the brick and mortar. We do have Mr. Kerry's here too. I think that's prepared to chime on and carry the two of you if you want to give that history that might be helpful. I don't know if you want to weigh in on that. No, I was going to defer to Kerry first, but it is, it is intentional. I think as Kerry mentioned, it's a, it's for a discussion for the commission. One benefit to the may and the reason I believe it's I wanted to just confirm that it's exactly the same as in the gaming side is as you can imagine an enforcement or disciplinary proceeding could have a couple of factors at once and it could avoid, especially if there are competitors suggesting that, you know, that the commission has to take a certain action, notwithstanding the totality of the circumstances, etc. So that that is is intended to reflect that the obligation is to be truthful but the commission will ultimately without without limiting the commission disciplinary discretion. I have a memory of the wind hearings where we talked about whether there was an attention on this representation was not was a disqualifier for the licensee. So, I just, I would like some clarity on that language we can just make sure we're being consistent. Is it under the statute. Yes, and under the statute there are some some. Yeah, on that particular one there are some issues under the statute that are automatic automatic and we don't have a lot of discussion and so that would be that's I believe one of them those those carried over from 23 K to 23 and pretty directly. Again, this is this is for this phase of regs we want to make sure the obligation and the applications is that you are truthful and you put all of information forward. Later regs when we talk about the license the form of the license license conditions will capture some of the absolutes versus a more discretionary functions. And then my other question goes to our definition of extraordinary circumstances in some eight. Um, this may I will have to, I would have to double check and see if this came from our gaming site me now I don't know if you remember if this came from our gaming site Greg or I pulled this from the Indiana Reg. We could. I mean we could make it more simple and simply discretionary and not include that extraordinary circumstances language. This is from from the RFA ones it's in 111 just want to confirm that so thank you. Similar explanation commissioner Brian to leave some room for discretion for the commission to decide what what that might look like. Again, this may differ if it's impacting for instance a process where you're selecting between a limited number of licenses versus choosing whether or not to to accept an application. Any other questions of Terry, I mean, I have a question carry. Is there anything in the application where someone would have to tell us if they've had any issues and other jurisdictions whether they were fine, or any penalty was given to the licensee and another jurisdiction. Would that be helpful to be in an application. I think it would. I believe that's in the application itself but I might need help from Todd or commissioner Maynard here I know they've been working on the actual application. It is it's part of the BED and there's a requirement for ongoing updates if anything in the BED submitted changes. So we would not in the app but not in the app itself. Yeah, Christian Hill raises a good point because I think it talks about experience related to sports wagering in the app itself. And I have noted we probably want to know violations. Right. You may be getting confused. I don't share because the application in is like includes the BED. Yeah, so it is part of the application. There's a disconnect between the BED and the app itself, where the actual have you been denied it is missing from the app. We ask about citations and things like that, but but it's not in there. It's not in the BED, but it is if you look at the structure and it's funny that I think all of us noticed it that it show experience and expertise and I thought, well maybe they want to capture violations through your experience and I thought, probably unless you ask Affirmative So it's in the BED, but and that will come up in our relative in the relative suitability discussion. Correct. So it's contemplated that the IEB will summarize some of the self disclosures from the BED and the compliance history and licensing history would be part of those part of what the IEB would put in front of you. As well as a lot of the other buckets, you know on financial stability and all of that right. So is there any reason why we can't ask for that violation history and the regulation and actually note that we want to even if it's also captured in the BED, is there any reason not to. Is there a timing you would you would put it in the this sort of comparative application as well as in the BED. Is there a reason why we can't like under glory or something like that. Is there any reason why we couldn't. Commissioner Maynard. I expected this part of the conversation to come up when we actually look at the application. But to what Director Wells just said, there was a decision made and it was staff staff driven but commissioner supported to anytime we referred out to other documents to try to remove that from the application itself. In order to make the application right. Kind of navigable. So there was a, you know, it was, it was not, you know, an omission. Commissioner Hill it was actually we knew it was captured in one spot we knew that that reference to that form was in the application, and therefore it was going down and then, if you do go into this process madam chair what we're talking about. We're going to have to go in and start picking and choosing again what comes back into the form from, you know, from the other forms of reference so I'm just throwing that out there that it was thought about. We did talk about it a lot and and there was contemplated but of course, the commission, you know, as a whole may may see it very differently. I think my direct question is this is something we should be putting in our regulation. So, I think that that's right and because it just doesn't capture the BED would capture that I wonder is, is it okay that it reflects, it's reflected in our right and that will add to the, the app. You know, come, come, complicating the app. The BED is also going to really give the history of the business. I don't know but it actually caught, I don't know I mean if it caught your attention but it did catch my attention. There were certain things in the app that caught my eye that being one of them I also was thinking when we can table this for more detail when we get to the app discussion but we had public input and then additions to the horse racing the amended horse racing application one of which was also. Have you ever sort of been rejected in another jurisdiction or withdrawn in another jurisdiction, which was missing from the app, which is a little bit different than have you been commissioner. Could you repeat that I couldn't just hear that point I'm sorry. I was also that same, it's E3 that talks about sort of your history of demonstrated commitment that's where some of those questions come in the application. I was thinking also to when we just revised the horse racing application and some of the public comment that we got and I think commissioner made it in fact asked for. Have you ever been, you know, have you ever submitted and been denied anywhere, which is sort of above and beyond have you lost your license anywhere. So, some of it is captured in the app and so I get the intent now commissioner made it that you're saying you didn't want to overburden but I did notice I felt like certain stuff was not being captured in the four corners of the application. I think that's a really good point, especially of Brian. Karen. Oh, I'm sorry. The red language itself director Wells, could we without. I get the structure completely up the application and understand the import of the two. Yep, the document so. Besides violations is there another. element that you want to highlight that this is of course not. We know that, but I just, I think we've spoken publicly that history of violations is important. I mean, I would think the, the sort of the big ones which would be part of. When we talk about the truncated suitability, the big, the big items are licensing and other jurisdictions if you've had, you know, had issues and licensing and other jurisdictions. That's a key component that commission wants to look at before we give a license out. The other thing is litigation history. If you have a company that is being sued that is something where that is an indicia that there may be a problem. You have to look into it. And then the third thing is compliance history. So if there is a company that has been repeatedly find by multiple jurisdictions that's something that commission would want to know beforehand. I would say those are the big three. You know, when you get into the conversation about truncated suitability during the application during the evaluation process. I think Loretta and I would probably recommend are the big three from the application. That's really what you want to look at. And, you know, we'll deal with the financial stability of the company separately. I mean, you can also add general language to the effect of, you know, obligated to report if there's any reason why you would not be deemed shouldn't be deemed suitable for gaming or sports wagering license something to that effect some general catch all. So if you're looking at section two. Yeah, is that what commission hope that's what you were looking at. Okay, are there, is there, would you make a recommendation. Given today's discussion to alter that other than maybe in B, you know, including non, you know, history of non compliance or, or. I mean, I'm not, I'm not sure you need it is it something you could do absolutely. Madam chair, so these a through F are the section headings from the application and that's why they're so general right so just a suggestion of course whatever the commission would refer but if you want to add more detail on the application side and then the reg stays with these general section headings, rather than picking and choosing only some of the, the, you know, more detailed pieces that will be included in the application itself. So would it would F encompass what I'm trying to get at care. Is that in the suitability piece care of the application. Technology. Oh, I'm sorry. Would it be. It's not in. Oh, maybe they don't match up necessarily. They don't. That should be G. Don't match up. I'm sorry. Trisha Hill is looking at money and just suitability and compass what he's, he's concerned about in terms of non compliance or violations. I wonder if it were in B. You know, the applicants experience, including any non compliance and expertise related sports play drink. B is more is probably deemed to be a place where you can post experience and athlete review. I think it's more of a suitability question. Thank you for the app. Well, there's point about F and G and all that. I'm in on that one because section a just has general information. I think that's what's all that's the disconnect. We also added we popped out the diversity section. So it's its own section now which added an extra questions. Yeah, we're, we're looking at the application in the packet for that says for category, you know, starting on page 27. Yep. It's not was my understanding coming into this conversation that the, the applications that the IB collects the, the BED on the applicant company which we will be collecting. And in final form, you know, before the initial comparative process and the IB will be providing the commissioners with a truncated suitability. And it was my expectation that our truncated suitability would include a summary of the self disclosed compliance history summary of the self disclosed litigation status. Summary of the licensing status and at including, you know, these are all at attested to self disclosures, as well as the catch all question that the Karen mentioned, you know, any other reason that you reasonably should be aware that would impact suitability. So, that is, that is from the mass cell. Right. But it'd be helpful to include in the, then in the reg suitability and in the app description that would include history of jurisdiction on compliance or violations or something like that. Well, can I, can I insert a question here, you know, the truncated suitability criteria. Not too long ago, our legal team provided us with a memo that outline for options from which to choose. And I don't recall a larger discussion of this body, making a decision on which option to move forward and I understand that that memo was in the context of the temporary license review suitability review. But I think it is a discussion that is right now in terms of, you know, which option in the full application round, the commission will adopt but even even more broadly, the temporary license discussion. I'm not sure, you know, where we left off with that I don't know how. The process would feed into a temporary license if that is something that is still on the table. I'm just, I guess that I guess I'm looking for. I'm appreciating. Can you just for right now. No, those are questions that should come into the discussion I know the better did mention her truncated suitability and that is a policy discussion for us. And this is a really narrow question that's just on the reg and in the application embedded in the reports that Loretta will get her chemo scrub. There will be that non compliance history. I think the question that sort of jumped out at us is can would we actually get that also and perhaps in a decorative fashion. The violation history. If it rises that occasion to put it up, we can put it up if we are all fine with it coming through the analysis that. Or whatever we'll get that analysis from. But I think Loretta just said that that she made certain assumptions about, you know, the option that the commission would take in drafting the application. Did I misunderstand that Loretta. I think perhaps you did. In terms of drafting the RFA, or drafting the application that you know starts on page 27, I didn't make any assumptions there but that those categories are in for of information that the four categories we just talked about is something that we will collect in in the application process and I guess we're prepared to provide them to you should that be the truncated process that you you choose to to go with. And I think what we're doing is there are some assumptions in today's discussion that the team will present as either their recommendation or their assumptions. Or our public discourse is really going to be important because we have to decide, do we agree with those assumptions or not. So, right now, again, if I could just get that narrow issue. Do we keep that right the way it is, or should we tweak it to get the, the application. The application portion that we'll see right immediately and that are not embedded in the associated extensive forms do we want that up front, or are we fine with it coming through by a piece of now. Mr Brian, your thoughts. Not at the moment. No. Okay, Commissioner Hill. I'm trying to have seen some language in there but okay, moving forward with the staff giving us the information. If you believe, and we all believe that we're going to get that information. And I'd have to put it in the Having had the benefit of watching this team open up these forms and then compare it to the questions that were sitting there line by line for hours and thank you all again for doing that. I do think the questions were captured. And so my preference would be to to allow the director and her team to to use those forms. We have a consensus then, we'll just keep it as is. All right, no just returned now then to the regulation. Are there any other questions about the regular language. I actually asked one question madam chair just want to make sure I was clear I think I wrote this before the application was updated to break out diversity equity include an inclusion as an individual section so I take the point about the the letters matching up to the application so I can add that as I think it would be and then bump everything down but just want to make sure that that's something that the commission would like. I definitely think you should do that. Jacqueline is there anything else that you saw that was maybe just a little needs a tweak there in terms of those categories. No, everything else is covered. The meta director lilies are you comfortable that the app reflects all of the piece of the I'm right I'm sorry my apologies represents adequately all of the pieces of the application. Do we need to actually did I miss this, do we need to state the two forms. You know I was just tech going to text carry that because I need authority for the BED, the MJ PhD and the Massachusetts supplemental forms and it may need to be more explicit in here as well as scope. So you're saying that the application includes part a survey, and then this the application that is before us and that we will be voting on. And then, but it's all part of the application just saying that part B, the form that we see, we should probably label it something. And then, there would be the three other documents right read it that are so it's really a five car occasion. Because if we track the way this was done on the gaming side in the 100 series we were, we were planning to add to this to 10 or 211 section. And that would include the BED and those other forms as, for example, to 10.02 to 10.03 and that's how it was on the gaming side as well so those would be coming when we bring the full packet. And my apologies if I misunderstood that that should have been part of today's but today we just have this one for you today and then those forms would still be part of this, this general application chapter of 210. This is all part of it right Karen. Yes, and we've also got there is the line in the regulation about suitability so it's a little more depth of suitability but suitability is clearly covered by the rag that the commission will be requesting information in the application relative to suitability. So it's broad, and we may want to, in addition, but I think the public and the potential applicants are on notice through this process. How discrete our point oh two and point oh three to bring before us. I expect they'll look just like 111.02. But I don't have a draft of those yet. Mina is working on those and I expect to have something tomorrow. And Loretta, in terms of debt deadlines not the actual dates, but the deadline for the survey would be in advance we discussed that as a prerecord with the deadline for submission of, let's say part two, part three, part one, part five be the same date. Well you different deadline. I'm sorry Karen go ahead Loretta. It would be a different deadline because you know we need the scoping form first, but it might be helpful if you could at least vote on the forms today so that. Yeah, that's not where I'm going I just wanted to do this because I'm really for a and Kate and legal to hear it. I think I understand the construct that we have a prerecord of the survey right theoretically and there'll be a deadline attached to that. Right. You know as to when, if you don't meet the deadline you're out. The rest of the parts and I'm just going to say BCD and that's the form of application that we have in front of us today as well as your three forms BED MJH QR SP and then, and then the mess up. And also are all part of the, you know, I think to borrow the Commissioner of Ryan's thoughts it's part of the corner application to those last four pieces have the same deadline for submission. So I think I can answer that question in that I think that is part of the discussion we're having on the timeline and the Commission would have to weigh in on that. So I think we're the most aggressive timeline and for sort of the potential smart allocation of resources, the Commission could decide that initially, particularly with the competitive process, the so say we get 35 applicants for these category three license. Theoretically, or say 30 because I think I know the numbers better say you get 30 out. Generally I think we're right which estimating we get four entity qualifiers and 15 individual qualifiers associated with each company it'll range but that's an average. If we could have all of the applicants submit their individual multi jurisdictional PhDF their forms by the due date of the application and the BED. That's, that's a big ask because for individuals that that's a lot and that may not be reasonable in the shorter time frame. So I would, however, the Commission so determined have those do it a later date, and the, the IEB would review those those individual qualifiers for truncated suitability after the commission has whittled down that hypothetical 30 to say seven, because that's the limit within the statute. In that case instead of doing truncated suitability and 450 qualifiers we may only be doing truncated suitability on 150 because those are the only ones moving forward, and we would have to do that process. And at the same time that we are doing a certificate of operations process, what for the, the licensees that have been granted us mobile sports wagering license. So these are some of the options we can talk through in the timeline so you could have them do all at the same time, but that may make the due date at earlier due date unreasonable, or you could or you could have it done later and those are options we can discuss later. So the Commission so desires. Okay. So, is it fair that you've been operating on that assumption the rather right now that it would be different. It could be that for the deadline would be part on the application. Right. I've known that that was an option. All right. My question is, we do need to update the rag to reflect those other parts of the application for clarity do we all agree on that. I see Commissioner Brian and had me all agree on that. And in terms of, we wouldn't have a real deadline in the right way, but there's that deadline issue is part of our policy discussion. And I haven't forgotten your question, Commissioner Skinner. Again, the words truncated suitability coming up and I think that Karen's probably going to address that just a little bit later in our and directly also in our discussion today. So, So in terms of this rag, how would you like to proceed. And let's read further questions on the rag. It's not the carries presented. Yes. So a suggestion was made earlier by carry that we give her an opportunity to maybe put in the fixes that we talked about and come back to this during this particular meeting. And I would be okay with that because I, I want to. I'd like to see this move forward today but I certainly appreciate that with the changes that have been discussed that we would want to see them, maybe before we take a vote on it. And I appreciate that and the, my colleagues were willing I'd be okay with putting this off till later this afternoon see the changes that have been made and then take a vote at that time. That would be my suggestion. I would say at minimum, I mean, this is one of those things that to be blonde. I'm, I am actually interested in putting out the reg in the app for comment and coming back shortly after so I think at a minimum I'm with Commissioner Hill that at a minimum we allow Kerry to clean it up and see where we stand later this afternoon. Commissioner Mayer, Commissioner Stoner. I'm fine with that too. But Madam chair I have to say the trouble I'm having with this entire discussion and quite frankly, probably most of today's agenda is that what's being put forth for consideration seems to be driven by a timeline, right launch date that has been predetermined by, by some. And I'm having trouble trying to make everything that we have to come before us fit within that arbitrary timeline now I don't know what that timeline is. I, you know, I've heard different dates, but just an entire discussion for today seems a little troubling to me because I think that that is not the way we should be operating. We do have, we have a agenda timeline is part of it and we did work. I worked closely with Executive Director Wells and the order of the discussion was actually purposeful it's probably not perfect, but the timeline has not been predetermined. There is a timeline, and I think Karen's already said the most aggressive that she's saying what and I don't want to put words on that the most aggressive in terms of timing. There's going to be plenty of time for everybody to weigh in as to what that means, and what that should be for this commission. There has not been any predetermined decision. I can state, I can absolutely, absolutely state that this today's discussion is for each of you to put forth your concerns and state what you would like to see in terms of a timeline. Absolutely. The, that word is on, on, on today's agenda for a reason. It's, it's just part of the, you know, the reality of doing business. If we decide we don't want to have a deadline or timeline. That's on the table today to Mr. Skinner. Absolutely. There is no predetermination commissioners you can weigh in, but I really do want to stick to the order of today's agenda so that we can lay out the components. We also don't need to take any votes on these components if that makes anyone feel uncomfortable about the timeline. These votes are only to hold. It's actually just a mechanism that we use in our agenda to reserve the opportunity to vote. But we don't need to vote. There is absolutely no predetermination commission scanner, and I am reacting so much more because it's just today is the day for this discussion. And if we can't make that decision today, we'll put it off to another meeting. But today, there happen. We've all had the benefit of two by twos. We've had the benefit of other discussions. This is today's public discussion. And we are going to hear everybody's opinion. And I want to assure you with that. So I agree with what Commissioner Skinner is saying in terms of, and I hear you madam chair this is an art not a science in terms of the sequence of the agenda. But so many of these things are so integrally intertwined. I am struggling with votes today for that reason. So I second what she says in terms of, you know, anticipation and frustration and I acknowledge what you're saying about sequence but for me a lot of this is I need to get through the agenda to be able to make a determination on some of this. We are learning as we go along and we can hold any vote. That's why I asked I have a motion. If we don't need to, it's better to to hold on an on the vote and make sure everybody feels heard. There is no predetermination. Okay. So with that said, we've gone through the break. It is on noon time. We do have the application itself. At some point, regardless of timeline, there will be an application that will go out because we have an obligation under block to do our job. So again, it doesn't mean it's, you know, there's no timeframe attached. The prerequisite tool. It's again part of the over application. There's no time attached to that prerequisite. Okay. Okay, I think we will take advantage of the next half an hour, unless people need I'd like to break for lunch rather than a break but I understand it's been a long morning. Are we okay going for another 15 minutes to 30 minutes. I can do 15 I don't think I can do 30. And I, and I really appreciate that. So let's see how far we get on the app and that will be in accordance with. Okay, so we have the application here. We have the whole team. So why don't I share my screen because we've got in the packet it might be helpful to run. Well, let me defer. Would you like to run through the application page by page and be able to ask questions that seems like the most appropriate. All right, so I will. I think so thank you, Karen. Yeah, I'll share my screen here. I, because it's a long document and this commission, you know, does abide by the open meeting line I think we're seeing that you know that this is why it's difficult because it's not as if this commission has been able to sit around the table and review this document in advance. This is the first time they're seeing it as a body. Can you increase the launch force. Yeah, let me see. Hold on. Thank you. There we go. Okay. So I've got, you know, the team that worked on this. We had, obviously, Jacqueline spearheaded the coordination Derek worked on it Todd worked on it. Jordan obviously was the commissioner that was assigned by the chair to work on this we also to help from farm Vanderlinden on the research responsible gaming aspects and Katrina jaguar combs on the technical aspects. And don't believe Katrina is available today so I will do my best on that piece. But why don't we run through the application and I think as we go, Jacqueline do you want to sort of take the notes. If there are any changes to the form as we go. You all set with that. Okay. So, obviously the cover page give the name, then we have instructions. So the first page of general information goes through the instructions. I don't know if I have to read through every every piece but maybe we could, if there are any questions on the general information. We do have the highlighted portion. I think that's the reg. That's to come is that right Carrie. She might be drafting. She's drafting. Yeah. No, I'm sorry I can, I can, I can jump in on that one. I'm sorry I want to make sure I get your question exactly right but yes we would plan on filling these technical answers in after the application looks okay. So we have added a general location for application inquiries. We had spoken as a group that it might be the most fair process. So instead of applicants calling me or calling another member of the staff with questions they submit the question and then we can post the question in the answer in public so everybody who is a potentially applying gets to hear the question and sees the answer in the comments. So there's more information. Any questions or general information why don't we start with that. My mind's in the next but how to submit. Okay. All right, so next section. I have a question. Yeah, I know we're going to get into the score scoring criteria later in the agenda. Should that once it's decided be incorporated into the general information piece of the application or anywhere in the application itself. I've never seen that what we talked about internally doing because I think that it is really important for any applicant to understand what the criteria is because that may impact how they fill out the application as a best practice. So a few things. I think the potential applicants the most time to understand what's going on. The expectation was today that the commission would at least have a discussion on the process and they may make a decision on the process. And then, at a later date, the legal team would compile that information into regulatory format. Which would vote on the regulation on the process, and that would have to be done before the applications completed in the interest of fairness to the applicants who are filling it out. In addition, we had discussed after this meeting today, which we have recorded and would have a link we have all the notices of intent and all the contact information for those that have indicated they're looking to apply. So we can email all those applicants and say, you know, be aware the commission had this discussion on the process for evaluation. You can view the section here we can give a time stamp when that was discussed. So they would have it in two formats they would have the commission discussion directly, and they would have the regulation at a later date, but it I agree with you has to be out there before they're required to submit the application. Yeah, it does and I like you know just an interest of transparency I think it's really important. Yeah, that information get that get out there well in advance of, you know, the release of the application. Anything else from my team that the team that worked on this on on that issue. Okay. The next is the non refundable processing fee. That is the statutory required $200,000 fee. We would can you back up please. Yep, the how to submit the bolded line about contacting the commissioners. Yes, you want that. Yeah, I think there should also be inserting or attempt to before a commissioner directly. Not only. Okay, yep. Got it. Got it. Jacqueline you have that. Sorry, it was muted. Yes, I do. And is there anyone on the commission disagree with adding that. Okay. All right, anything else on this page. Sorry, what is, what is the proposal. Absolutely. Do you see what says the individual comma contact a commissioner directly. I'm asking that we insert in that or attempt to contact. Thank you. Contact or attempt to contact a commissioner directly. Michelle Brian just saved everyone's phones. Thank you. I think that is the non refundable processing fee that is directed by statute. Any questions on that. I think that we just have to explain how we're going to receive that. So that's in the yellow. Okay. I think we're going to have to discuss that decision. Is that going to be Derek supplying. Yeah, Derek. Derek is on. Yeah, so I talked to Jacqueline about this and we're just going to have people contact our revenue office directly. We are trying to avoid putting any wiring instructions or bank accounts out in publics. We have had people make attempts on our depository accounts actually cash checks once they got that banking information so just saves us a lot of problems so we'll have them contact our revenue office directly. Yeah, can you remind everyone what we use to put the $200,000, how it will be used or where it goes. So there'll be a right coming I think in the next couple of weeks for you that talks about that, but it's used to offset it goes into the gaming control fund the sports way during control fund, and it's used to offset the costs of investigation. So it's for direct costs and any ancillary costs associated with reviewing the background suitability as well as the competitive application process. Thank you. Next phase is completing the application. These are, you know, general instructions regarding that anyone have any comments or questions on that piece. Okay. Next piece is submission of materials. We did, you know, there, we will have to add a later date or later time today discuss application deadlines, we will, you know, for this purpose of this discussion we can hold that open. So, one thing we had discussed is that for submission of materials, we would keep it to electronic. Some jurisdictions and, you know, may want paper applications, we are suggesting that we not accept paper applications, and that we also have the applications go to the MGC secure file transfer site by way of process. So we would give the applicants instructions on that and how to do that. That is the recommendation, instead of submitting thumb drives and this, you know, that can that can get somewhat cumbersome. And at this point in time with technology, the seems to be the smartest and safest way to do it. Any questions on that. And Commissioner Maynard, you know, some of these, you know, they have requirements for notarization, I think you had indicated there is some extension on notarized electronic notarization, we can work out with applicants if there's, there's any issues that there's anything they, you know, have to have some kind of wet signature on but generally we would want this done to the secure file transfer site. That's correct. I dusted off my bar card long enough to to look up the current rules that are notarization is done online and I really, really appreciated Katrina's issue answers on questions about how secure the website is and that security concerns. Okay. The next piece is the electronic application format. And this ties into that submission process and this we got from the IT department and these are their recommendations on how to submit the files. So thinking that we could put something on our website or send a notice to our potential applicants if they are looking for assistance or, you know, meet some kind of guidance that we would have a contact for them. Going forward just in case some of your smaller operators may not have the type of IT department where it's easy for them to do this, we would provide assistance in that manner. So you were just saying here and not, not on this is better be something for the website or continue. Yeah, we want to be, we want to have good customer service in that respect that we don't want to make things undo burn some Friday. Next piece is public records, you know, I'll defer to Todd on this. Can I ask again, kind of going back. There's a highlighted sort of blue italics that I'm looking at a page 33 electronic application form and then it says C section C public records. Is the C supposed to be there because it doesn't seem to correspond with the C below. That's interesting. I don't know if a site is for the public record statute or whether that's just a typo. I don't know if the RFA to application which is where we borrowed some of this language. So the section just got it so the sections needs to be linked over line up. Yeah, definitely can you take care of that. Thank you. Okay, next section. Turn over Todd on the public record section. And this goes to your exact question on the RFA to application, the commission set up at the end of the application guidelines as to which parts of the submission would be presumptively deemed exempt from public disclosure under the public records law. So the question before you now is how we move forward with this application. Of course, there's likely to be great interest in these applications. And so there are several approaches that can be taken to address this. The first one is to, of course, just handle any requests for public records on an ad hoc type basis as we ordinarily do. If we get a request, we can go through each application that is requested and make determinations of that juncture as to which materials are exempt under an exception to the public records law or to the provision of the 23 and that talks about trade secrets and information may be detrimental to the applicant is publicly released. The other approach which is the one I just described that was made use of in the RFA to process for the casino applicants was that given the great volume of information that is likely to be submitted to the commission, the decisions be made in advance and that everything be telegraphed right in the application for the benefit of not just the applicants but also members of the public who might be interested and of course commission staff and all involved in understanding going into it as to which pieces of information that are likely to be submitted will presumptively contain information that will meet an exception or an exemption to the public records law. So, for example, there are certainly pieces of information perhaps rate related to an applicant's technology operations that the commission is likely going to be interested in knowing, but that will be very sensitive and could be deemed detrimental to an applicant or to release that part of the application publicly. So on a grid here at the end of the application we could identify that question that calls for the submission of that information and make a determination in advance that that material will be withheld in response to a request for public records, and we would go through the whole application and make determinations in advance as to whether the submission is likely to contain information that would be exempt from disclosure. As you can see in this description here, we recognize in advance that though we can make these types of determinations and makes representations about them. Ultimately, the secretary of the Commonwealth and to some extent the attorney general are the overseers of the public records and not the commission. So we cannot guarantee any particular results, but we can let everyone know what our general thoughts are as to the application of the public records law and the language in chapter 23 and relative to trade secrets and detrimental information in advance. So that's why this was put in here. We did not include the guide that's referenced here that will take some work we can try to turn that around as quickly as possible if that is the direction the commission's interested in moving. But that I think this is an important part of the process for consideration at the moment. So I'll just I'll pause there madam chair and commissioners just so you can offer any thoughts. I mean I like I think people who are here can speak to it but it appears to have been a successful process with the brick and mortar casinos. Again with that caveat that ultimately we're not the final arbiter but to give people a heads up so they can make their decisions about what they want to put in. I, I, because I asked this privately honest and publicly. I kind of had a hard time understanding why we would give legal advice to companies essentially right through a document. Rather than just point them to the Secretary States website which the Secretary of State has great resources on how the exemptions work and how public records laws enforced. Can you speak to that time why why we would go through that process. Sure. And I think that is an option right where we would just say here's the law. You know you can try to make projections as to what you think we might or might not withhold in response to request for public records. The issue with that is that it could lead to a lack of a uniform understanding upfront as to where the Commission is with this and I think there is some discretion built in for the keeper of the records being us in this case to apply the law as we see it. If we left it to all of the applicants to do on their own. In all likelihood they might take a broader view of certain things than we might take and it could be lead to them submitting information that they think is highly sensitive that we might not agree is highly sensitive turning over. So, I think it is helpful to try to telegraph some of this in advance, but the process you suggest is certainly a viable one and one we could make use of. I'm not sure I understand what you say we have discretion to knowing I actually kind of appreciating. We have an obligation to abide by the public records law and they have an obligation to abide by the law including the public records law. I'm not sure we say that it's up to us in terms of how we exercise discretion. Well I think whether something is a trade secret or would be detrimental if released is not always black and white. It depends on what the materials are. It does. Well that's added in under chapter 23 and as far to the application process so it's a statutory exemption to the public records. So it is included here for the limited purpose of the materials submitted as part of the application. So that the top is in addition. So it's section six I. That's an addition of records law right. Well it's I would consider madam chair just to put a finer point on it to be a statutory exemption so it's it's part of the public records law. It plugs into the public records law but it's specific to sports majoring application. So then what we would do is we have it and I didn't think I spent it at the application but what I'm hearing you say is that guides been attached the end the application advising which answers and attachment submitted will be considered be through something meet the exception. Public records line with health and public disclosure. I would love to see what attachment see was on the original RFA to and I used would still have to draft relative to this because it's probably a natural point but I'm trying to keep up here and where's the attachment see is that so there was a typo. I thought that was a link to the public records law but it was. No. Got it. Okay. Yeah. I missed that point because I thought it wasn't. I can quickly pull that up. There's a really confusion some of our licensees have some confusion over over the notion of confidentiality and yeah we don't want I don't know if we want to be necessarily opening up a lot of discretion here. The law is really outside our new upfront that we did not consider certain things we as a body said we are not taking the position those are trade secrets in that regard. That would be helpful information probably to applicants. Yeah, but I don't care for me. I my worry is that we take a position. That is relied upon that ultimately the Secretary of State's office takes a different position on that is my worry and I'm not saying that that indicates how I'm going to feel one way or the other whether it should be included. But that's the worry I have. That's what I wonder if we say these are the is where we we feel you do not fall within that exception. Then the disconnect with Secretary of State would be maybe they give them greater protections and we would get them but at least they would be on notice that we wouldn't deem to be exerting an exemption for that category of documents. I guess I would say this is that they should be on notice that they're subject to disclosure. And you know this is how my practice was somebody thought something was a trade secret. And so they might put, you know, confidential on the submission. They knew that it was subject to actual disclosure under the public records law. And then you play it out because each, each submission is going to be so nuanced and the analysis would be really individualized so one person's trade secret isn't another person's trade secret. And then, you know, if it turns out that we would at least have the courtesy to say we'll give you the 10 days noticed, like, you know, we go obligated to produce it. And then they can do something with that notice. If it be helpful, I can show you what the guide in the application. I think, you know, the other thing is that it, it seems reasonably foreseeable that we will get a request for all of the applications. Shortly after their file. So it's not as though it's kind of a remote possibility that someone's just going to want to see one application about something and we'll have a lot of time to sit and parse through each document. So there will be an expectation that a lot of this information will be shared and to the extent that we can determine in advance, those parts of it that we are planning on sharing. I think it goes a long way and as one of you commissioners already pointed out, the process I think would have to be held as a broad success in the case of the RFA to process we released a lot of information publicly. I think most overwhelming majority of the public felt like it was a very transparent process. There were certain pieces that were withheld and I guess everyone seemed to understand why that was. And so let me just show you how it was done. And here it is. So this is what was section C of the RFA to can everybody see this okay or should I make it bigger. Could you make it bigger ton. Yes. Thanks. Okay, so we started with just an explanation of the law so everyone could understand how we got from point A to point B. The first paragraph just talks about the public records law generally offering links to the secretary's site and the public records law itself. We talked about the some of the exemptions in here, of course, things like the privacy exemption, which is one of the more familiar exemptions to the public records law still applies. So to the extent there is a lot of personal information and say some of the stability applications that the commission just discussed with that those we can redact and withhold under the privacy exemption we don't need to rely on the statutory exemption that was included in 23 and we talked a little bit about things like that. Then of course we set out what in this case was a slightly different exemption but it's similar. We set out what the statutory exemption was. And the other thing was and this is discussed a little bit in the instructions as far as the electronic filing is what we required in the RFA to process that was very helpful. I think that when an applicant submitted a document that met the requirements that we set out here as far as which documents would be exempt that they market. So as such, in the electronic name of the document and they have the word confidential in the document so that we could see upfront that that is that it met one of the requirements here. So I want to think about that use of the word confidential. We can certainly use another term but that was the term that we use. I understand. Yeah. Then we get to the chart, and this is really kind of the crux of the matter here. So what we did in that case was went through the RFA to application. We identified every question that presumptively called for the submission of information that would be covered by an exception or an exemption to the public records law whether it was a standard exemption that set out or the statutory exemption. So we have these columns here as you can see where the applicant would have to go through each one and identify whether they believe that this gets to Commissioner Maynard's point a little bit that the document actually met an exemption. There are certain times on the flip side where we determined that certain materials would be covered, but that an applicant could agree to its release anyway, and that did happen on a number of occasions as well. So that's the yes no column went through the entire application identified those pieces that would fall into that and you can see some of these involve things like marketing. They're record of employee retention, internet and marketing practices surveillance, a lot of the internal control submissions for example from other jurisdictions that they submitted were covered here. And what have you. You'll also see that there's some blank spaces here at the bottom, and those were set out so that an applicant could make a try to make a case that certain materials that were to be submitted that were not identified by the applicant as presumptively containing exempt materials were in their case exempt and so they would fill in this piece by itself by themselves, and the commission could then consider whether it did or did not meet an exception. I'm Andrew Jeff right now like one of my questions is and I hear you saying this was very, very successful. I know that we did get public records requests and I don't know if we don't know on it, but let's just say that we make a presumption about those materials. That doesn't mean that a requester for those materials can't challenge that presumption. Yes, we absolutely can. If you're making a presumption. I guess I guess it's in based on the definition of each item under the exception under 23 and or under the public records law. Did we ever did we lose on any of those presumptions. I don't even recall anyone ever challenging anything, which is not to say. I definitely recall some questions about our productions we've had, we've got a big production right now we have a, you know, we have challenges but is it anything that was with respect to the application. I guess I should have been more precise. I don't remember anyone challenging anything relative to our dissemination of information in the early days anyway under the under this kind of plan. Well, commissioners thoughts. I actually like the idea of flagging things that we as a body, don't think are part of that except that statutory exemption. Because I do think that they can make informed choices that way I mean worst case scenario they submit get protections we didn't think they were going to get but then they go in with their eyes wide open that we're probably not asserting an exemption necessarily and they to your point could then intervene and ask for the exception to be asserted upon a request. I'm just going to you've been in a general council role. What are you thinking public records. I don't have anything else to add to the discussion I think I'm sorry. I think I agree with Commissioner Brian and her assessment. I'm not going to be interested in reading the guide I haven't I haven't read it in detail. So I'm a little bit uninformed in that regard, but I defer to legal counsel. In terms of having the language in the application I'm all for it. And I also agree with Commissioner Brian, and I would just add that a lot of these companies might not be from Massachusetts. And we're very unique. When it comes to the public record law, compared to other states so having it there, I think is a good thing, but people who don't know how our laws work here, and what may or may not be disseminated. And if they know it as part of the application I think that's only can be a good. I think we can run that by the Secretary of the Commonwealth Office in advance. You mean back in the original RFA to. I mean we're using the same one as did we ever ask. It's just it's a really bad off of this term. So I'm just wondering, which I mean. To the really the heart of my, my discontent with this it's not that it's I believe in educating any applicant that comes our way I guess the question I have is, do we point them to the final arbiter. Do we say, here's where we are right and they may not be with us right at the end of the day. I agree with the education point I just, that would make me more comfortable. Madam chairs if someone from the secretary's office saw something like this and could point out the good and the bad and the ugly. Is that office issue advisory opinions talk genome. Have you ever asked them for an advisory opinion I'm not sure they might be willing to do something like this Mr public timing in. I was going to say exactly what Mr Grossman just said. I'm not familiar with them doing that but you can always ask. You are familiar with them giving informal advice if you give a call right. Yes, but in the context of a. specific fact that doesn't hurt to ask sort of one time, but a good place to pause for lunch. Nothing like an issue about public records like love lunch sugar. Yeah, that'll get people's juices genre. Well, it is 1235 a little longer than we want to go. Let's break from break for lunch. We'll continue if we could probably put this public records issue in the parking lot and continue on the review of the application. I think direct wells of love for you to consider. The order and whether it would be helpful for you to, you know, in your presentation in your mind, how you would like to proceed, which you prefer to bring up the timeline discussion which is number eight in advance of number six and seven. I have a question for you to mull over over lunch and I will turn to my fellow commissioners when we get back to see about your recommendation and see if they're comfortable with the order of our discussion. Okay. All right, so it's 1235. Some of us are in the city. For lunch. No, what do you need for time? We usually go about 30 minutes, 35 minutes. Okay, so we'll convene around 10. Thank you. Thank you everyone. Thanks for the very informative discussion. So, hey, Jordan, can you carry me a donut if there are any left? Where's some left? I had, I had half of them this morning because they're so huge, right? That like I can't eat a whole cane donut. I always miss the good stuff. Well, now, you know, long had some lifesavers so. Thank you. Yeah, those one pretty quick. I believe it. Brad, can you telegraph next time when you're going to bring the sweets in? Can I tell you something? I got here at like eight this morning because I never know what the traffic is going to be like. Yeah. So I did a walkabout and saw Keynes and just decided to get him. Nice. So there was no. No, no thought. And certainly no thought until I, until I got there. It was outstanding, Brad. I had one. Thank you. Thank you. It was a nice sugar blast for the morning. Yep. Now you guys are just rubbing it in. I didn't get one of your cupcakes, Nikisha. I thought. I think the next several months is we're going to have to have some food, regular food brought in. Nikisha, that lemon blueberry cupcake. You can tell from my physique. I try everything. I have never had a lemon blueberry cupcake like that. That was really awesome. I'll put, I'll definitely put those on the rotation, Brad. Oh boy with those good. What kind of frosting did it have a flavor? Real frosting lemon. Nice. It's like a big Betty Crocker type of type. They whip it up and put it on top. Nice. That you can justify, right? That it's homemade. So it's not as bad for me. Exactly. I stopped justifying years ago. I'm not quite there yet. I'm still fighting a good fight. I'm trying. Okay, you can take down the screen. Thank you so much. All set. Good afternoon. Thank you. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. I'm here. Hello, I am here. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. I came back. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. I am here, Madam Chair. Good afternoon. All right, we're set to proceed then. Karen, you are reviewing the application. Yeah, so I will share my screen again if you'd like and we'll continue. So my understanding is we're going to put a pin in the public records page and we can come back to that at this point. So the next page in the application is just a checklist to help the applicant get organized. So we have just an assurance on their part that they've submitted all these things in an effort to make sure that their application is complete. Are there any questions on that? Which time does it take the applicant to complete that public record section? The public. See that checklist box on the third up. Right here. Yeah. Yeah, that's an interesting question. So Todd, I don't know if you've ever got any feedback on that because that is an added piece to the application. I'm sorry, no specific feedback. I can't, I'm not. So that, that may be something for you to consider. If you, if you don't want the section, you don't, you would take it off the checklist. I'll make a note of that. I'm with the commissioner scanner. I just really need to see that guide to figure it out. I did not appreciate it. The casino. Because I wasn't here. And you would have been here either for that, right. Oh, you muted. Maybe you prefer it that way. I was not here, but I like the idea of it. So I'm actually on board with it, but. All right, so we'll, we'll, if Jacqueline, if you could note that when the commission makes a final determination, we'll make have to make it sure it's consistent. Okay. We can revisit it today too. Yep. All right. Okay, so next we're getting into the application me. And the first section is just general information that gives our team and the commissioners. So the general information about the applicant itself is like, you know, identify the type of business better I tax ID number their location contact information, et cetera. And the way at the top where it says one, two, three, are we differentiating between tethered three or not. I don't really think we need to because every tethered needs to have a category three license and we're going to know I mean we're in communication with them so, and that is one of the, you know, the requirements in the application is any kind of contract or any kind of joint venture they would have to identify plus we're talking to them all the time they're going to, you know, the, the licensees are going to have the category ones and twos they're going to tell us who they are they've already told us. The ones that know have already told us. Okay. Okay. Anything else on this app. Yep. Is there any chance we're going to get a form company should we say any sort of form corporation, or are we just assuming we're all the getting us corporation. Oh, that's interesting. Yeah, it could be, it could be. And then when we say and what's, you know, where do they have like a designated agent in the state I mean, if they're foreign. Yeah, I mean, we make it I'm trying to think because we have not come in probably doesn't include it right right and we're intentionally not looking at those. You know, doing some analysis of companies yet until we see whether they're applicants. I mean, you could do one of two things. Say if, you know, if, if a US company state which they're, you know, incorporated organized formed or registered and limited to the US or asked for something else. Right on a fewer Monica that is helpful to you in any way in this form, because it's going to be a lot of that stuff's going to be anyway. I think usually are applicant is US based even if the company so forth are foreign. Monica, I don't know if you're on now but I'm sorry. This is the business entity. So, in theory, could you have a foreign cat three come in. You could. I mean, typically what we've seen is it on the vendor side. And, you know, obviously with our casinos is that the licensed entity is US based. I don't know Monica are you on do you think we should include a foreign element of foreign component. She may not be logged in I can, I can maybe watching online. Yeah, it's easy adjustment. I don't think there needs to get presumption. So, let me just put state slash foreign country or country. Yes, state and then a parentheses or foreign, foreign, if a foreign jurisdiction. Right. Hi, I'm Monica. Monica, are you able to see the screen. I hear. Okay. Monica, I think we can hear you. So the question is, maybe there's an echo. Certainly the suggestion, you know, state. I think we're in location of applicable that's going to cover all the, all the base. Yeah. And just put it above to state slash country. So in the title and then underneath. And then you have other for the type of business anyway so that would cover Monica can we hear you now. I think she's having some logistical issues here. Any other questions on this section. Commissioners. Okay, I know you're all set on that one. Thank you. One of the categories of the commission had discussed and we're interested in the criteria for evaluation. So we have different aspects of the sports wagering experience and expertise. The way we've structured the application and. Compliments to Jacqueline for suggesting this is instead of a fillable PDF kind of form. kind of form. They would they see the questions and they then have to attach answers to the questions and they would be numbered appropriately. So this gives the opportunity for them to give you their background in sportsways during their experience in licensure and other jurisdiction, their plans to offer the platform in coordination with their applicants or person, intention of limiting participation in any allowable sporting events, so just sort of general information. Now we have structured this application so that all three types of applicants can apply. There may be certain questions, for example, like the platform to your category one license may not be able to answer that. They would just indicate that on the form. It's not applicable. And then we do have certain groupings of questions, which would apply to say brick and mortar here under B2 or the I'll say mobile or as Katrina tells me the online operators the category three applicants. So maybe most efficient for me to just stop here and see if the commission has any comment on section B. We've got B1, B2, B3, and B4. And the tech features, I don't have Katrina on, but that was information was reviewed by and provided by her and the in addition to B3 about the platform. So that's that's the extent we can add questions, subtract questions, do anything the commission wants. I know this is the first time you're all talking about it as a body, but this is the framework that we want to get in place right now. And B2C asks for the estimated volume of wagering activity. What what information specifically are we trying to draw up there? Is it the number of bets placed? Yeah. Okay. Then my question would be, is that clear enough for folks? Yeah, I mean, I don't know, Derek, if you have any comments or stroll is on as well, that if that makes sense. So we we kind of revise that down below in section C, the economic impact. And that's so I'm wondering, I didn't take as much of a deep dive into that question that may be duplicated and we can get rid of that because of C. You know, C gets into what their revenue projections are, how they get to those revenue projections, what their profit is. So, you know, it's a good point, it may be duplicative. Where do you where are you seeing that, Derek? C talks about the economic impact. But in terms of number of wagers, I mean, I think that's sort of the like a macro view, whereas in section C, we get into sort of the meat and potatoes of their the revenue, the projections, the extent of their operation. I like it for the talk for the commissioners understanding. It's a good, a good number to be able to look at. I am back on the the earlier discussions of just to keep so you know why I got my eye earlier as a commissioner. Those point is when we're looking at sports, wagering, experience and expertise in this application. It's only because I guess we've learned that it will be in the joining parts that how you operate and other jurisdictions matters to us. So we do have experience in licensure and other jurisdictions with sports wagering. So presumably they would give us also the bad news, right? It's never as well. So this is sort of, you know, this is specific to the flat. What you're talking about, B3, B1. Oh, no, yeah, experience in licensure and other jurisdictions with sports wagering. Again, that sort of macro view that would help so they can summarize for the commissioners who are doing comparative analysis or even just allowing a license for the other categories is, you know, what's the summary of your experience? And it would have them explain it to you. So it gives you just some sort of that that bullet point analysis that you can compare other applications. Right. And I guess my point is I think this is more helpful than the language I thought because of a rag. This, you know, it does say experience in other jurisdictions. So I think we might get some of that at Commissioner Hill, we might. No, I agree. I agree. Yeah, Jacqueline, do you have any any comments on this from what you pulled from other jurisdictions for the commissioners? I do not other than there were some jurisdictions that did flat out ask for the compliance aspects, whether you voluntarily withdrawn or request, whether you have been given a finding of not suitable here. Yeah, I had that noted in E3 history of demonstrated commitment, but maybe it's better to put it up here and add it to the discussion as well. That's probably going to be part of the IEB's report to the commission. So you can put it in any place you want it. Yeah, I mean, it fits in either E3 or up here. And what are we adding now? I'm missing track set. It was the more detailed point questions about history of compliance, the jagged out which and I had I had noted it in E3 saying, do we want to list any rejections, withdrawals, that sort of thing? Right. So it's to our earlier discussion, right? Do we be a little bit it'll be a little bit depicting? Yeah, that's the right word because we're going to get it to the other the other channel. But right. Well, but we do ask for history of demonstrated commitment and there is list any fines, violations, citations, corrective actions, et cetera. So to me, logically, it would roll into that. OK, we're going to again. But we can if you want to. That's E3. E3 is what right. It is an Edward three. No, but that's under responsible gaming. That's why it might be longer. All right. Last night, too, I mean, I went, oh, there it is. And then I think it's restricted to, apparently, if you. Some jurisdictions may find you in violation of our chief. And I probably would suggest that you maybe add a section G4 and then add those questions. Yeah, I do have some language prepared. If Karen, if you if you would like me to share it, just to be fair to Jacqueline, she actually had this language in and we went through and removed it. So I know that it exists over. I'm just going to share. This is this is kind of a broad overview. It just it encompasses everything. If there's anything that could be removed or not included, you can just get it. Can you make it just a little bit bigger? Sure. Thanks. Thanks. I can and obviously I can take out a because that is duplicative. I like this. So H&I. I like the whole section. Well, yes, for sure. But H&I would certainly. Address my concerns from earlier today. Just add this section. That's before it has G4. Sure, I can add it. So you would like it under suitability in the G. You don't want me to put it back up anywhere else. Oh, I thought we were in B, you know, I can put it in B. It would make sense in B as well. So where did we have this before, Jacqueline, because I remember us pairing this down. Applicants are going to and once again, this gets a timeline so I don't want to we get brief. Surface that issue. But if applicants had a compressed time to get these together, we didn't want them duplicating information, especially if this was going to come through Loretta and the IEB would be performing, doing a summary for all of the commissioners on this type of compliance issues. So I think that's the reason it was taken out. Right. I think that we understand that, that it is going to be somewhat depicted. But I think that there's enough of us who are noticed that it wasn't there, even though we might understand it's coming through the other channel. If the IEB will be really assessing those other big documents, much more so than we will be. And I think this is so core to our evaluation that we might want to have straightforward answers from now. I don't think many of these questions are so involved that it will necessarily add a huge workload. Madam Chair, I think I know the answer to this question, but I'm just looking for confirmation, I guess. Does the staff anticipate sharing the actual operator applications with commissioners to review and all of the attachments? Yes. OK. I don't know if I'm going to say everything of the whole. But so I think an analysis we're going to rely on, IEB's expertise on how to analyze the the the three documents that they're so familiar with, right? But that is actually part of our our our evaluation process, Mckisha, that will evaluate and will discuss. I just didn't know if that if we would be relying on a comprehensive report from IEB rather than actual submissions. Am I right? There's no reason that we wouldn't have access to all five parts, right? Loretta, I can't see you, but I'm. Well, you know, depending on what ends up being the timeline, we may have to buy for key entities from individuals or a certain period of suitability. But any any applications that are we're in receipt of and have been reviewed for completeness would be available to to you in both your you know, competitive analysis and the ultimate suitability analysis. Yeah, it's it's absolutely going to be part of our Get Ready, Commissioner Skinner. Thank you. That's good. That's good to know, just not having gone through the RFA one process for for right, you know, it helps to know that. And honestly, I do know that we are going back a lot with the casino, but I want to I want to give us a little bit of here. This is our process, too. So it's important, Commissioner Skinner, to be thinking, you know, what's going to work for you and each commissioner, what's going to work for you to be able to evaluate who is going to be in part of this industry? You know, we're looking back because that's really helpful. This is all all new. This is our decision. So that clarification, have we agreed to put it in the suitability or are we putting it in the section B? I just want to make sure we are all in agreement first. Do we start by all all A through I? Any I agree with that, which is why I asked the question that I did, because, you know, the IEB will be doing their suitability part. I think really it's important for commissioners to have at a glance as soon as possible this kind of information. So I again, agree that this should be included in the application itself. Yeah. And we put this these types of questions in the amended horse racing application. So to me, we're being consistent. I agree with that, too. And I also think it shows our priorities and a participle signal. So, Commissioner Hill, you are asking now which section and I'm hearing possibly G and Joplin, did you have another another record station? It could I I see. Yeah, it's really it's at your discretion, whether it appear in B under experience and expertise or G under suitability, whichever you prefer. It came out of suitability. This is where it originally was. I would think that's where we would put it, but I'm open to anything as long as we have it. I will I will just on principle say this is duplicative. It does increase errors and omissions, possibly small ones. And and the staff did have a good recommendation, but I can also count three. So I'm not going to stand in the way of it being added back in. Well, there's no three there's no three yet. We're still talking. I am appreciating that, Commissioner Maynard. I'm appreciating that's what Secretary Wells started with. I guess my thought is that when it's not kind of right up there and up front, I wonder if it suggests that it's not because the other forms are kind of they are expected to do that. And so I'm looking to see which would be a throwaway. I know Commissioner Maynard, you said you like them all. Yeah, I didn't actually. As do I. Oh, I like them all, too. I like that they were all captured in other places, too. So again, so let me look again. Do we have the withdrawal? There you go, withdrawn in any jurisdiction. OK. So a recommendation is to include insertability or to include it be in the crisis. I asked this question, Jacqueline, and you looked at a lot of applications. Did you see this as kind of an early on provision under experience, generally, or something like that, or was it tucked into suitability? It was for the most part, it was it was its own section under compliance, but I would I would tuck it back into suitability if anywhere. All right, so that'd be G4. That would be G4. Yes. For sure. Sounds good to me. For right now, that's an edit. OK. All right. As a new G4. All right. Somebody's keeping track of that for us. OK, Karen. OK, so anything else on the section B sports, wagering and experience and expertise, other comments? OK. The next section is economic impact on the Commonwealth. And this gives the applicant an opportunity to show the commissioners what kind of jobs they're going to have, what kind of projected revenue. We have a section on construction for gaming establishments and then a section on construction for category two applicants. And then also we have a section on community engagement. You know, that's something that we had some experience with in the casino world. And so we're looking to see if the applicant potentially has some creative ideas. It may not be necessarily intuitive for the mobile operators that don't have a brick and mortar location, but they can think creatively and bring something to the table for the commission you may want to consider. So I'll open this section up for discussion. Any comments, changes, things that you'd like on this section? So we're really thinking about him and that piece. Yeah, I want to ask about C3 and C4, so C3 E and C3 C4 F that talk about proposed security and surveillance of the sports waging area and operation. And I'd love to see the language specifically in there from three. Sorry, from B4 G, specifically how they will prevent wagering. By-prohibited persons, including underraised persons from GEMS is there. Now, some of this for brick and mortar is going to be very easy, right? You card at the door, maybe the kiosks are all within that gaming establishment area, but I, particularly when the live horse racing was concerned with PPC's answer that, of course, we have a disconnect in our statutes between 18 to bed on horses, 21 for everything else. So I'm looking for specific information, most particularly C4 for the live horse racing, how they're going to ensure that. So I'd like that language specifically added to the end of C3 E and C4 F. Can we just add that? Could you just go over it again? So C3 E and C4 Construction Gaming Establishment Street are a category one. So that's really post-security. And they do talk about kiosks, too, down below, but post-security to assure locations, things it's not about. So and then I might the cat one will probably be relatively straightforward and they have processes in place already to limit access to the floor to 21 and up. And the language and you said borrow from the language, but I couldn't see. The language would be it starts our proposed security and surveillance of the sports waging area and operation. And I would say, including how operator intends to prevent wagering by prohibited persons, including underage persons, problem gamblers, employees, et cetera. And I think particularly underage is pertinent to C4 F. Yeah. And then the issue of the fact that you can be 18. And of course, I think that is of concern. So you want that with respect to C4 C4 F. So it would be C3 E or F that they might want to put kiosks in that horse racing area. And that's a that's a problem for me. Well, I can add that language, both of those. Yes. That's a good point, right? The kiosks, I think you'll capture it in the E, but I, you know, I do understand that there's a little bit of a different. There's more vulnerability of kiosks with respect to Myers as well. And you're you're fine catching it just in, right? Well, if it's added to C3 and C4, then it covers Cat 1 and Cat 2. Yeah. OK. Anything else? Section just as a note on this cap, you know, because I know there was it in the public meetings, there was a question about the capital investment for category two licensees. We just quoted the statute. We did not make any determinate, you know, it make it indicate in the application itself, if the commission could potentially consider some prior investment, that would be a separate issue. And this would be an opportunity for the applicant to bring that forward. So that's how we left that just straight cut the page from the statute. OK, everybody on that so far. OK. The next section is on diversity, equity and inclusion. I believe the chair had mentioned at a prior meeting that be helpful to put this in its own section, not only for clarity, but also to emphasize its importance. So we've got a section on diversity, equity and inclusion, the workforce on a supplier spend, and then also sort of a section that entitles corporate initiatives. So what are they? What are they doing? How are they doing something to partner with, you know, other communities of color or individuals of color, things like that. So I'll I'll leave the I don't know, Commissioner Maynard, you don't have any comments on that, but we didn't add that section when we did our group review. I feel like I'm the only one speaking. So a couple of comments, one on the diversity, equity, inclusion workforce, I also was wondering if there's anywhere in this for diversity and equity in terms of corporate structure, ownership, partnerships. I know when we did a procurement a while back to we were sort of looking at ownership and I don't see that anywhere else. I had asked for that to the joint venture. And I thought that, I think, as you thought, it was captured in the third element. Commissioner Brian, do you think it does or do you think we need to be more? Third element, I'm sorry. Where? P3D3 because of the idea of joint creative partnerships with, but it says local entities, including programs, not for profit, but it's as opposed to their internal structure and composition. Yeah, yeah, I guess I also wondered about the idea of it. We also have D1C, which talks about the demographics and the. I'm talking about like core ownership and the actual entity. Yeah, the actual entity. Yeah, I'm with you, Commissioner O'Brien. I definitely want that captured if it's not properly captured somewhere. And I think maybe know if it was better back in the general corporate questions area in the app or this because we have this spotlight on it in diversity, equity and inclusion, is this the spot for it? Because the other idea, I mean, because it doesn't really fit within sports, wagering, expertise and experience. That's too specific. Right, it seems as if that you're flying D1 or I think maybe it's because you're made like D1C, you could expand that to their workforce, ownership and leadership diversity. What do you think of that? Control and governance, leadership. Right, we should spell it out. Yeah, or do you just add another sub bullet point? Hey, you know, that's that's more specific about ownership and control under D3 or under rather than workforce. Should we say because you have a generic and say diversity, equity and inclusion, the corporate or something, you know, corporate diversity. And then maybe it's corporate control or corporate structure and then do a separate aid to really say something about what you're looking at. Right. And then keep me, keep the current A as a B, because that's a little bit different. I read it differently last night, Karen, as well. So we would love to be able. This is a question maybe for Derek and maybe Jordan, it came up. We'd love for them to for any applicant to really think hard about how they could bring perhaps a minority owned business to the table and not keep that business in the supply chain. Now, that may not be in current structure. And I don't know if we can address that here, but I would be willing to give a company a pass to say, if you do it in Massachusetts the first time, and that's really good too. You know what I mean? In other words, you may have never done this, but we are trying to generate that outcome. So does this only capture what they've done or what they would commit to do? So A in D three commits what the captures, what they've done and what they commit to do, because create partnerships with local how it intends to, right? But what conventional Brian's talking about is something different. So we did this on a procurement where we were having difficulty just with the supply chain, as well as we were having difficulty with just ownership. So, you know, to be a certified minority women or veteran owned business, you have to have 51 percent of your ownership being in one of those areas. So what we did was said, who are you elevating as a lead on this project? Who are you giving opportunities to? Who's actually and not just putting someone on the team, right? So who's up at the top? And I think that's what Commissioner O'Brien is trying to get to. If you do have 25 percent owners who are minority women or veteran or veteran status, that's still making a commitment, right? It may not meet the 51 percent to get you to. And then you can kind of evaluate that based on what their workforce dynamics look like. So if they work, it just gives you a better picture of. You may have 80 percent minority women bit workforce participation, but only 20 percent in leadership. What's the structure? So so that's part of, I think, what Mitchell O'Brien's gotten to. And we did we did miss out here. So I think it's good to add a question there for that. So and so that maybe maybe I was jumping then and maybe it's here, Derek. What about a company who says I'm going to have a joint venture with another company that's either a certified MBE or, you know, whatever again. Yes. So so that would be that would be a huge point. Yeah, that'd be a huge thing. And we want to know what that venture looks like, right? And I think a gets to that because if it's going to be, you know, D3A, I think gets to that because then that's going to be all right. Well, what is your venture and, you know, what is the actual partnership going to be? If it's if it's something significant, absolutely. That's that's a great thing to see. But if you're just asking something under the vendor side, and this is what Commissioner Maynard got to when we were having this discussion because I said it's somewhat duplicative of the vendor side, because it's going to be a contractual relationship anyways. A gives you that opportunity to really call it out and say it's not a contractual relationship. This is this is a partnership we're engaging in. So D3A gives that opportunity, I think that you're talking about, but we did miss the piece that Commissioner O'Brien's talking about. Could we say create. Partnerships slash joint ventures with local or regional. I guess it went straight to sort of programs and nonprofits as opposed to another another corporation, another company. So we could we could elevate the Andor Corporate Partners, right, because we have that towards the back. We have including but not limited to not not for proper organizations, agencies, Andor Corporate Partners. So yes, it gets there. Yeah. Could we go if we want to move that to the front? Yeah, we can do that. Thank you. Perfect. It is there. Yeah. Thank you. And then and then put Commissioner O'Brien's then first as a new day. Yes. OK. And then my second one here was the D2. Do we don't have any sort of mass local spend unless I missed it? We're asking about MBE, WBE, VBE. But what about their commitment to any sort of mass spend? Perhaps that's because it's under diversity, equity and inclusion. Commissioner O'Brien. Right. Is it some work out there? Maybe that's an economic impact question. So yeah, yeah, is it back there? Maybe I missed it. I don't know. Let me check. That'd be captured in the I called the Commissioner Hill section. I would call them the local partnerships. Community. They gave that. What is now we could we could add that question to say that employment, projected revenues, construction. Could you do employment slash investment opportunities, maybe? I don't know. We so we do have that down below, but you're right. It's not about Massachusetts vendors. It's more about so a lot of when you when you're working with the chambers of commerce, when you're working with Mass Office of Business Development, when you're working with Mass Marketing Partnership, they're promoting the local businesses, the Massachusetts own businesses only. So that's that's where we thought that would come about and say, you know, but it's not as clear as down below. So we can add something in there. Any contracts or projected spend you have with Massachusetts own companies. Yeah, that would be great. Where does that go, Derek? What section? It's under C4 or C5, I think. C5, C5, got it. OK, Jacqueline, you got that. I do. Any other questions or comments or suggestions on the diversity, equity and inclusion piece? OK. The next piece is responsible gaming. And I'm not sure I'm I'm showing my screen. Mark, are you on right now? Mark, Vanderlin is on. I'm here. OK, yeah. So just want to make sure you're available to answer questions. Maybe I actually why don't I turn it over to you to sort of run through because you were the lead expert in the agency on this area. And you can go through what your recommendations are here. Sure. So we've over especially in the last couple of years created a few documents that would be specific to sports wagering. However, you know, for several years, we've had the responsible gaming framework, which has, as I've said, is is intended to provide an orientation to the Commission, as well as any licensees, applicants or licensees on responsible gaming. And so using that framework as well as the supporting documents, which there are links to here, we ask the applicants to provide a proposed responsible gaming plan that would hit the seven areas of the responsible gaming framework. So that would be Section E1, Section E2. It, you know, the framework doesn't do actually it doesn't do a great job of addressing advertising. And I think that there's been a lot of new thought and perspectives on advertising specifically. So the intention of E2 was to really focus in on a proposed or their approach to gambling advertising. I ask a question about a E2A. Yes. So my question is, if I'm one of these companies, am I giving out information that I would deem to be private in an estimated marketing budget? Because I'm giving out possibly my marketing plan. I'm not saying I'm against this language, but I'm thinking if I was a company owner that I might have an issue with this. I think Commissioner Hill, that's a that's a very fair question. For us in that week, I mean, we get confidential information in the application form in the BED and the multi-terrorist sectional, I think it may be not so much how you collect it or whether you collect it. But if there is something that's deemed confidential, could you potentially discuss that in an executive session or something instead of in a public meeting during deliberations? And then if there was a public records request, would it be excluded? And that's that's what I'm a deferred a ton on that. I think that's my question. I think I asked about that question in a round table and everybody said they're not going to want to give out their budget. Or I said something like percentage of their overall budget on on advertising spend, Commissioner Hill. Do you remember that response? It is that the just depends on kind of. Question whether they would give that. That's what I kind of pivoted. But I think it's an important question to ask. I just wonder is there a way to frame it so they don't have to give. So precisely, may ask Jack, Jacqueline, I think you you had some kind of prefilled areas that I think you were drawing from other from applications and other jurisdictions. And if I recall, I believe that this was one of the pieces that was pre-populated. It was. Yeah, this came from a collection of other jurisdictions that asked us we can make this language broader, something to the effect of anticipated. Without giving actual proprietary information or something that may be considered confidential, just an overall. Idea of what amount you are going to put into the commonwealth, so to speak. So if I'm sorry, Jacqueline, go ahead. No, that's OK. I was all set. If there's if you have a better idea of kind of an overarching idea that you're looking for, I actually don't have a problem with the language myself. I'm bringing it up as a concern, right, that some might have. And is it is it a valid concern? I guess it's my question because I could see some again, some people not wanting to give that information out. I think the way Commissioner Hale to get the answer to that question in part is to post the application for public comment. Yeah, I agree. I believe we're intending to do that. I would agree with you, Commissioner Skinner. OK, thank you. Any other comments on this section? I have one question on that for Tom and team when they post this for public comment. Do you want that specific item called out? Seeking comment on that specific item as well, whether applicants would be willing. Could we've done that before when we were seeking public comment? We'd say on the total application and specifically looking at these at these areas. I think, Derek, that anybody looking at this will will see that and it will red flag themselves. I don't think we need to red flag it for them. OK. That's just my thought. We could also decide to right now take it out. I know I'm hearing that as another jurisdiction, but one of the concerns I'm having is this notion of that this is I guess what we're calling confidential. And I'm not even sure of that analysis. We're not going to get this to any other. This would only be through here. And so why do we what are we looking for? Let's say we're getting a figure. How do we even put it in context? At this juncture, I mean, I guess that's why I'm thinking percentage of overall budget might be actually more helpful to me. Why would we what what are we actually looking for here? Yeah, I actually chair. I think that that would be a really good solution to get a sense of their investment in advertising as as a share of their overall overall. So I would have no issue with that. I think that's that actually sounds even better to me. Is that also a sensitive or is that less sensitive, right? Yeah. So I think part of what we're looking at here when we were discussing this, too, because we had this in several different areas, but the concerns of the commission kept coming up with the advertising being flooded in the market, right? So we put this under responsible gaming and I understand as a percentage of the budget, but if you have a huge operator that has a huge budget and they're willing to throw 10 million into it for for advertising, that's a lot compared to a smaller operator who might put a million in and they're still looking at 10 percent of their budget. You know, so that's I think that's what you lose if you go as a percentage of the budget versus volume. Do we stay in there? Commission has raised concerns about, you know, inundation of the advertising market upon the launch. I mean, how do you how do you intend to mitigate it? I mean, that's a good question. That's the way to do it is we're concerned about it. So how are you going to make sure you don't mitigate? Maybe maybe a listening operator might propose for every three, you know, advertisements I do, I'm going to do a responsible gaming, strictly responsible gaming. At you know, they that's really kind of what we're looking for. We're looking for a what's is it qualitative rather than quantitative? Right. It's it's also the link above. There's a link to the responsible gaming considerations for gambling advertising, which propose a number of different measures that, you know, we as the commission can take to draft regulation, but it they should also be seen as considerations for an applicant applying for a license. And I suggest maybe something else. Since this is under the responsible gaming section, maybe instead of estimated marketing budget, which I think encompasses the whole company's program, maybe we put estimated marketing budget toward responsible gaming policies. Just give us a taste of how much money we're going to put toward that particular issue instead of an overall how much you're spending on marketing. I guess my follow up would be, but what are you going to do with that money? That's why I'm wondering if we should do a more of a subject, you know, get something that says, you know, how do you think the commission we've we've mentioned this so many times now, commissioners. Hal, we're concerned about the intensity of frequency of sports betting ads. How did you determine how do you plan to mitigate that? And, you know, and we welcome budgetary factors as well. And we can not invite that, right? That's because I actually am wondering if I would even know how to. I mean, Derek's point is really fair. And we've seen that in procurements, right, when you ask percentage Derek and it's skewed by the size of the operator or the business. So you're absolutely right on that. And then I'm thinking I wouldn't even know what that means. A lot of 10 percent is right or wrong. So to Commissioner O'Brien's point, what are we really trying to get here? And it really is to that that issue of restructuring with corporate marketing measures that reach. I think an open ended question might be helpful there. I like that you're getting asking for examples. And I like at the end where you ask for descriptions, what's been done. What do you think, commissioners, do you want that open ended? Do you want to go back with dollars? Because I like open ended, maybe even throw out like a to your point if you feel like giving us percentages of dollars, great, but OK. Mark, just do you have that kind of that language there that we couldn't amend that? Yes, we can do that. Because I think we've already gotten some in the at least CRG if not the operator, so they're not they're not going to want to get that. And I'm not going to really help as much anyway. Mark, other other you want to keep on going through? Sure, just so reflection, E one is really it really feeds. They're required in the law to provide responsible gaming or problem gambling plan that the Gaming Commission approved. So I see E one is actually kind of feeding into that that requirement that they are a successful licensee that they would need to provide anyway. So E two is really zeroing in on on advertising. And E three is is kind of touches on several aspects of their history of demonstrated commitment in the area of responsibility. And I think Commissioner O'Brien, you did mention that there is E E three E is violation, citations or corrective action, which if I thought about that, too, when we're drafting this, that if that if that fits well in another area, that's that's fine, too. Do we want to ask if they've ever been allotted for their responsible gaming efforts? Awards, I like that. I could I could draft something and put it in there. That's great. Somehow, I think they would leave it into their response one way or another, but I but I like that we're asking it affirmatively. Good news. Anything else for Director Vanderbendon? The next section, I'm going to try to do my best here. And I don't know if Christian is on, but I know Katrina is not available today, so I'm going to do my best here. So this is the technology section, particularly this is really going to generally apply to the online operators. But there is some information here about some of the, you know, a couple of the really critical components of technology, geofencing and though your customer responses to this question. And we can have staff and external vendors assistance or the evaluation if you do that appropriate. This will not only is it critical to operations, we want to make sure it's in place, but it will also give you insight into the technology proficiency of the companies themselves. So that's why we ask those questions. And then we also have questions just on general technological expertise and reliability. Basically, how are you going to make sure this is secure, sustainable and reliable? And then in these various points in section F3. So there may there there is going to be the component once you've made a selection of certification by and to certify independent test lab. There's going to be technical testing. So there's going to be a check on I expect if the commission has that in part of their regulatory structure, I would expect there'll be checks on the technology. But this gives you a sense from an evaluation standpoint on how robust their technological expertise is, particularly if, you know, in a thumbs up, thumbs down situation on a tethered mobile and then in a competitive manner with the untethered mobile. So I'll sort of leave it here to see if there is any questions, comments and things you'd like to change in section F. And maybe it's in there somewhere else. But is there any merit to asking whether they have specifically been sanctioned for any sort of technological defect? I know there was a cluster, was a Colorado that, despite not being able to use credit cards, they subbed out to somebody that was allowing people to use credit cards. I believe, yeah, I'll just give you something to say. Oh, I would expect that would be covered by any kind of sanctions in the general general, OK. And my question is, given the, you know, the importance of technology to what it is we're trying to advance here, I know we're engaging a vendor to help draft the regulations, to help come up with technology standards. I'm wondering if it makes sense to have them review this section in particular, right, as part of that process, just to ensure that we are catching the right items, that we're actually flagging everything that we need to flag, asking for all of the information that we need to to see in order to, you know, approve, at least with regard to this component. Yes, you could do that. The contract is not in place yet, so we'd have to wait to do that until that's in place. We're working on that as we speak. The trying to think if there's another option, there is, I think, always the option that the commission could ask for supplemental information. If, you know, as you were being briefed by the vendor, because one of the advantages to the contract is we anticipate it's going to play out, is that vendor will have consulting services so there can be training, commissioners can be educated. So you may get a better sense instead of trying to rush it on the front end, getting some education and experience speaking with experts in the field. And you may request supplemental information as you're reviewing the application so that there's a couple ways to do it. Well, see, it's it's it's precisely because there hasn't been a training given to commissioners. There's been virtually no discussion on the technology piece beyond designating the Siddles. And just I, for one, would feel better if we had some some technology expert take a look at this particular section, because, again, it's it's sort of the heart, almost of what it is. We're going to implement that our technology people sit down as part of this. Yes, yes, but, yeah. So Katrina would be involved in this, yes. And so Katrina is very familiar with GMI and she has great relationships with them. That makes me feel better. That makes me feel better. Great. Yeah, she does. And honestly, these are the one the one threshold question I asked. Karen, I think I got comfortable with is that. At one point. Regulators were almost assuming this responsibility ourselves. And New Jersey model. This is standard now for the operators to assume this will do the contracting correctly, correct, Karen, and that's what we're asking them. To require testing before launch. Say again, Karen, that's required testing before launch. That's also to own this contractually. They they they do the direct contracting on the the geofencing. Oh, I see what you're asking. Yeah, yeah, yeah. They'll bring in a vendor like a geo comply or something like that. Yeah, right. So I I mean, Karen, Karen had all her subject matter experts at the table when they were developing the application. I do think it's really important to your point, Mr. Skinner, that we have the ability to ask for supplemental and that will also be part of our scoring process, for instance, if we decide to bring finals in for interviews, you know, to really drill down. And that's where maybe we'll get better and better educated. I know a lot of us have been able to go to trainings, but we only our conferences, we only get a certain high level. And I know that I'll never become an expert. But I do think as as we go through the process, we're going to have the opportunity to ask for more information. I want to make sure that's clearly in the app to look for that. And what we did learn yesterday on our call with GLI is before they give out a certificate, so this will get to whether they're licensed in other jurisdictions and what system they're using. This is one of the biggest areas that they test the geofencing. So they'll try to spoof it. They'll try to corrupt. They'll try to add a false IP address. They put underage people. They put underage, you know, real underage people on the list to see if they can get in. So they do a lot of this. So if if it's a new platform, I think that's an area where you won't get as much if you if you use GLI as as as consultants to help evaluate some of this area. If you if you get a new platform, they won't be able to give you as much information on it until they do submit the ticket and get, you know, go through the process. But if it's an existing platform, they'll be able to tell you all these areas, whether they comply with it or not. Mr. Skinner. Good thoughts. I'm I'm good with that as a as a way forward. But particularly the opportunity to ask for supplemental information. And I think that it's going to be valuable. So we're just going to have to be really careful about what we need and, you know, be taking careful notes on that. OK. And if you're saying that consultant also will do some training for us, which will help us as we navigate the responses to the understand. So that kind of training will come in as well. Karen, I'm just part of the carry message. My one question is should we carry is working on the reg. You may want to even put language in the reg saying that the commission may request supplement information. I'll ask her about that. But it was just about to text her in the app one, right? And I also have it in this actual document. I can't remember if I saw it or not. And then the section G, I'll turn it over to Loretta. This is the suitability section. And thanks, Karen. So of course, we have now added on the big section G four with the number of items that we talked about that may be duplicative of some of the other application forms, but you will at least have it in this format front and center. We you will also have available those other application forms, you know, in particular, the BEDs may be useful. And with Jacqueline's help, we pulled out the items that you see here, you know, joint venture agreements on corporate integrity. And then the items in G three on financial stability and integrity, focusing mostly on a five year look back. There are a couple of items with a 10 year look at look back. So financing structure and the plan proposal, including sources of capital budget, including the construction design and so forth. You may see very we expect you'll see very different things for the category ones and choose compared to the threes revenue projection scenarios. Certain ratios that have been identified that can give you the ability to do a comparative review. Any breached or defaulted agreements. That's a 10 year look back period. Any proceedings where the applicant was deemed to have violated statute or regulation bankruptcy filings, not only for the applicant, which you get in the other applications, but any entity that's owned a portion of the applicant. And H, you do pull in here. Ownership interests of minorities, women or disadvantaged businesses. So that item is pulled in here. And experience with internal controls. Now, in addition to the items on the application there, maybe the ability for the financial team to pull together some limited items for financial analysis based on self reported information, publicly reported information for the publicly traded companies and pulled from public source and proprietary source information that could include some additional ratio analysis. Key financial performance and stability metrics with the ability to give you a comparative view there as well. We're adding the section G for which the commission is already discussed. OK, and then we move on to some of the signature forms. We have a verification and authentication. Signature signature form. We've got any any questions on that. And then the next one is the attestation. This is going to be particularly relevant because not only for the information in the application itself, but also the subparts of the application, VEDs and the multi jurisdictional, this is basically the testing that it's actually true. Any questions on that? This is this is somewhat standard language. Next one, I'm going to turn this one over to Todd, this waiver of liability, because then we've had some discussion about this with respect to some other language in the Indiana statute. So, Todd, I'll let you jump in on this section. Thank you, commissioners. Again, this particular language was used as part of the RFA to process and is being proposed for inclusion here. It is limited in scope. It is not a waiver of all liability. It's particularly limited to the disclosure publication of information acquired during this application process or the use of any information provided in furtherance of the application. And it's important just to recognize that there is certain protection afforded by the Mass Torts Claims Act and others. But this is just one piece of the puzzle that is thought to be helpful just to ensure the protection of all of us involved here. And that's why this was included. Any questions on this? No. Dorota, do you think that we are trying to address the issue of minorities, women and ownership above, is that duplicative now? G3H. Thank you, Mr. O'Brien, for bringing that up. Is it different? It's a little broader in this question. You may want to consolidate the questions because it asks whether the applicant, oh, no, I guess it's not broader. And finance, I guess it's financing amounts as well as ownership amounts. That's where it's broader. You may want to combine the two. Yeah, I think it might be duplicative. So where do we want it? So it's fine. Which one are you looking at, G3? G3H. G3H. I almost feel like G3H should be where we're putting it in the. The sort of diversity inclusion part. It seems to fit more there than in financial stability. Yeah, I also feel like I'm glad I remembered we had it in there. I just didn't remember where it was, and this is exactly what it was. So thank you, Loretta, for reminding us. OK. But I agree that moving it to the other section makes a lot of sense to highlight. All right. So any further questions for Todd or for Karen on the forum? Jacqueline. Rada. All right. So I guess my question really is more process in terms of we're going to post for comment. Oh, and for how long? So if we could defer that, that because I like to because I think timeline is the issue here and Karen, I know that we had planned a discussing process and I got Dave Mackey, who I would love to be able to speak to. But I feel like timeline keeps on coming up. And so every time we make decisions about factors that have to do with time, it implicates it. So I think maybe it makes sense to Karen to. By the way, Karen, you talked about it during lunch, that maybe it would be after item five, C and five and six. But I'm wondering if they should just bring it up. Yeah, what do you think? I'm happy to do whatever whatever works. Yeah, so I'm on today. And so and it all is intertwined as we're all seeing. So it's really impossible to have a linear conversation because so much of this material there is crossover. So, you know, really, whatever the commissioners think would think would most helpful to them. I am more than happy to do. So in order to really it really was to formulate this conversation, Karen, with the help of I think as well as Mills, developed a timeline with a lot of the and maybe all of them, but many of the matters that have already been discussed with the exception of the the launching sequence. So we have we had to have a point of take off. And this is the conversation. So, Karen, why don't you start with respect to what you came up. Yeah, you know, as you mentioned, this is a jumping off point. So we could have used several different models and then had the discussion. I would point out and make sure the public's aware this is this is not a definitive timeline. This is a tool for discussion and that this will help guide the conversation. It also sort of helps highlight some compression points within the work that the commission needs to do. And that also there are certain assumptions it, you know, in this aggressive. This is the most aggressive timeline. So there are certain assumptions that that we would need to make in this timeline. So I'll just run through some of those because they're going to be highlighted as you have the conversation as we go along into the components of the timeline. So, for example, just a preliminary question. Why is such an aggressive timeline? Why is that what's being advanced? I think that can I I'm going to detect again if we could have started with a timeline that's out three three years from now and work backwards. You could have done that. I think what Karen is saying is when she says aggressive I want to put words in your mouth what you thought could be done. Or the team. Around conversations that have occurred in the public and I'll let you explain. But I think that this is the the earliest timeline. Is that the fairest way, the earliest date that you thought there could be a possibility with certain assumptions in place? But I guess with certain caveats about commission decisions, I agree with that. We're just we're making certain assumptions about commission decisions that haven't been made yet. So we want to make sure that the staff isn't deciding for the commission how they're going to do this. But this is the most aggressive that that we've got at least a shot of of making. And maybe that's a better way to do it. In, you know, in. With with the sort of a date certain and working backwards, what would it highlights the components and what needs to happen within these compressed time frames? Yeah. Is that fair? Well, Commissioner Skinner, why don't you elaborate? You know, I don't think my question has been answered. I just, you know, we're talking about compressed timeline. I mean, you know, if. If this compressed timeline makes sense and it's it's responsible, you know, I'm all for it. I just need to understand the rationale for why there is being this compressed timeline advanced, as opposed to a reasonable timeline by which the team can get this done. Why don't we start with our discussions? Go ahead, Commissioner Maynard. I know, Commissioner Skinner, when you talked earlier today in the meeting, it's funny because I was worried about the opposite happening. I was worried that there may be no timeline or that there may be no way to get this done. You know, I'm a true believer that, you know, one can be a wondering generality or they could be a meaningful, specific. And to do my work, I have to have something specific. So it's interesting at the different ways we come about it because I actually worry that there's not. And so and until this meeting, I hadn't thought the opposite, right? Which is, you know, is there too compressed of a timeline? So I just, I would throw that out there from my perspective. So I think that's why I don't just agree with that. I guess it's just an important exercise. And so, Karen, we don't even, I don't think the public even knows you received a document that is not in the public's packet. So I think maybe they don't even know what we're talking about. So maybe that's where we start the discussion and then work out everybody's various positions and thoughts and values and figure out where we can move forward to give guidance to this team. So it does, I would just quickly like to respond to Commissioner Mayer's comment. OK, thank you. I'm all for a timeline we heard at the round table, but that that's what the prospective operators are looking for. I would like a timeline put forward without regard to, you know, the aggressiveness of the aggressive nature of it, the compressed, truncated processes. I am interested in a timeline that that's reasonable. OK, then I think I think that you're I think there's some assumptions being made that when Commissioner Mayer is saying something that's compressed or when when Director Leo says truncate, that it's not necessarily true that it's unreasonable or that it presents more risk, but we need to flush out these issues. So I guess that we're all attaching some values here, right? And we're a body of five and we need to work out those those values. So I know certain language triggers some meaning to certain individuals and for others, it may not trigger anything. So I think we just have got to I think we have to respect each individual's position and see where we come out and try. I think it to reveal our own biases are really important. And so I think what I'm hearing you say reasonable means something to you that, you know, and compressed means something to you. So we'll try to figure out the language, Karen, as we go along as well. So maybe if we got the timeline in front of us, and this this is an exercise that was really hard. It's hard for the team to come up with because I had to say to Karen, we need to know how much time you need to get this job done, regardless of the end point, you know. And I think Derek said it, we'd all love a ton of time. I never was one of those people who submitted the term paper afterwards. I just wanted it done, but other people asked for extensions. Everybody, you know, has this this way that they work. And I've asked Director Wells with respect to how she works and her team works to come up with at least the starting point. And then we have our full some discussion. OK, Karen, thanks. And again, I don't want to interject again, but we'll all just try to be mindful of sort of Karen directing us to begin with. So. This is a timeline which would. We need a little bit bigger can. I'm sorry. Yeah. And I don't know how to make it just the slide and not the piece of. How's that? OK, that's OK. So first, let me talk a little bit about assumptions. And then I'll talk about components of the timeline because when you talk about the components and the question of reasonableness, that's where all this factors in. So there that these are not set dates intentionally. So let me talk about some assumptions under this. One of the issues with doing a timeline under the situation that Massachusetts is in right now is the lack of certainty in that. We have Category one and Category two basically identified who those licensees are and then they can partner with a tethered mobile. But we have this secondary component of this process where you'd have a competitive process for up to five untethered mobile applicants. That is a significant process and is something that must be weighed very heavily. The issue we have right now, I think when Sturl did some research, he found only three other states that also had the competitive process. So we don't have a lot of other states to look to. But the issue with the competitive process is although we have done the notice of intent, we don't know exactly how how many of those companies that have identified an intent actually will will file an application for a category three license. There may be some that have gone got into the game and filed the notice of intent. There's no be involved. They just sort of put the information out there that may have wanted to see if they could partner with one of the category one or category two, or maybe they wanted to see what the application was like, or maybe they wanted to see what the universe was like through this process of the notice of intent. So right now, I think we have my last calculation based on what we know are tethered mobile operators. I think we're doing dealing with approximately 35 applicants. A timeline that is this aggressive necessarily presumes that that number is reduced and you're not going to get 35 applications. Now, you might. So I want the commissioners to be aware of that because it impacts certain amount of work. First of all, it impacts the IEB's truncated suitability review, what they're doing before you're making the evaluation process and how that impacts that. It also significantly impacts the commissioner evaluation process. It is one thing if you are evaluating and comparing 12 applications and this sort of timeline is making a presumption. Say you're dealing with 12, 15 applications. It is another if you are dealing with 35 applications, particularly if you are reviewing those in a public evaluation process and you have to go through all of them and you have. And maybe the commission makes a decision on process that you want an opportunity for all of them to come forward. So the the public and the interested parties need to be aware that in developing a timeline, we are at a disadvantage because we don't know how many are actually going to apply. And we, you know, although we are doing going forward with the scoping survey which may give us a little more of a narrow view. We really won't know until we get the applications and we get the $200,000 application. So that's a factor. Some other factors just make the commissioners aware. This kind of timeline presumes that applicants complete that scoping survey promptly because the scoping survey is really important because that needs to be done in order for the IEB to identify who the entity and individual qualifiers are. And this also presumes that we would use a structure where for the purposes of the competitive evaluation and I think I went through this a little bit before the commissioners would have what we're referring to as a truncated suitability report from the IEB. And it would include really information on the applicant entity, not the applicant individual qualifier. And the theory behind that is basically resource is resource driven is that if we get say 30 applications that I mentioned that could be 450 individual qualifiers that the IEB would have to do reports on as opposed to if you wait and do some kind of suitability after you've narrowed it down, but then have sort of a two-part licensing process and then you grant it once there's some assurance on the individual suitability, you would have to accept that at the time that you are doing the evaluation of the company, they're really not they're not going to have the information from the IEB on that on those. So you may get as Commissioner Skinner pointed out, you may get the multi-jurisdictional form. The other reason this is relevant to this timeline is because of the application period. So this timeline presumes you approve the application today. You really don't put it out for public comment. You have to go forward with it and that the applications, you do scoping and then the applications do in 30 days. In order for that to really happen aside from the other work, the investigators are familiar with how much work it takes for individuals to fill out the multi-jurisdictional. It is not reasonable for all of that work I believe to be done within 30 days. So you have to have a later due date for the multi-jurisdictional forms. The other component of some assumptions are emergency rig promulgation. You had some discussion about that today. Because of the entire process, you see, we've got certain milestones that happen along the way. And then you also have the regulation process, which is going on in these two blue lines at the bottom. So in order to really hit some kind of February date, by necessity, most if not all of the application of, pardon me, the regulations, we need to be done by emergency regulation. Can I back you up? I'm sorry. Yeah, please go ahead. Sure. Skinner has asked about truncated suitability. You're making an assumption on truncated suitability. I'm just going to explain that because that's certainly part of the agreement. Right. So this, this comes in, you know, around a police feel free to chime in. So the sports wagering law, 23N is different from 23K in that 23K required a full suitability analysis before licensure. 23N is kind of the inverse where, you know, you've noticed in section C, there is a push for the temporary license and full suitability is not required before operating. So in a risk analysis, if the commission wished to do this in an expedited manner, and I'll let Loretta speak for herself as well. If you're looking for recommendations of say what you could do in 30 days and what would be our recommendation of what you should look at, what you'd have to really look at is self-disclosed information, which would be, as we mentioned in the, in a prior discussion, what did they indicate in their application, their liability, their litigation history, their compliance history, and their licensing history. And then also on top of that, for the comparative analysis, especially what are you, what are you looking at as far as financial stability of the company? And we do have, we have put on an RFP for CPA help on that. So you would be able to, we would be able to provide some limited information to the commissioners on that. The other component and the other assumption, you're going to be looking at the vendor regs, particularly for the retail launch, and which theoretically under this model could be earlier than a mobile digital, digital launch. The, the operators need to have licensed vendors in order to buy products and contract. So the, there is a threshold question before the commission, whether or not you want to acquire the vendors be licensed. And then if so, what is the appropriate temporary licensure provision and how are you going to, if you do it, how are you going, what are you going to require? Because for this timeline to be effective, you would need to have a very expeditious, light temporary licensing of vendors. And then, you know, the other data component here, as you can see, it's a, it's an aggressive timeline for regulation promulgation. So you would have to be comfortable with that expedited process and the quick turnover of regulations that would have to, have to come out, Robert fire at the commission. And the other, you're saying that's aggressive and that's a, that's language with different values. Right. Right. So do you, could you help us out? We, I don't really have any context on what is, what is the proper amount of time. So when we hear aggressive, I'm not sure. Oh, okay. I'm particularly on the, the regulation development or overall. Well, Jess, I picked up on it there because you said it's obvious, but I'm not sure if that's, you know, I'm trying to just keep track of all, all five of us here. Right. Right. And, you know, comparatively, have there been jurisdictions that have done this in this timeframe? Yes. They are also have been jurisdictions that did it with a much more extended time frame. So, this is on the, the, the, on the spectrum of prior jurisdictions, we would be on the efficient to implement. Schedule. Is that helpful? Also known as aggressive. Yeah. And then my, again, I'm going to ask this, why, why is, why are we on this aggressive timeline? Why is that the starting? Well, because, well, I'm going to, I'm going to, I'm going to, I'm going to explain it once we get it, this will give you sort of a starting point where there is no way we could do this any earlier. No way. So, but because there are assumptions in there, for example, the 30 day application period, the commission may or may not agree with that. So that's, that would be the starting point. And then you may or may not want to change different time periods within the structure. So, I think you're, you're on the, the, the, the tranquility. Is that a practice that any way would make you, you or Loretta, Lily else have a doubt check about compromising integrity. Or is that a practice that you're anticipating that's faithful to the law presented to us. a difference in the law. And also it was interesting, an interesting conversation with GAI yesterday, the level of risk, particularly where there are companies that have been licensed and gone through background checks in multiple jurisdictions. And you would see that as commissioners. So for example, if you had company XYZ come before you and you're looking at the suitability of the company, you would know that their self-reported history that they had been licensed in 14 jurisdictions, something to that effect, which may give me some comfort. The other thing to note is that we also would be doing a full suitability analysis afterwards, after this is granted. So it's not as if we're only doing this and not doing the full suitability. We would be doing this just after they are allowed to operate. And that- With respect to the truncated suit, that would be something that you would recommend for any timeline that- Yeah, it'll vary, so it could vary and how long you want to have that happen, you know. So just in terms of- Oh, fuck it. Just in terms of the- No, that's what I'm wondering. Okay, go ahead, Commissioner O'Brien. It could also vary depending on how you define truncated. So ultimately we as commissioners are going to have to decide what we're comfortable with and only doing entity versus no qualifiers may be aligned. Some of us don't feel comfortable with. So that's going to vary depending on the definition. Karen, are we not doing qualifiers? Not in the truncated on the front end. On the individual qualifiers? It's when you do it. So- Right, you don't do it up front. Well, well- On the front end? You do it until after you narrowed it down to the seven, but then you would do it before you allowed them to operate. So you would have some truncated individual qualifier suitability. And that gets into, you know, different timelines and things that match up. So we can get into those dates. I have a question about- It's not skipping over the individual qualifiers. It's just that we're not doing all of them because you'd be using all the resources to do 30 versus the final up to seven, right? No, but you could also sub-select maybe, you know, the top two or, you know, my question is in that scenario, what happens if you tell certain candidates you're not advancing maybe because they don't read a tiering that we just choose to do, then someone gets booted for lack of suitability and a qualifier is undergoing a ball. They can't exercise them. Then what happens to the other candidates? We would- We just don't have to do that. We just don't have to do that. Yeah. And so I just want to make sure that I had understood that correctly. So the- And Karen didn't GLI said they had some language from other jurisdictions where that actual instance came up that they would be able to provide to us once they're on the contract that would give the commission some authority to go through that whole process or suspend a license or revoke or put fees or fines. They talked about performance bonds. They talked about individual person bonds who weren't fully suitable so that that became part of it. So there are some mitigating factors, but it doesn't get to the exact, I'm sorry, my camera's not on, but it doesn't get to everything you're talking about commission. Yeah. So it's mitigating. On an applicant as opposed to remedial measures after the contract. Yeah. No, I don't think that's what you're talking about though. I don't think we are safe. We'd need remedial measures because I think what I had understood, Karen, is that this presupposes, and it would be a consistent, because I've always asked what, how much time do you need after we decide the final set? That's my question. What do you need for the final seven? And it was my understanding, it would be the same no matter what date that, in order to, you know, just smart tasks, can you say a little bit about it? And the letter to Lillios to gut check. Yeah. And based on our law. Yeah. You know, I really want Loretta to chime in here, she is the director of the ID, but the bottom line is that the full suitability, where you're really doing separate investigation and confirming information that has been self-disclosed, that takes quite a while for all of these. It would, you know, we probably would take the full year for all of these qualifiers. And this is a lot of work. So for the some kind of initial threshold check, if you're limited to that, then you would have to rely on the self-disclosed information in the, you know, the different entity qualifiers and both the jurisdictional for the individual qualifiers. So, what, you know, for example, GLI was talking about yesterday when we were meeting with them, you know, in a risk-based system, that piece is a lower risk because if these individuals and entities have been found suitable recently in other jurisdictions, they're more likely to be found suitable in Massachusetts. So, Loretta, do you want to chime in on this at all? I don't want to do all the time. Yeah, I mean, I think, Karen, you put it very well that this kind of model is inverse to what we did in gaming, where we did the full suitability at the front end. And there is, you know, a difference in the two statutes that can't be overlooked. But with this kind of timeline, it's important for the commissioners to understand and reiterate what Karen said that most of the review would be on self-disclosed, attested to information rather than independently validated information. Now, an attestation, you know, has some force, right? There are some safeguards there because these licensees are obligated to tell the truth. And there is a penalty if later on the back end, it's determined that they didn't tell the truth. Then you do get into the scenario of, you know, revoking or denying. That's not a flip-of-the-switch type thing. You know, there are, you talked in depth about the consumer protection kind of issues. But, you know, we have identified instead of attested to information that we feel we could put before you, and with the outside financial contractors, a set of information that could be put before you that would give you both a comparative level analysis, as well as some understanding of, you know, based on disclosed and publicly available information based for stability and financial responsibility. And the individual qualifier piece, probably not an option for the first comparative piece, but on the second comparative, I'm sorry, on the second temporary piece, you know, at a minimum criminal history checks could be performed. But, you know, it is- I got lost there a little bit, Loretta, in terms of what you're saying that we would be on the individual, what we would not be doing because of, you just used the word temporary too and I just wanna make sure we- Yes, temporary, because that is a concept we're used to, right? You're used to issuing, you know, I know that even in the beachy case, we're doing it. So what are we doing differently here? What would we be giving up that would make you uncomfortable? Well, I'm not saying, that's really for you to decide, you know, what level of risk the commission's able to tolerate knowing there's a difference in the statutes. The model that we have used for temporary licensure, front loads, a lot of independent verification. You know, that model is, we wanna be pretty sure before issuing a license, and this is vendor only, right? Because we didn't do temporary licensure for the operators on the casino side, but on the vendors for the casinos, we do a lot of independent verification of entities and individuals before- That's an addition to their disclosure. So you're really now validating on top of the attestations and the disclosures that are in the documents and the timeline on a typical vendor when you're doing that. How long is that? What's the timeline of a typical vendor in terms of the amount because- You know, if we compressed it, of course the people are working on multiple things, but it's a couple weeks. For a vendor to do. Yeah, because it can sometimes identify false positives and you wanna run those down before making a determination, but it's a different model and there's, you know, there is support in the differences in the statutes for the model, but it's really your comfort level. Of reliance on the attestations and the disclosures and then you would still do that work. And then the suitability would still be performed, post issuance of the licenses. And so they would understand that if they attested to something less than accurate, I think the statute says they're out, right, Karen? Knowingly, putting forth false information is a disqualifier under both 23K and 23N. Okay. So thank you. I've taken more of my time, unfortunately it's because also the trouble of not being able to see the windows. Commissioners, Commissioner Maynard, have you got your? I have it off. I just wanna ask a couple of clarifying questions. Director Wells, what you're saying is, is if we did it the way we did during gaming or that you can chime in too, it would be, you said an entire year. So you're envisioning that the entire year of 2023, if we did it the same way, we followed it more like 23K than 23N, we would be into 2024 before a wager was placed. Okay. With that said. Maybe a little shorter, I'm being, but generally, yeah, especially if you're doing all of these simultaneously. And there, to think about hundreds of individual qualifiers and potentially dozens of not into a hundred. Yeah, it's a lot. It's a lot of work. It's a lot of work and a lot of resources, right? Yeah. And I will say, Massachusetts does a very thorough job. So we take it very seriously, we want good reports. And we value the investigative process not only for the investigative process itself, but it also helps the regulator really understand the company. We build relationships, we're talking to people, it's a way for the regulator and the licensee to connect and understand the company and its operations. So it has a long-term benefit for the regulator as well. I have no doubt we are the gold standards when it comes to that. The word aggressive has been thrown around a lot. I'm looking at it very differently. I think it's a patron-centered timeline envisioned in 23N. And that's how I view a timeline that gets this done. Karen, when you talked about how it would be what we did in the past for 23K, how many applicants for 23K? How many? I think there were best applications, not people, not individuals. Yeah, I think there were 12. And we had, but we also had two contracted investigative agencies that basically did the investigations and we had our team sort of on the side training and working along with them. And so, and there were up to four applications that were awarded? Yeah. So three got awarded? Yes. And that process took about a year. So I'm going to point it out that it's a different statute and you started, you made that, but that's something that I think the team recognized. Yeah. And I know that Councilor Kovic also talked about the statute that was contemplating degree of urgency, you know, in terms of one, it just, it was, you know, it was going back immediately. It didn't give us a bunch of time to start off, which, you know. Madam Chair, if I could comment. Yeah, go ahead, Commissioner. So I don't disagree with what Commissioner Maynard just said about this timeline. It is patron oriented. And we have dual responsibilities. And I sit here as a regulator and think I have that responsibility. I also have the responsibilities of 23N, but also under the purview of remembering 23K. And that means that this should be done in a responsible way that gets us to the patrons, but also does it in a manner that maximizes the benefit and minimizes the harm. And I am concerned about, and I will say aggressive because I think this is an aggressive timeline, more specifically the conversation we've just been having about suitability, it appears to be a decision that was made for purposes of this timeline without a fulsome five person Commissioner conversation. And so I think there needs to be a conversation about what do we as a commission feel comfortable with relative to comparing the 23K suitability requirements to some level, and what are we going to apply to 23N and what does that mean to the timeline? And what I find frustrating about this is that lack of conversation, which I feel like needs to happen to then realistically go and then have other conversations about how long do we want to give the applicants? How long realistically do we think we're going to need to vet these? Which as Karen points out is very difficult to say, we could base it on 35. And then my assumption, Karen, is this timeline is even longer. If you had baked in an assumption that all 35 were in fact going to submit for a competitive process, you're not even hitting this timeline. So this is a work in progress, I absolutely think about. And there's another way to compare this and overlay this, which I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I'm wondering if this is where Commissioner Skinner was coming from, which is how much minimum time do you honestly think staff, you would need on each phase? And then we have to ask ourselves that same question. How much realistically would we need to vet one application? And that layer of discussion, I want to put on this aggressive timeline to, I think, come up with, you know, and this plays into simultaneous versus staggering. And I have thoughts on all of that, but I did just want to put my voice out there in terms of this discussion. Okay, can we start then at the timeline that's in front of us and think about that? Yeah, and I think that the... Just one minute, just if we actually start at the very beginning of it, and just also a reminder of the scoping survey do when we do put out the application, we will maybe get a little bit of a layer of a link which would be helpful. But Karen, let's start. Stakeholder engagement started already, right? That's already, and as you know, the Commission has spent a lot of time and energy on the temporary license provision that we were analyzing and figuring out how to deal with. So that was a factor in what work the Commission needed to do as a regulatory body. So I think it's been helpful to me to try to parse this out. And I'm going to talk about sort of four different blocks and what happens within each blocks. And then I would expect the Commission would have a conversation about the implications of projected, I'll call these 30-day timelines within those blocks and the positives, negatives, and then you can hash out any concerns or things that you think are good about that timeline. I'm sorry, but before we do this, could I just ask for a five-minute break? Sure, I'm sure, and Karen, I think actually moving along the timeline is going to be really helpful in terms of the time that you've talked and what we were thinking when we developed this. So we need a five-minute. Why don't we come back at 3.15? We'll do a 10-minute break for you, Commissioner O'Brien. Thank you. Are we all back? Okay, Dave, you can take down the screen, please. Also. Okay. I see no faces here. Karen? Well, just one second. I'm only seeing a screen and I don't see how to... I don't have an arrow to shift to the next screen, and I only see our team. That's weird, but I'm going to just need a little technical assistance somebody. Let me come out. I'll come over. Karen, I got it. Okay, sorry about that. Any portion of my screen jumped to the side? All right, we'll get started. Commissioners are convening public meeting November 396, the Master's of Gaming Commission, and because we're holding this particular call, Commissioner O'Brien. I am back. Commissioner Hill. Present. Commissioner Skinner. I'm here. And Commissioner Maynard. I'm here. Okay, so we're going to go back to, I guess, the timeline, Karen. And I'm ready. I'm back so that we can discuss the parameters of each kind of block or decision that might get this stretched, okay? And for purposes of discussion, because all these things are merging in together, I think it's helpful to sort of start with just the category three licensing process. For the untethered, because everything else, that would be the longest term. And then we can sort of go from there. So the first piece would be how long does the commission, well, when does the commission post the application? And then how long does the commission allow the applicants to fill out the application? So when is the due date for the application? So during this timeframe, we'd have that survey return. And then Loretta and team would be doing the scoping process. And then they would also be doing their, they'd be waiting for, pardon me, they'd be doing the scoping process and then they would be awaiting the application. This potential timeline, would have that the scoping process really only deals with, well, they could do the scoping process for the whole thing, but for efficiency purposes, probably only the entity qualifiers, because then you would do it more quickly. She can then do scoping for the individual qualifiers later. So- Is it just a matter of, I wanna make sure that when you say that, it's not giving up on any integrity. Does it give up any integrity? I mean, no, no, that on the scoping and application, there's no issues on that at all. I mean, that's just standard practice. You do that, whether you're doing a full suitability or just an initial review as you would do in this case. I have to commission on Brian's earlier question. It's only on business entities. Well, you could do the scoping on everything. It depends, the IEP just is not under that same time crunch. So you at a minimum would be doing the scoping on entity qualifiers right away. So this timeline would have the applicants, you post the application, say you post it tomorrow, then the, and this would presume we don't put it out for public comment. I know that's something the commissioners wanna discuss. You post it almost immediately. They would have to return the scoping survey probably within five days, if not seven days. That has to be a very quick turn around. So we'd need cooperation from those applicants. And then they would need to submit between the application being posted and the application being due. They would be required to submit not only the application reform that you all just reviewed. I will call that the general application, but at a minimum, they would also have to submit the business entity disclosure form for their entity qualifiers. So that would have to be the packet they'd submit and they would have 30 days under this structure. So obviously- Karen, if I can jump in that scoping, the return of the scoping survey built into that is that we would have to scope the entities, right? We look at what they submit and determine which of those entities have to submit. So we look at that, we do the analysis and we do a designation communication to the applicant about the entities. So that's a really good point because in order for this structure to work, you're basically presuming that the entities that we'll need to submit as part of the application process already have a BED filled out in that they've been licensed in other jurisdictions, they've gone through the process. It would be very challenging for an entity that has never been in the market before to fill out the BED because if you're talking about the timeframe, you start day one, say they get the survey back, day five, Rada does the scoping, they're gonna be working very hard and fast during this time period. But say that's done within two weeks, they would only have a couple of weeks to submit the BEDs. Now most, I would have an expectation that most of these companies that have licensed in other jurisdictions have used the BED before and they may have it on file. I did speak to another regulator in another jurisdiction. What they did for efficiency purposes was if an applicant had filled out a BED for another jurisdiction within the last year, they just accepted that form. It didn't require them to update it or do anything different. So it was immediate. So that would be something to consider. So that is happening during that timeframe. Shine on this right now, how many days do you... That was a 30 day timeframe. 30 days and that's for the application term, right? Right. So that's the completion of the survey, the completion of the application and the return of the BEDs. Yeah, remember the survey is part of the application. Right, right, exactly. Thank you for that, yeah. Okay, and what I'm hearing is that they couldn't start doing the BED until they hear back from Director Williams. No, I mean, I think some of these companies, I would expect these companies should be sophisticated enough to know. I mean, the scoping process is pretty somewhat standard across the country. So for example, as Loretta mentioned earlier, a lot of these companies will create an LLC to be the applicants and the license holder. So we have that with our casinos, when Mass LLC is the license holder for the Encore Boston Harbor Casino. So that could be standard. So they might have that LLC, a parent company, and then maybe some ownership, a trust, those entities. So that has been very standard. So obviously the advantage to this structure with the 30 days is it gets you moving very quickly. Obviously disadvantages would include, is there a risk that there might be applicants that are deterred from applying? No, maybe that's something you'd want to narrow it down or maybe that's something you don't want because you want a lot of applications. That's a judgment call for the commission. And then also the amount of time that the applicant can work on the process and submit the application. So, and during this whole time period, so you see on this launch, you've got all of this, you've got the regulation promulgation process happening all through the whole timeline. As you know, you've seen the chart with the 200 regulations. So through all of these blocks that I'm going to talk about, the commission would be implementing quite a few regulations on a probably a weekly basis. And those range from licensing, finance, administration, enforcement, internal control, responsible gaming, house rules, et cetera. So all of these have to happen during this time period. So that's block one. I don't know, Madam Chair, if you want me to pause and have the commissioners discuss that as an individual time block, is that helpful? Yes. Donate down while you're talking. Yeah, I'll probably take it down please. So with respect to the posting of the application and the submission of the application, this timeline presumes 30 days. I have an opinion on that. I feel 30 days for category one, possibly category two, although they've indicated they might not be in a posture quite yet. I think it should be more like 60 for category three. And I say that for a couple of reasons. They have to do more lifting than one and two. And we are looking for diversity in terms of the type of companies we're bringing in here. And I worry that anything shorter than that would hamper potentially smaller companies' ability to put in an application. I also don't, I want to get the best application possible. And to me, that would be a reasonable compromise on allowing people to be as creative as they can with what we're asking for in community engagement and diversity and inclusion. I also feel like if you're staggering and having Cat 1, Baby Cat 2 go first, that alleviates some of the pressure going forward in the timeline. That's my thoughts. Okay. I want to refer, oh, sorry, go ahead. Commissioner Stinner, yes? I want to refer back to Commissioner O'Brien's comments before the break. Just to say I support them, I agree with what she has stated in question, word for word. And I hope that there will be a genuine discussion around those concerns. Relative to the immediate question, I also agree with Commissioner O'Brien in terms of creating disadvantages for those who are newer to the industry, particularly where there was mention of, more established operators who have submitted BEDs to other jurisdictions within the past year. That is giving those particular entities a huge advantage over someone who just doesn't have that experience, that document sort of in their file. And then this is a more general question. And it speaks to the timeline, specifically the deadline for submission of the application. Commissioner Stinner, I think I missed the first part. I'm getting unstable internet connection, so I missed your comment. I'm so sorry. Which comment? Just when you were starting, you looked down, I couldn't hear you, I'm sorry. Oh, okay. So the second part of my comment, I believe Karen stated earlier that the commission would be at a disadvantage in developing a timeline without knowing how many applications we get. So if that is the case, doesn't it make sense to hold off on finalizing a timeline until after the application deadline? That way we are working with a full deck in terms of the information that we would need that would inform a reasonable decision there. Okay, that other comments then we'll go back and just see how we bring everything into play. Any other comments? Okay, so. I think I should have commented on, Madam Chair, is I do think it would not be responsible of us to put this application out without some period of public comment. And I should have started my timeline thoughts with that. So when I hear that, we need the evaluation criteria, I believe, to go right along with the release of the application or prior to. I feel like you could put the application out that we've talked about in detail today to get the process started while we finalize criteria and to keep the process moving, but I do agree with you, Commissioner Skinner, I do feel like both should be put out, but I feel we could get started with an app that we went through quite a bit today. Madam Chair. Yes. So I'm also really concerned about the diversity piece and I do agree with both, Commissioner Skinner and Brian, that this does create some sort of challenges. What I would say is that we can grant up to seven licenses. I believe that if there's someone who's just starting today, 10, 622, they're starting to open their doors. We could potentially, and we would have to talk to legal, hold some of those licenses for an applicant that was more situated in that manner. I don't think it's either or to launch. I think that, in my opinion, 30 days is a long time for a company. I don't ever want to assume that a company or a business isn't ready to do this. And from what we heard at the round table, there were a lot of companies there. In fact, I didn't hear any of them that said that they couldn't put an application together in some short amount of time. I did hear one comment or talk about, it would take them nine months to set up the whole kit and coodle. But I think the quicker we get the application out there, the better. There's some of these things where I agree that we're gonna have to look at, but the application should be kind of an easy part in my opinion. Commissioner Maynard, just a quick response. We didn't address, we didn't talk about the application at the round table. So I would not have expected any participant to make a comment around that. We did ask them when they would be ready to go. And there were a few commenters who made it very clear that they would be ready, quote, tomorrow I think was one response for you. But that's very different than how long to fill out the application. I do think that would be something, do you talk about drawing people's attention to the advertising or the marketing question necessarily when we put for public comment? We could also query whether people feel like 30, 60 is too short to want, whatever. You're gonna get different answers to that. But I would also love to hear comments from other interested parties. We get unsolicited comments from players association and responsible gaming advocates, et cetera. I wanna hear from them too before this goes out. This is not just, you know, the potential licensee different process. I wanna hear from everybody and quickly as we can do it, but I do feel like it's our responsibility to hear from them. And yeah. Yeah, it's the commission I tell. So I'm hearing a couple of things. So let's talk about the application and getting public input first, which I have no problem with getting public input. But what I'm not hearing is, how long would we expect that to be a week, a month, three months? Cause now I have some issues if we're going out that one, if we're putting this out tomorrow for public input and we give them a week or two weeks, I think it can be done in a week cause everybody's watching us. We know what their comments may or may not be. I think we're gonna get them in pretty quick fashion. I have no problem putting this out for a week. But if we're talking, we're gonna put it out, we're gonna wait two months, three months. I have a big problem with that. I haven't shared my opinion yet on how I feel about when we should be launching sports betting here, but I'll offer it now. I fully intended when this bill was passed that we would be able to place a bet for the Super Bowl. Now the question is, is that category one, two and three? Or is that just category one and then category three turns out another time? But I think we need to be pushing for, this is my own opinion, but I think as a board, we need to be pushing for category one to be open for the Super Bowl. How that happens is part of what we're talking about right now. And in the art of compromise, Commissioner O'Brien and something I did for a long, long time, instead of 30 days, maybe being too short, let's make it 45 days. I think six days too long. And then we'd be at 75, right? Commissioner Hill, let me point out that the timeline that you are just suggesting actually is already accommodated for if you were to do retail. Are you talking about something different with respect to? I would, I, at the beginning of this process, Madam Chair, I would have wanted to see everything done by the Super Bowl. I now see that there's a couple of issues that are before us that would be problematic to make that happen. I'm okay with us going with a category one retail launch for the Super Bowl, if possible, and then working very hard and very aggressively, and I will use that word aggressively, to get category three up and running. And I'll, and I'm gonna put out an event for the NCAAs. And I think we should be able to do that. That's my hope as one member, that's my opinion, that we need to be up and running category three by the NCAAs. That would be my hope. Now I've shared with my opinion, and Eileen, I hope I can convince you that the application can be 45 days instead of 60. I think that's too long. I think if we put it out for public comment and just to clear where I was coming from, I think a week is too long logistically. You've got a short, you've got a Monday holiday. We have to get it processed and talk about it again. And so I envisioned two weeks. I envisioned it going out and we come back on the 27th, is what I envisioned. I don't know what anybody else had for thoughts because I do feel like we're out there, people are watching, they can get comments. And one of the things I would solicit, do you have any potential, and people who file the notice of intent who basically say they need longer. Now, we have the ability to potentially do that in this process and supplement, et cetera, but that's where I was coming from. And to air what I was thinking as well, I- I'm going to say Commissioner O'Brien had lost me a little bit in terms of coming back from two weeks. What have- When you put the application that we discussed today up with the edits we talked about for public comment for a two-week period with the understanding that it would come in or then back for us to finalize by the 27th of October. That was where I was coming from on the application itself. I have a question. That's Commissioner Maynard. It's actually for Commissioner O'Brien. Would it be possible to get, and obviously this is now outright the draft, but would it be possible to get a more cleaned up draft? Yes. Out the door because I want companies to have this in their hand and be able to work on. And that's since we're all confessed, since it's fessing time here, I want the category three ready by the Super Bowl. That's what I want. And I would compress three days here and four days here and five days here. And I would put the work in myself to get that done. And I, that's where I would be on this. I think- This is exactly what I meant earlier. When I, yeah. This is exactly what I meant earlier when I said that staff have been given a timeline within which to work and I think that is backwards. We are not hearing from staff that the timeline that's being proposed is consistent with best practice or that it is without risk. Let's hear from Inspector Director Wells. Karen, is this a timeline that represents what you think are best practices? Are there compromises here that you would not? But because we need to understand, I think Commissioner Skinner is thinking that Commissioner Maynard put this together. Don't let me- Madam Chair, hang on, hang on Karen. I know- I need to respond to that. I apologize. I need to respond to that. That is not what I am suggesting at right. I guess I just want to make sure that everybody understands that this was the product of the director with apparently, I assumed a lot of team input. If that's not the case, Karen, then Commissioner Skinner is looking for that and we would need that. I'm just simply referring to the statements that both Commissioner Maynard and Commissioner Hill made themselves, advancing the Super Bowl as the deadline. We're looking at a deadline here for February. Madam Chair, Commissioner Skinner, I did not take that you were saying that. What I will say is that if I were sitting down with this timeline, it would be more quote, aggressive or as I would call it, patron centered. So even more so than Super Bowl. So can we get back to Commissioner Skinner's question about Karen in terms of the timeline? When you did 30 days, that was there was a question about whether or not it's reasonable. So somehow you presented that as potential. I think we can all say it would 90 days. Yeah, of course. Sometimes it would be great, right? Of course, of course. So I think that with every decision on each of the blocks, this is the absolute minimum where we could possibly do this. So that was the starting point. So for example, on the application, are there companies that can fill these applications out in 30 days? Absolutely, you know, they've got lawyers on hand, they can fill out the applications, they've got the BEDs. I can go through the other, you know, you've identified the risks. Like every, any timeline in any project is gonna have a risk benefit analysis. And so as we go through these blocks, every piece has, you know, a risk benefit analysis to extending it and declining. And, you know, we would really have to hustle and do some work on the regulatory process and getting all these regulations in place. But with external help, is it potentially doable? Yes. So that this is sort of that minimum timeframe. And then the thought today was you would be able to discuss, there's some policy implications. You mentioned the, you know, the thirdness of the application and things like that. That's the policy discussion from the commissioner. So if you've got, you know, this, you know, backs it out and it gives, you know, 30 days for each of these blocks. And I can go through the blocks and you can see how they all fit together. But once you start, just as a caveat, once you start adding a day here, adding a week here, that impacts that last day. So there is no room in this particular timeframe. Well, you know, if we add a week here, we'll catch up with it somewhere else in this timeline and we'll still have the same end date. I want the folks to be really aware. So for example, if the commission doesn't put out the application the next day or so, that impacts this timeline. So I want, you know, the team and the commissioners to be aware. That's part of when I'm talking about aggressive, there's not, within this framework, there's not the ability there. So, you know, all decisions are relevant. And, you know, to the point about the category one launch, that is in here and I'll get to that. So there's still lots to discuss here. And the only other thing I wanted to mention, I should have mentioned this more upfront, we have intentionally not put category two within this timeline. We need more information from them on their plans and their partners before we can figure out where they fit into the timeline. So that would be at another discussion. Okay. I guess what I'm saying also is what's the best practice conversation, that's a different question than this is the bare minimum to do this functionally. Well, you know, we have to face the fact that we are now well into their... I understand that, but you're just going to ask the question. I want to have that conversation as part of this timeline conversation. And I've heard everybody, and I think we can agree that there are different views legitimately on patron centric versus holistic versus, you know, et cetera, all that has to come into play in this conversation. So, yes, exactly. So let's just pause. Right now, we're about there, but October 6th, this was passed, came to our doorstep on August 1st, I'd repeatedly said we were very prepared based on everything I've learned from the team. So right now, there's a part of the discussion in front of us that's been labeled aggressive. It's been labeled compressed. It's been labeled patron centric. And this is for a February launch. Commissioner Hill is suggesting something extended into March for the operators. I need to be really realistic about the team, Karen, because right now, I think today, I'm not even sure if we actually have another wreck that's been approved. And right now we have one approved wreck. We have one. So I'm pointing out that this right now, the process that we're engaging in, we've got to all kind of get together on the same page to figure out, are we comfortable extending this into, because I'm thinking we're not gonna make March, that this today's discussion. Is this team comfortable? Karen, are you comfortable with, what's your level of comfort here? Are we talking May? Are we talking June? Are we talking next year? I need, at this point, I really need to understand. And I think, it's really now expanding. And so the reality is that I'm hearing first off, I wanna make sure all five of us, none of us wanna compromise integrity. And that's why I've been getting back, Karen, what's industry standard? What's your gut check? What, Loretta, what's your gut check? What's industry standard? We're facing a law that does anticipate a degree of urgency and temperance. Would we have love for the legislature to give us a whole bunch of more time? Yes, we have what we have in front of us, right? So, you know, it's, we're going to say, we've gotta come around in terms of really these buckets and what it adds up to Karen on the other side. So you've done some analysis on that. What would you do? And again, I am assuming, I've got to assume, Commissioner Skinner, that Karen Wells has her team's interest completely understood what their time frames are and how she will get them to the green light. Because that's- Can I say something here? Yeah, just one second, one second, Derek, thank you. So I am, I'm really wanting to say we've gotten today, it's now 10 of four. And we should probably start with the timeline and I had questioned that, we got through some good pieces of work today. Karen, tell me what your ideal timeline is. And then we'll work with what you're saying, tell me how many buckets you need, where you need it. And then Commissioner Hill, Commissioner Skinner, Commissioner O'Brien, Commissioner Maynard, we'll all hear the same thing at the same time from you. Let's go through these. So that's the first piece. The second piece is 30 days. What would you recommend instead, Karen? Well, it depends. If you want to put it out for comment, you'd have to add those days for the comments. So if you want to put it out for seven days for public comment, now you're dealing with 37 days, you've missed the Super Bowl. Well, I want to talk about these instructions. We're still to Commissioner Skinner's point talking about a date and working back. So I want to talk about, realistically, the application, the best time to get it back. That's what I want to hear. I don't want to hear. And that's what I just asked. I just asked that. Okay, so is it 30 days or is it something else that you'd recommend? And we'll add, we'll go with it. We'll figure out, I'm going to say, we're going to put it out for one week. We'll do some kind of compromise. I heard two weeks, we'll do one week. So say we don't put a place over 45 days then. Okay. So I can help with that piece, Karen. That's the bare minimum it should be out for. And I think that's what we said. So we were working backwards. And I really, because I'm one of the staff who was helping Karen to generate this time when we were asked a specific time period to work backwards from and what the minimum amount of time is. And what we said is, if we're going to go minimum, we need to come forward with all of the risks that the commission has to be advised on and they're either willing to accept those risks or not. You already have the risk with the timeline as far as this is going to impact smaller entities. Is it going to impact people putting for the best applications? Derek, I appreciate it. I'm just going to say, because I understand- But as a member of the staff- We've heard so much, but I wanted us to generate one bucket at a time. And then if you want to chime in on each bucket, that would be really helpful. Because I appreciate it. But this is the first bucket. This is the first bucket, the application and how long it's posted for. So you've heard the risks on it. The risks of putting it off for 30 days are the fact that you are going to limit the best application coming forward and you are going to put a benefit towards the bigger companies. If the commission is willing to accept that risk, then 30 days is fine. So that's what Karen is putting forward. If the commission is not willing to accept that risk, then a bare minimum of 45 days is what we would recommend. I think we've got that. Those two risks are strange to us. Thank you. So Karen, the 30 days, we have those risks. And so 45, you would put 45 make-or-come. I said 45. And the other thing that happens during this time period, and this is going to go back to the other, is the temporary licensing of vendors. So the Loretta in conjunction, while that she's waiting for these applications to come in, the BEEs, while she's waiting for those to come in, she and her team would be doing the temporary licensing of vendors, which the reg is on the agenda for today. So I'll put that to the side. OK, so the second block is the time period where there would be this initial suitability review and the internal review of applications by commissioners. So on the staff level, this is where we get those applications. And Loretta and team are doing that initial review that we would expect for any kind of temporary licensure. And so as we've said, and I don't know, the commission has to approve the scope. But given that scope, we rely on that self-reported information. And Loretta and I have talked about this quite a bit. As you see from the conversation, what you're doing is you're compiling the information from the BED. So if we have enough investigators, you assign them out. They compile the information. The commission also has the BED itself. So in that time period, the IED is doing that. And we also are having the external CPA firm. So that's where you get that 30-day period. And then we would defer the view of the individual qualifiers until after that threshold selection. I do think that's a good idea, because it seems like such a waste of resources to be doing suitability background investigations on potentially hundreds of qualifiers that they're not going to be part of the selection process. OK. Can I chime in with one concern I have on that? Yeah. Is that we're not even doing an open source public record on any of these qualifiers to see if there's some sort of glaring reason that we should be pausing. And so while I can absolutely appreciate and agree with the strategy in general, I do have concerns about not, at a minimum, doing some sort of screen like that on individual qualifiers. And are individual or entity qualifiers? Both. So that could be. So under this process, and I'll get to the sort of that. Why don't we put a hold off on that until the certificate that block four, because the individual suitability analysis would take place during block four. And I guess we're all talking about our comfort level and certain sort of risk averse and what we're willing to tolerate. And I am asking what it does to the timeline of the process if there's at least an open source review of entity and named designated qualifiers. So if you're doing the entity qualifiers, I mean, I'll defer to Loretta, but we have now, we would have staff do that at the same time. I think entity qualifiers, that's somewhat built in with the outside financial investigators, OK? With the individual qualifiers, I don't think this timeline allows for it because even receiving those multi-jurisdictional forms would be challenging. And can we contract someone to do that for us, please? That can be, we can get somebody to do. No, it was in chair. What I was pointing out was that it would be challenging to receive all of their individual application forms in that timeframe from the individuals. So even if we contracted out, the holdup is really getting them in. It's not. But again, we could do it. We would only, I guess you're wondering, I guess what you're asking for, I mean, is that you want to know when we're evaluating whether the individuals still have done their attestation, right, and they'll have filled out the BED and the MJSK, whatever it's called. Loretta is saying potentially no on that last one. On the last one. It wouldn't have the multi-jurisdictional form. That's on the entity. But for the final, up to final seven, we will have an individual. So are you saying you really want it on all the others? Ideally, I would like an open source scan of anything from this nothing to 35 or more that we might get in that first one. From the scoping, will we have those individuals' names? Can we then do an open source on their names? The scoping that was contemplating, contemplated in this timeline was focused on entity scoping. So no. And not the individual scoping. You know, to do the individual scoping, it is not, you know, for the, again, I don't know the number of applications we're talking about, you know, is it the 35 or is it the 12? Right. So it's difficult for me to say. If we agree on posting the survey in like next week early on, so we start to get a lay of the land on that as part of the application. Or do we need to delay that as well? It would be helpful if we have a little bit of an understanding. We got about 30 or 40 from the interest of parties from the Notice of Intent. Crystal, how many showed up for the live event? Outside of our category ones. And they're telling. I want to say 14, but I don't quite have any. 14 was what I remember as well. Yeah, so that would be my last count from the top of my head. That's a little bit of a barometer. So that would help us. So in other words, we can't get, we won't get even the scoping. The scoping doesn't say they don't get back and say these are our folks in your scope. That's not part of the plan is my understanding. No. Karen. So are you talking about self-scoping where we give them parameters and they identify the individuals? Yeah. I had wondered if that was a tool. That could be a model. Then you would double check on the back. Of course, on their self-identification. Yeah. Again, an attestation tool of some sort. If we wanted to at least have them identify, they would expect based on some kind of scoping questions, they self-identify, and then we get open source on those folks. Otherwise, we would be scoping and doing an investigation on if we assume 30, that would be so much work on their part, even, right? Never mind our part. And it would be an enormous number of resources. So that's why I think the focus has been doing that deeper dive once the commissioners make that final selection process. Doesn't get to your end. Go to address your answer completely though. It doesn't address your question completely at Commissioner O'Brien. I get that. I just know that Derek has pointed out, 15 days, it makes a big difference. And every chunk of time makes a big difference. And I am trying to get to somewhere where we're in the realm of five commissioners positions here. And I think that's one of the areas where GLI, we posted this question to them and they said you could put bonds out there to mitigate this area, right? So that's a risk. But in order to mitigate that risk, you can put performance bonds out, you can put requirements that if someone does come back bad and it is hard to separate them out from the entity that there's money that the Commonwealth doesn't lose as far as tax dollars in that entity, in that example. So I think that's an area that could mitigate those risks but we want you to know about that risk too, right? So it does get you time, it does cut down on cost to these people who are applying, which will help those smaller businesses because it won't be as big of an investigatory cost to put them, all those individuals through scoping unless they're going to get the license and be able to generate revenue. Okay, so that's very helpful. So now let's go back to this diagram because I'm trying to keep track, Karen. So this block too. I'm not hearing that we're going to, Ness, if we expanded to include those self-identified qualifiers, does that add some time in the bucket that you just described? Because I think you said- I'm not sure. On the, I kind of want to talk to the companies but I think if you're expanding that application period to say the 45 days and I'm including the public notice out there, it's still pretty tight. Okay, so just, I was not including that time period but just so we need clarity on that from everybody. Yeah, and I think I said, let's assume a week right now and knowing that we're not going to get it next week. So it's going to be posted something in the following week. I'm not sure. Brian, I'm looking to hear you and I'm looking to hear the other commissioners too. And I have my own position almost, but not really, because I am listening to everyone. So if you go 30 days- Right, so this is block two. Let's compartmentalize staff work. That's the, basically the IEB initial review, so that standard review to do for a temporary licensure in this circumstance. And then at the same time, they're two other two perilous. The other staffing that's going on at the same time, as you see on the graph is the regulation process. So from day one, and I've been working with the legal team and they have a schedule for licensure for regulations. So regulation promulgation has to occur all the way through this timeline. So that would be another 30 days. They're also working on regulations. The other- When you have a blue line on this diagram, I want to make sure Todd and A and K are comfortable with that blue line, or does that need to be adjusted? Because the reg, we talked about this. The regs have to be written. They've got to be written. Some of them have to be driven by us. Others are driven by desk practices collected from around the country. And then we also have those that are coming from 2020. But they also have a process. We've talked about that process, whether it's emergency or regular in the emergency. I'm looking at Dave, Amaki, and Caitlin Monaghan and Todd Gressman. Does that blue line, in light of all of those considerations seem reasonable? Are we putting, is that not fair to you guys? You know, because it's, we've had a lot going on. I pointed out one, and there's a reason. It's not because everybody's sitting around. When we've had meetings and a lot of discussion. So. I can speak to the drafting of the regulations. And I'm confident we can do that on whatever timeframe the commission sets for us. Obviously, following the draft and there's commission approval and then whatever other public process needs to take place. But I don't think drafting of the regulations is going to hold up whatever schedule the commission determines is the right schedule. I appreciate that. And I appreciate that A&K has been a great partner. And we know that we'll get the drafts from them when we ask for the drafts, and that's been great. I would say that the schedule is again, geared more towards a timeline than what we would prefer potentially. A little bit more time would be very helpful, I think. There's a long process to drafting. Once we get the draft from A&K, it needs to be reviewed. It needs to be talked through with stakeholders, edited. It needs to come to the commission, put out for public comment. There's a long process and then promulgated on the backend, right? And that also takes time with the public hearings and that process. So, you know, assuming that the schedule is not locked in, I think some extra time would be beneficial. How much time? I would, right now the schedule has, you know, a set of regs every week until mid-December, basically. I would, if I had my druthers, I'd add a week between that so that we had more time, a week between every reg we're bringing so that we had extra time for consultation with stakeholders, commission had more time to review, et cetera. So with that interrupt, Karen, the potential standing up of the retail? Retail, that's what concerns me. I think the angst over the timeline is far less for the team on launching retail, as you said, you know, sometime early January, as opposed to the, okay. So that's why in the diagram, it has the retail regulation process in place before that date. And then prioritization of that, should the commission approve a prioritization of that process and allow for the staggered launch and let retail, when I talk about retail, I'm talking about category one, still, as I said, we have still information on category two. But Karen, you have that number. If we're adding time in block one, that also impacts that timeline. So if you add, you know, 15 days on block one, that adds it on the back end that helps with that. And we have some room within there for the retail launch. So I'm less concerned there. Sorry, so I need some help. Commissioner Hill, I'm sure you're thinking too. Are you saying that with the added time that's been suggested by each of the blocks so far, including, but almost, I don't know how many weeks it's actually adding to the regulatory process, but it sounds like a week between each, and I don't have Caitlin's framework in front of me. How many additional weeks and does it, would it affect the ability to stand up the retail? Commissioner's time in, I'm just trying to keep this going because it is four, all five. So we had talked about taking out what's necessary to stand up category one and move, making sure we continue to move forward on those. So we didn't, we minimized if not negated impact on standing up category one. Commissioner O'Brien, it seems like what Karen is saying is, is that what I'm hearing is, is that this does affect category one. I'm looking at the numbers. It looks like it, it might help me, Caitlin, like how many extra weeks, because there's not, there is some cushion there, but not a lot and yet the advantage of expanding category, the first block, if that time period's expanded. So that may cover some of it and if we can come to a compromise in trying to get that done. So those regulations are due in January, because I'm looking at the, I would say to the extent any, anything is extended, right? If there's public comment on the application and then there's more time for the application to come in, that is giving us on the regulatory side time, a little bit of additional time to get that done. And I think, we have looked at trying to prioritize category one regulations. I think the long and short of it is unfortunately there's a lot of overlap. We'll do what we can on that, but there's still a lot of overlap. So it's not like we only need half of them for category one. We still need a pretty big chunk. So yeah, but any additional time we can get would be great on that front end. Can I just ask Madam Chair, Stirl's had his hand on and off raised. I didn't know if he had something to add to this or a different topic. My apologies, Carol. I am trying to keep going. My apologies. No, it is and I don't want to interrupt, but it might help to know that, Caitlin is exactly right that it will push back the regulations, but I think a compromise for all people and the Commonwealth citizens involved would be that you make it a priority to stand up retail. And then, we all know that the online platform providers are going to take far more. So we have GLI standard 33 as a guide for event planning and whatnot, but what takes a lot in regulations is the KYC because they're not, they're people behind the scenes that the customers don't know, the geolocation, all of the technical pieces are specific to mobile. We already have our licensees in place and on property. We're not stating that the licensees are getting their online application either direct focus on just standing up kiosks and sales and service on frontline people. You solve the 21 and over, you solve all of the problems that you're having with knowing your customer and knowing all these regs, you're just gonna focus in on all of the regs as Caitlin is correct. There are still a great deal of regs to get to, but you're gonna be able to get through those a little quicker to where you can stand up retail without hindering that and pushing back that timeline as far as we're going to have to with platform providers. I hope I helped. So thank you, Sterl, very helpful, very helpful. So what I'm hearing then, Karen, is that the additional time that's been addressed now will not impact retail, but what I'm hearing is the additional time that's required will impact the ability to stand up category three. Correct, correct. And that's because what was applied in this timeline, you've dealt that there's just too much risk. Okay. Wait, Karen, I wanna clear that. Is Karen saying that that's too much risk? Yeah, I think it's been a long day. I think I'm a little, I need to get it here. Say the question again. So I guess I'm saying that we've got, the time was expanded, but it's not gonna impact a January, what is looked at, if we were to decide to vote that way to do a separate launch. Yeah. Okay. So that will not impact, but it will, but you're saying that on the other end, it's no longer really an option from your perspective to make, to have online wagers placed in Massachusetts rather than in the other states. Right. Right. And if you add, yes. And if you add, any days you add now to this timeline that's in front of you, impact every day. The only, my only caveat would be on the, sort of the third block and the competitive valuation process, but at the same time we're doing regulations. So maybe if I continue along the blocks, that may be helpful. So lot two, we've talked about the investigation internal review, we're also working on regulations. So that's also the period of time that the commissioners are internally reviewing the applications that were submitted. So that was that. Well, right now it's at 30, that this timeline has it at 30 days. And that's where this, and this presumes, you know, we made some assumptions that you're not having to review 35 applications that maybe you're doing 12 to 15 because that would be very, the big mark is we won't know till it arrived. Right. And this is 30 days where we actually have them to ourselves. Correct. They're not evaluating. It's correct. 30 days to read. But we're still looking at regs and trying to stand up everything else. So this is not 30 days. Absolutely, absolutely. Okay. Right. So then the third block is, and this is more commission driven. So this is that competitive evaluation process in public. During this time period, there's also the licensure of the category one, which you could do. I am less concerned about that process and the timeline on that process for a number of reasons. One, the category ones have already been found suitable where are dealing with them on a daily basis. There's basically, I would say no concern, but there is a very low risk of any issues on suitability because we deal with them on a daily basis and they've already gone through the full investigation. So then the second piece is awarding of the license. So the commission, there is language in 23N that the commission shall, but they do have this threshold determination that they need the requirements of 23N and the commission's rules and regulations, but it's not a competitive process and there's only the three casinos and I'll put off the category twos for now. So that process is not the same as this competitive evaluation process and the same level of risk for the commission because that competitive process, as you know, you're gonna have to whittle it down to up to seven. So that third block, that's sort of a commission driven. There's a placeholder of 30 days in there, but that is highly dependent on the number of applications. If you only got three, 30 days is more than enough time and then you could save the time on the back end. If you ended up getting the 35, that's different. So that's where there's some question and that's where we make some assumptions and we're just projecting and the commission would have to be okay with that. Any questions? No, I mean, that's the biggest question mark, obviously we won't know until the deadline comes and goes exactly who we got and exactly how much time that's gonna take. That's where I think in my mind, if we were shooting for a February timeframe and we ended up with a much broader response then we would have to come back and get more time. But I'm not sure, so you're saying we will decide those category one and the retail can go up. Let's make the assumption of 30 days for us to review and score. Take me out to the timeline. Right, but we gotta start somewhere and I'm gonna start with the aggressive. I'm sorry. So the aggressive has the, well, the public evaluation is completed in January. So that would have to be, so early January, the public evaluation process would have to be completed. So if the applications were due in November, say early November, the initial start or yeah, whenever, no, we never never did. Then you have- Look at it like end of November, even with 30 days, right? 30 to five is gonna get you end of November, not middle or early. Let's say next week we get our public input. That's the week of the 10th. We post the application the week of the 17th. I keep on hearing the end of October, but every week counts. I don't understand why we keep on pushing things down because it's going to end up on the other end regardless of what's in front of us, just so you know. Because weeks turn into months really quickly. And the threshold, sorry, Madam Jan. The threshold, to me, to your point, Commissioner O'Brien, we've got to put something out there to figure out who's coming in. And we've got to at least to the threshold. To me, if we can at least agree to get this scoping survey out and the application out, which the team did a great job working on, we would at least know a lot there. Yeah, so then if we got the survey out next week and we have a deadline. Then we're going to have a deadline of, how long, Loretta, do you think it will take them to take that survey? People were suggesting seven days. Okay, so then, I'm sorry, I'm losing track. So, you know, what if it were due date of the 20th, if it went out on the 13th? Is that okay? Is that okay? I'm hearing if we could do it earlier, Madam Chair, because the survey itself is not, it's pretty much, right? Yeah. So let me bring back some more days, okay? So now what are you proposing then? That goes out on, I'm just trying to see. Yeah, we could, I'm wondering if, you know, tie in legal order, but if the commission is comfortable with the document and if the regulation is in place, because I think we still have to vote on the regulation as Carrie has some edits, and that's in place. And someone correct me if I'm wrong here, because I know it's getting, it's been a long day, but I think that you could, we could post that on the website tomorrow and have it due next Friday. I mean, I don't, okay, anywhere we can get efficiencies, we could be grabbing them, right? We're talking about the BED, right? Pardon? You're talking about the BED. No, no, no. This is the survey so that Loretta can figure out who needs to fill out the BED. Got it, okay. Getting this going actually helps the application process. So that may, that may shave some time off what the, you know, save some time for the application application. I can have a suggestion there, since Monday is a holiday, and since it's going to probably take emails and some votes, so we're gonna have to get this information out to people so they know it's even there and live. It could be due the next Monday, right? You know, two weekends is what I'm saying. Given the 17th. On the survey itself? Monday, the 17th? Or do you think they even need that? We'll take that one. Dang, it's really straightforward and everybody's listening, right, Karen? I know. Let's get it. We should have that information. We should. Great. This is my opinion. And you know, Loretta, you can correct me because you may have a different opinion. That's not a big ask. To require the survey, wouldn't we need to also promulgate the regulation as an emergency? But then we talked earlier in this meeting about giving the public time to comment on that regulation. So how does that play into what's being proposed now? You would have to do it by, I think you'd have to do it by emergency. And then receive the public comment afterwards. The emergency regulation promulgation process. We'd be posting it, rather than posting it. Right away, we'll post it. If we pass it today, we'll get comments between now and then. And if we turn, it turns out to have been a failed experiment, we'll hear. And that will be a week. You'll get a meal time, right? Because we're gonna use some meals process. That helps. Commissioner Stainer, that's probably not a big, big risk. I don't know what you're thinking, but probably not a big risk thing. This is a document, we all saw it. It's something that, unless you're a brand new company, you are familiar with the scoping process, right? Director Lillian? That's fair to say. Yeah. So I think it's a given. All of us are hopeful not to impact terribly brand new. Companies, but frankly, that our statute didn't really give us a lot of ability to address that need. And so we, I know Commissioner Stainer, who came up with an innovation, perhaps on the other end. But in terms of this tool, it is pretty straightforward. Okay. All right, so we get that week done. So then on the retail operations, Madam Chair, so what are the advantages we have with the retail is that we are already, we have certainty. We know who the potential licensees are. So we have, for example, with the licensees, our gaming agent team has already been working with them on things that we would do for certificate operations. They're looking at their surveillance system, their plans for the layout, all those types of things. So there would be, once the commission makes a decision about licensure, which could be rapid, there's a certificate of operations procedure, but given that we can be working on that now, because we know who the applicants, we know who they are. It's not like the untethered applicants where you don't know who it is. So we would be working with them there. So that next process would be that pardon me, the certificate of operations process for retail and then potentially have them go live or in January. Yeah, but Karen, I think part of the issue for some staff is that the regulations that are gonna be required to implement a certificate of occupants, I'm sorry, certificate of operation aspect, they also apply to the category threes. So I just, I wanna make sure that we're not losing sight of that when we're continuing to advance this compressed timeline. I think it's actually a reasonable timeline. I'm gonna throw it out because I've been working along the line trying to figure this out. And each time we talked about the days, I would ask, is it a reasonable timeline? Is it reasonable? And now today I'm hearing that there are some matters that I'm hearing a little bit of a gut check from Karen. I'm hearing there are some risks that we are absorbing. I'm hearing from Caitlyn that the timeline here doesn't really reflect what legal needs that they need more time. Commissioners. And yeah, I was continuing to use the word compressed because it still seems that we are working towards Super Bowl. So, and I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not okay with that for category three, excuse me, category one operators, I just want us to acknowledge that that's what's happening here and in a lot of the discussions. No, I just heard, I thought I heard from you that maybe that because category one and three are combined, that they may not make the category, the retail time. That's the question. That is, I'm hearing you, I'm hearing you. So that's why, so I didn't think of it as compressed because I had understood it was reasonable that I'm hearing today that that little line has expanded. That's on the bar. So Karen. This comes down to, you know, I'll have general counsel for us to chime in, but from what I have heard from the legal department, can they get the regulations drafted? Yes. So it may be sort of a sort of a policy judgment on the level of interaction and process to get them done. I absolutely get that, you know, what Commissioner Hill is talking about that not launching anything before February is a problem. So we may just have to buckle down and get it done. Right? Can we talk a little bit about why it's a problem if retail isn't launched by Super Bowl? Let's talk about that. Commissioner Maynard, do you want to chime in because you said you really would like to see the whole shebang go out for a February date and that's, you know, geared toward, it is sports betting. There is Super Bowl is on our minds. It's kind of a given. So let me just, let me say, it's not that I disagree. I just think that discussion needs to be flushed out a little bit so that we all understand each other's way of thinking here. And I understand that. And I'm happy to explain what I'm thinking right now, Commissioner Maynard. A couple of things. One is that I do think the law with all its flaws did expect that there would be a quick process, right? And they did write emergency regulations in the process. I actually did a little research. It looks like, you know, Iowa and Indiana and Connecticut all used these regulations, these type of emergency regulations under their own construct to push forward. It's also looking at Sturrell's document giving us some averages. And I know that our team is the best. And so I know that, you know, we're gonna outperform every other state. But then actually on the policy itself, we're crazy if we think that people aren't gonna be placing wagers in Massachusetts for the Super Bowl, for, you know, March Madness. The question is, are they gonna be doing it either A, illegally, right? Well, we can help stand some stuff up and get ready and actually take some of the, you know, illegal market out. And B, you know, they're gonna be going north and they're gonna be going south. And I think to myself about some of the people I know, I happen to have a lot of friends who's sports wager. You know, there is a health and safety and welfare issue here when we look at, you know, they're gonna be getting on the roads in February, they're gonna be driving down to Connecticut, right? I mean, and we don't know, you know, if we're gonna do this better, and I think we are, they're gonna be operating under other states' jurisdiction, that doesn't even start to get to the Commonwealth's benefit, right? Of actually capturing the revenue that's going to be leaving the state. And so those are the reasons I am thinking. And I come from an honestly, from a pure heart perspective, just like I think everybody else here does too. Like every other commissioner does too. And it was kind of hinted at earlier that, you know, to be patron-centered that I wasn't thinking about kind of, I guess, the public safety aspects, I think it's all related because I think, like I said, patrons going north, going south, patrons placing illegal bets, that's a problem too. And I would like to try to adjust that. And that's where I'm coming from. Thank you, Commissioner Brown. I understand. Sorry, go ahead. Go ahead, Commissioner Skinner. Okay, I understand exactly what you just mentioned, all of those points, the emergency aspect, you know, trying to mitigate the illegal market, you know, capturing revenue for the Commonwealth. All valid reasons to move this forward as expeditiously as possible, you know, but we all were unified back on September 8th when we said we weren't going to compromise this process for anything. We specifically said that we would allow the public an opportunity to weigh in on our work. And I just ask that we do that. Most importantly, however, I ask that we let our staff advise us and where they have advised us. And I have heard this prior to this meeting. And I think the staff who were able to be candid about the question, but I ask that we allow our staff to advise our work. We have to take them seriously. We have to listen to them. They are on the ground. They are the experts. For sure. I would agree with Commissioner Skinner and I would say that speed is not the sole measure of performance. And I think that as we all said, as she said in September, we're trying to do this as best we can without sacrificing the quality and what we're charged with under the statute. And I have some reservations about whether you call it compressed or aggressive on a date determinative created outline, which this is versus the best practices. And so I think we all need to be mindful of where we're coming from and take a step back as well and think about best practice and what we're giving up at each step. Okay, and so Eileen, let's take February after the equation and let's attach buckets. What would be your, I really, I think this would be really helpful. Could you give timeframe that attaches to each bucket? What I would do, what I would do, Madam Chair, I feel like I'm back in court. I'm slipping into your honor again is what Commissioner Skinner said, which is go to them, not with the question of, can this be done in this timeline? What's the bare minimum? But if this were in front of you, what would you truly need? I mean, Caitlin said, really I need every other week. That's what I need. Okay, well, what does that come out to? Now, some of this we can't answer. And then some of it we may compress, but I feel like maybe the question was posed in a way that we are now jumping off from this compressed aggressive timeline, however you want to call it, as opposed to the latter. And I'm happy to work with this. I personally think working this way with CAT1 as a priority is doable, but I do not want to sacrifice, particularly the competitive process that we have been charged with undertaking. And I have concerns particularly about that being overly compressed. Director Wells, do you think that that's what happened with your team? We've been talking. I think it's this term best practices. I don't want to be careful with that because if you were to promulgate a regulation or do whatever, obviously I think it's plain that you could have three weeks of stakeholder input and then you could have a conversation and put it out for comment for a month and do that. But there's also the reality. And as a manager, I understand there's a reality and that we report to the commission and there may be some direction there. So there's this balance between what's doable, what's reasonable, but also what the direction is on a policy perspective and we work for the commission. So I think that sort of hearing out, if you told me, Karen, I want everything launched in 30 days, I would tell you that you just can't do that. This time period, we've talked to people, would we have to be working really hard and maybe get extra resources and do that? Yes, do we have the same kind of fulsome review of regulations that maybe you'd want? Maybe, no, probably not. But it's the balancing of the interests and what you want to do. I mean, I think our team is really willing to work hard and make sacrifices to get things done. And we'll just have to move forward with whatever we need to do. But, and I get it, there are jurisdictions that have been at it for a year. We don't want to be that jurisdiction that took a year to launch anything. So, there's some pride in being efficient and doing what we need to do. But I also recognize that there may be, I get it, doing all these regulations is hard and we're gonna have to do that at the same time you're doing the horseradish racing application and all these other things. And there's a lot on the commissioners too, you know? I don't know if that's helpful, but the other block, we haven't talked about block four for the category three and that's the certificate of operations process. And that is sort of after the commission has decided, okay, we want these five, six, seven, you know, how up to seven licenses. That's when that individual qualifier review would take place. And then also that is where we have the review of internal controls, the technical testing, the house rules and all of that. That's probably easier for bigger operators. Under this timeline, do we need to outsource that? Yes. So, we have identified a vendor to do that. We have asked if they could do that in that time period, they have indicated that they could. So, you know, that's the other piece. And then the individual qualifier review, that's what Loretta's talking about where you have those, you know, the qualifiers for the, well, I'll call them the finalists because you probably don't want to issue the license until you know that they have been reviewed. So, you sort of, there's a threshold determination and you would hear from Loretta. So, those two things would happen simultaneously. So, that's where we are. What timeline do you propose? Or are you uncomfortable proposing a timeline at this time? Well, I think, I did, I want to make it clear that at our, you know, at our, we did ask the operators to come live to the last and they gave us some great input. And one of the things I think we were sort of looking at right now is that second question, which is the staggered launch. We had a couple of entities that did not like that idea and we heard from them, but the majority did express that provided that there was a universal launch of the online, they would be comfortable with that. So, we're looking at that as a possibility in terms of getting done and being able to, you know, avoid the licenses. You, are you comfortable providing a timeline? I know that at one point you had five. We thought that would be really cumbersome today and to go through. And so, the idea was that this was a visual that could be extended what I hear now and I probably should have been worried about that, but that meant that it was a given. You know, as my thought was that we could actually envision how it extends out into the future. And so, you had, you know, five timelines. I think one went into, I don't know if it was August or whatever, but you had those timelines. I didn't hear a lot about extended time for staff. I heard more about, you know, extended time from we might need to do our job or what the applicants might need to do theirs. Where do you need more time? Does the staff need more time? I think that on the regulations and I think general growth, general accounts of growths might have to chime in. Let's do it in buckets on the category one retail launch. Can we do that in early January? And can you have the regulations in place? I think that it's certainly a possibility. I can say what would be helpful having listened to this conversation would be to have a brief opportunity to go back and look at what it will take to do that in a responsible way instead of reverse engineering it as we have. And I think we can do that really quickly, including tomorrow and have a better answer. For me to just kind of come up with a timeline right now I think would be difficult and I don't know how accurate I can make that off the cuff. I'm Councillor Grossman. I'm not sure what you mean by reverse engineering. I'm seeing that we had something that was given to us today with dates attached and apparently something has shifted. I don't know who want to share that but that was something that was submitted by and that doesn't look reversed. It looks there's time, there's dates attached. I'm assuming it's reversing back from a Superbowl launch to a separate stagger, which I think is separate. I think I know what that, I think I know that's what he was referring to. But I don't, that's what the document, the document that we've got today was a document I thought was coordinated with A&K and our legal team on regular production. So maybe we could use that to help Councillor Grossman because if you say tomorrow, Todd, I've lost a home, another week or so. The commission is ready to pivot at any time to accommodate the team on its decision-making and on its work. We can't, the commission can't move again but this is the only way that we get to talk and as you can see, it's a challenge. Particularly when it isn't, we all have an honesty, I can tell you, I share probably every single value here. I think I really do. Some of us are feeling a pull to being faithful to the law as it's written and the intent of the law. Some of us are feeling faithful to make sure all of the protections of the consumer are in place. We're also wanting to be faithful to our staff. I am being faithful to the law and the statute when I say that, I am not veering, but I- I'm saying all of us are doing that, it's what I'm saying, we're all open how we input and so if we could just- Well, what we got today, Madam Chair, would seem to imply retail potentially done by mid-December. I think we've heard from council that's to use the word again, slightly overly aggressive in total candor. And so then the question I think is- That was the regulation document. That's a regulation document. I believe that that's the, when you're talking about the reg timing spreadsheet. Yes? That has the last commission vote on retail specific regs on December 15th, which is about a month before the Super Bowl. So we still have some wiggle room in there. Right. That's the goal to launch before the retail, before the Super Bowl. That's what, when I'm saying there, there's a little more flexibility in the category one. That's what we're talking about. Right. And this just not permanent. So on the category one, I feel confident about the category one and that would include, I know we didn't get to the vendor item today. There are approximately 15 of the, directly related to search warrant, to sports wagering vendors that will be associated with the category one. Although we didn't get to the item, there are a couple options given to you based on your risk level with the vendors. The second option would give us the flexibility on the category one to meet the timeline we're talking about. Certainly the IAB has a lot of resources put in place with our outsourced contractors. Certainly we could put some additional time to good use to learn and feel comfortable with the new case management tool that we will need to be using. Staff would appreciate that. But the category one, assuming the vendor reg, you go with the second option. The more aggressive option is a comfort zone for the IAB. So Karen, how does that fit into your timeframe? I think that puts you into early January. Still before the Superbowl, yeah. Right. What about for your retail? You mean the mobile? Mobile, yeah. Your retail, your retail, does it get you to retail in January? Right, that's what it does. So if we take more risky, is that if we decide to go less conservative on what director Leo's proposes? Are we on the other side of the week or are we still on the right side? Oh, on the vendors? And I'm talking about the vendor piece. Yeah, so let me just, now I'm just strictly in terms of days and times just so that we can at some how have some kind of a conclusion. My recommendation would be the more efficient process. Well, my recommendation would be the more efficient process on the vendor temporary licensing for a couple of reasons. Number one, the statute doesn't even, is silent on vendor licensing. You could say- It's pretty easy to have a vote on that alone. Exactly. So if you could say we don't even want to do that at all because it's not even in the statute and then there's no issue. If you do- Just to clarify, it is in the statute and the licenses are defined in a way that's not unlimited. So that's why this topic has come up and Karen does have an efficiency. I think you can learn that. It's kind of a best practice out there that they would still be licensed or some some way. Okay. Exactly. That gives you control in the back end. So if you have an issue, it's not the licensing part. It's the back end where they are licensed and an enforcement mechanism on vendors. So that would be my recommendation in which case that does not impact the timeline. Okay. So commissioners, how comfortable are you right now with what you've heard? We don't have a clear answer from legal, but if we were to take a vote on the staggered retail under this timeline of a January, and I do think, because this is sports betting that the timeline should be considered in what might be a particularly important, sports date. I just think that you might want to think about that. Madam chair, with all due respect, I think we do have a clear answer from legal. And I think we're going in circles at this point. Are you saying the clear answer is that they aren't ready for it? Well, I won't speak for legal. We have able council here, Todd and Caitlin, they can reiterate what they have been saying. I'm sorry, I thought Director Wells had spoken on it. I'm sorry. I really did think that we had gotten there. Okay. I'll return back to legal. Director Wells thought we could do it and get it done by January. I thought we understood that, but if that can't happen, let me know now. This is okay. Legal. You have a timeline, which would allow for that to happen. But it was based upon an understanding that it had to be done by January. If you're asking if that's the preferred approach, I think the answer is not necessarily, but can it be done? We think so. So I'm hearing that the due date is a problem. Okay. Can we reach an agreement today on staggered versus simultaneous? Well, I think the census on the target date. I need the date too. And that's what I'm getting at. I mean, it's on the agenda as two separates, Madam Chair. And I'm more than happy to move on staggered versus simultaneous. Commissioner Maynard. I've got a comment there and I have to say it is that I'm fine with getting a staggered launch. And honestly, it took me a long time to get there because when we do talk about the smaller companies, we talk about the opportunity to diversify. I do think about category three as being our opportunity to do so. And I do worry that there's going to be some sort of spike in happiness and good feelings when the first wagers are placed in brick and mortar. And then there could be a lull after that that pushes that category three out. And I'm concerned about that. So I would be happy to support it, but let me be clear. I don't want to stop when those operations start. I want to keep running through the day. I think I heard Director Wells say that the expectation was January. I'm struck by the conversation that I am really working to not say more, but I would say that I would like to see us perhaps take the position of, we can look at staggered alone, but I would like perhaps to hear from Commissioner Hill in terms of what he might like to move on. So my hope would be that there's two votes that we're going to be taking. One's going to be on the staggered launch and the other is going to be not necessarily, let's say a date, but certainly I need to take a vote today. And category one, unless something comes before us that it just so outrageous it can't get done, that we're going to be able to place a bet on the Super Bowl. So I need two votes today. I would like to see two votes today. One on the staggered launch, two setting up a timeline for category one to be able to accept bets. I'm going to be in push it further. I'm uncomfortable because we have a whole group of very interested sports operators, the mobile sports operators who are very interested in hearing what our timeframe is. And I think if our timeframe, if we can't give that to them right now, I guess I'm saying, well, we can come back. We're going to come back after we share what the level of interest is and be able to give them that. But we met with them a few weeks ago now and we are not giving any kind of a timeframe. And I guess that's okay. It sounds like I'm uncomfortable without giving a timeframe to both category three and perhaps everybody will be just fine. I would have loved to have seen when we got this bill this first, happy to be my birthday. Thank you, Commissioner Maynard for joining us. I would have loved to have seen this launch and maybe even universally so that it would have been completely equitable for a February date so that those bets don't fly over to New Hampshire. They don't fly over. We've known this was coming. We know that that was the big push and so that we were giving the best protections, Mark Vandalin and direction to our citizens. And so that we were getting the benefit of that. You know, I'm hearing that the practical realities not necessarily the legal burdens, practical realities are restricting and we have to take those into consideration. If in fact the work can't get done in that time, we have to take that into consideration. I did hear clearly that we might want to give the applicants more time and that's a critical awareness. I would give up some of our review time to give that time for them because I would personally work around the clock to make sure this happens on time. That's my bias. I would work around the clock to get it done. So we're not coming out with what might have been my hope August 1st. It was not my wish today. I needed to hear this conversation today and I'm learning that Karen it just, it would be too much of a pressure for your team and perhaps the risk on the applicants and I would grab that time. I thought that was important. I'm standing by what I understand still is that you haven't pointed out to us a risk on suitability and that's where I would want to have real clarity on suitability. If there's any risk there, I haven't heard that today. I'm not concerned about that, I mean. And that I'm not concerned about given the process and given as we have seen, there's ongoing suitability even after folks are licensed. This is an ongoing relationship. So I'm not. So to share a help, you started off with, you would like to see retail at least from sort of before, either in February or whatever. You also said you would consider given what you're learning today that category three be launched later in March. I don't even know what the date is. So I don't know if that's realistic. If that's not realistic, I think today that came out and we need to at least let the online sports operators know if that's not a likelihood either. Madam Chair, I would join in putting dates to both. I do not see a timeline as a bad thing. Again, it motivates me to get my work done, has all my life. And I did hear the word date, launch date at the round table over and over and over again. I'm perfectly putting timelines on and working backwards from the timeline. I am in agreement with that, Commissioner Maynard. I just question whether that date needs to be whatever the Super Bowl date is or. Okay, rather than Super Bowl, we're now talking about, maybe are you thinking differently for retail or are you comfortable with the idea of a January retail standup that's been discussed today? Or you're actually thinking maybe later than that I just need to know. I'm trying to get, I'd love a unanimous vote. I am comfortable with staggering launch with retail category one launching first. I am okay with the January date for launching of the category one licensees, provided that staff are okay with that timeline. And I understand Karen Wells, as executive director, has indicated agreement with that timeline. But that's in, you know. That is her staff, I am really going to step in because the floor chair in me is governing bodies, they need to be really careful not to micro manage Karen. And that is not at all what I am trying to do. It is first step. But we are only as good as the staff. And I am disappointed to hear that, you know, the January deadline will move forward if there's a vote to do that, despite what staff is saying, specifically our legal division, relative to getting those regulations drafted and reviewed in a way that is meaningful, in a way that is responsible. They have said it time and time again. It is being ignored. And again, I am disappointed by that. I am. Can I ask that the Super Bowl is February 12th, correct? There is some, that's what I was saying. There is some room if we, if the target is to launch retail before the Super Bowl, you have some. Yes, that could take care of that. I mean, I will see this quickly and then mute. I've said it before, I am fine with staggered. I am fine with having that be the target date for retail. And I am not opposed to giving some sense of timing on Cat 3. There's a big caveat and a footnote to that and an asterisk to that, which is we don't know what we're going to get till we get it. And so as long as those mobile operators understand, if we get 50 that come in the door, we have a lot of choices to make. Are we doing this staggered? How, I mean, that's just the reality of the statute we were handed with a competitive process. And the reality is the three jurisdictions who've done it competitive, it takes longer to do that aspect. So that's where I'm coming from today. Madam Chair, I think Derek has his hand up. Thanks, Derek. Thank you. So I do want to make sure that it's clear because I don't want this to be a misrepresentation of staff. Staff was asked what it does it take to get open by Super Bowl. We have told you the areas that we have concerns of. So this is not a staff issue. If the commission chooses to accept those risks that we have laid out, that's a commission policy decision, we can make that deadline that you've asked us on the calendar. I think if you are asking us about the concerns we have and we've raised them, it's up to you. So this is not a staff issue. This is a commission decision. Legal has said that if we are going to a staggered process, they think they can get there by January, but they'd like to review the timeline versus just telling you that right now because the other timeline they worked at was for all simultaneous launch or staggered plus a launch for March Madness for category three. That doesn't even get into questions staff may have about the evaluation process and the timeline on that. So staff has said with the timeline given to us, we can get you there. We've put the resources in place, we've done the procurements, we've gone out to GLI, we've gone to A and K, we've worked the calendar. So I don't think it's fair to say that Karen is saying that the timeline doesn't work. What she's saying is, do you accept the risks that we've told you with the timeline? And if the commission decides to do that, then we can get there for that opening date. But if you don't accept those risks, it pushes everything out. I mean, there are other things we talked about that haven't even come forward here. We said, if you wanna do category one, we can have separate applications, right? If you wanna do just mobile, we can do separate applications. They have the resources to do a 30-day turnaround time. Commission can then focus their efforts there and then do the other application can be up during that time period when the other applications come up. The commission has already done the category one and they can focus on category three, what you're talking about and keep pushing that ball, right? May not be March madness, maybe a month after, but we don't know. That's up to the commission to determine how much time they need to review that. So we have talked about all these things. So I think it's unfair to say staff can't meet this timeline. We can meet it. It's just, are you willing to accept the risks we've put out? Well, and I did probably paraphrase because it sounded so, the first I heard and you were really articulate was about the applicants and I think in Commissioner O'Brien articulators at the beginning, I think we all sort of had, well, good awareness of that. So that was sort of top of mind. And so you really help on 30 to 45. I guess, again, and Derek forgive me, but I haven't heard because if I was hearing a lot of risks along the way, I didn't care the risks. I didn't care risks. I heard a lot of time line. I heard aggressive timeline compressed, but I didn't care risks. And so that's what's really important for me to understand. I don't know if... Yeah, on the regulations that I could be hearing is that I'm hearing that, and I thought I heard it from Director Wells and I'm gonna focus on her. I thought I heard her say that timeline that she presented here with respect to seeing that the retail that you were comfortable with that still, notwithstanding what you've heard. Okay, okay, so yeah, and maybe that was a little bit of a miscommunication because especially with the comments from legal. And we're all absorbing this in real time. And this is the first time we've had to talk as a body, but... The commissioners, just correct. The commissioners, it's the first time we've had to talk as a body. Exactly, exactly. So if the goal is to launch retail before the Super Bowl, is it an option to say launch on February 10th? That would account for some additional time for leave on the regulations. When Derek's talking about the risks and I appreciate him mentioning that. So this is what I identify as the risks. I think we've got things covered on suitability. So I'm not as concerned on the integrity piece. We have quite the system in place and it's an ongoing system. So it's not as if you make a mistake and then everything's over. So the identified risks and the other staff may chime in on this is to the applicant on this application. So could you do a 30-day turnaround? Yes, the risk is that there may be companies that that is too burdensome. So it's on that. I think we've definitely heard that. Definitely. So then the second piece on the risk, not so much on block two and block three on the individual investigations and internal review of applications by the commissioners, that piece, it's the regulation promulgation process. And what I hear the legal department saying is that, yes, and you heard Dave Mackey, can we get you these drafts of these regulations? And I've talked to talk, can we get you these drafts? But then the identified risks for the legal process is that we are moving rapid fire. And so we don't have the luxury of these comment periods and we may have to not do as much work as we would like to and what we may want to do with respect to stakeholder engagement and internal review and things like that. Those regs, as Dave said, can you draft them all and give them to the commission? Sure, but the commission would have to be willing to accept that there may not be that robust process of internal discussions and meeting with legal and going through all that. That's what identifies the risk and Todd may identify additional. And then the third big risk, and this is more your commission, this is where the number of applications, it's the competitive process and figuring out what the evaluation criteria is. And I think you know that. And that's something that I hope we could get to with Dave Mackey today on our process, but that's our process. And as I said, it may depend on what the commissioners are willing to do and timing and how we evaluate and the risk that Dave need to identify. So in terms of back to the regulation, no, I am, if we even assume then now we're moving the timeline, we're not going to make a January date, but now maybe for Super Bowl on the, and that's, you know, I guess I'm being very careful the risks that we're assuming that are being assumed. And then I guess the next piece is, so where does that leave us with the category three? Or are we just not prepared to talk about that today? And that's so that I really think we need to meet a couple of times next week and we need to have all the breaks laid out as to where we're going to go and the days that we need, we need to meet, you know, regularly to get in front of each regulation to get the public input that we need and keep the process going because there are I guess well over 200 regulations that have been identified. We're about to, I think maybe pass our second, or did we pass another one? We did the tax too today. So we're now, we're at two and we're gonna get to three. So if I, I don't know Matt so well, but you can see my concern. I don't know how we get ahead of that process. So I do see that as a big risk. I don't see how we get those, the regs in front of us with the cadence. You know, I thought it was gonna work operationally for you Karen, that was sort of what we hope, iterative I think Todd, you know, may have a different framework, but we need to have whatever's going to work for you and your legal team and ANK to get the regulatory process in that framework because not only do they ask, the operators ask for a clear time, a deadline, a time, a timeline. They also ask for milestones, application date would be one immediate milestone. They also asked for a clear regulatory framework. And they need that. And honestly, that's where we are. So category three is off the table today. Madam Chair, could we have a quick break? It is half to five and quite frankly, I'm reaching my capacity. So I could benefit from a short break, please. Okay, it's five oh eight, we'll go to five 20 and then we'll reconvene and we'll figure out what we're going to close out with. We need to have the reg in front of us for a review. Commissioners, is there any, for all of us that you can offer to me as we sort out this process? Rachel, Brian? I mean, I think that we have reached consensus in putting the amended app out for comment. Carrie, maybe can come back with a reg that authorizes that app. And then it seems we've reached consensus on staggered versus simultaneous and a general consensus on date. That seems like a fair amount of progress to me, given this is the first time we've all been able to sort of get in the pit together and hash it out. So I think if we can close out with that, that is progress and not as much as Madam Chair has indicated she was looking for, but to your point, we can be nimble and have more meetings to move this ball along, maybe stack on topics so that staff can be not in each meeting and continue to draft and work. Crystal, what's our timeframe for next week? Yeah, let's start with the schedule. I don't know if Jacqueline's still around. You may not understand. We had already utilized the pool that we had for the next couple of weeks, but I think that there was some time Wednesday afternoon, maybe Wednesday morning, which is the usual agenda setting time. Honestly, that's probably the best at quick look. There could potentially be, because there's a holiday Monday, so just as a reminder, there could potentially be some Friday time. We have the public meeting on Thursday, which is already pretty. So Tuesday not work, no time on Tuesday? Tuesday morning? Tuesday morning? Tuesday morning. There would be no real prep time because there's a holiday Monday, so we couldn't even post a meeting. Well, could we post what we didn't reach today for Tuesday morning? We could also finish off, we could finish off what we planned on by having that. Agenda would have to be posted for open meeting on tomorrow morning. Right. It's like, no. Right. For what's left on the remainder of the agenda, we could probably just repost. I don't think, if you guys are telling me you're available, then we can rework internal. It looks like there are internal meetings. That's what I'd be up against. Well, Wednesday morning looks good. I have Tuesday morning as a hold for a possible... Yeah, there was just a 9.15 to 10 hold. We had placed a bunch of holds for the potential emergency regs, but there isn't one. So why wouldn't we go then? Tuesday morning? Only a 45-minute hold that you could do that. I can't expand it. What else could we have? What else is... So right now, we didn't hear back from Kerry, right? So that reg, we cannot vote on right now. Is that what I'm hearing? I thought we were proposing we would take that up when we came back from the break. That's what I, I want to still come back from a break. Here's Kerry. So I'd like to... I do have an updated draft ready. So if you'd like to look at that after the break. Do you want to send it to us during our break? And we make sure... Oh, sure, absolutely. Thank you. And then we would vote on the staggered launch. I think I heard Commissioner O'Brien say, and then there was a third... The application itself to approve that it go out for comment as is, right? To get ready to go? Yes. Is there any specific January date in the sporting world for us? And I think I'm thinking of one, but we're asking that up, right? So it's the Super Bowl, which is actually the 14th. It's the playoff, it's the playoff. But the middle of the wild card game is mid-January. Mid-January. The playoffs start mid-January with the Super Bowl on the 14th. So, 12th. 13th. I've heard 12th and 14th. 12th. I thought it was the 12th. It's the 12th. It's the 12th. Oh, Brad, that's not going to happen again when I get it right. Hold on. I have the Super Bowl for February 12th. Is that what you said? Yeah. You're 100% correct. March 14th is the Madness. Got it. So what I'm not hearing, but hopefully maybe we can address on Tuesday if we decide that we're going to meet is that we would take some type of vote on category three and when they might launch. Well, we have presentation, the scoring process and the vendor licensing as well. I think legal should come forward. Karen, apparently we've got to make sure that Todd gets his plan in front of us, Todd. You can be at the beginning of the discussion. We'll make sure you get that clear and you can let us know what you think your timeframe is. Incorporation was for Karen because it's got to be put together here. Unless you can do it during break. And I'd love that too. That would be a great outcome if there's any kind of communication between Karen and Todd to help us out. But we should come back with a vote for staggered whether we want a January date or a February date. And then we should plan on Tuesday. I want to be able to tell the public what they can expect for a launch of our process. That means we've got some work to do tomorrow for the category three, excuse me. I'm wondering if we could also vote on the putting out the survey because we could put that out ASAP and that may really help. Yeah, well, we absolutely need, I guess we still need to do that as a vote. Chair, I just wanted to clarify. I know I kept saying tomorrow, my brain is a little fragile. We can't meet Tuesday because we can't post the meeting. We go to the emergency meeting. What is an emergency meeting? Okay, sorry. I get paid five days because of the holiday, but it's actually, it would have been awesome. Can we get an emergency meeting on Tuesday before I actually have a little bit of a medical emergency here? Oh, yes, I think we can probably do that. We'll take a look and... Can you take a look during break, please? Yeah, of course. Thank you. And then we would post it for Tuesday morning. It would be basically continuing today's lengthy meeting. Or we can continue to do tonight's meeting into if you want to take a dinner break. I'm willing to work tonight. Commissures? Due to a previous scheduled event, I would not be able to do that, Madam Chair. Okay. Others? I'm around, but I will tell you, I'm gonna need a beer break after all of this. Well, in other words, I guess I'm hearing Crystal say, you don't have a clear answer if Todd could get the answer that we're having that we can use the, what I understand is to be an emergency situation to get our work done pursuant to a statute that was put in front of us on August. Let's make it happen. So, Tuesday can work legally. Crystal, of course, I fully appreciate the work that goes into getting it posted and getting it developed. And Crystal and Jacqueline, you have that green mark of all, green mark of all. So, we'll have a survey. We need to look at the reg. Carrie's gonna send that. We're gonna get the reg out for, and we have to decide it's based on emergency. In my understanding correctly, we have a consensus that it would be real-time input as opposed to delayed input from the public. I'm posting and getting, that's on getting the right, okay? Now, in terms of the app, the application itself, do we need to take more action on that in terms of when we're gonna post it? But you're muted, I mean, thank you. You know what I was gonna do again? I thought we were in a position to take the cleaned up base in our conversation tonight and put that up for comment. Right. Okay, and put it out for comment. Can we post it and just comment simultaneously? What do you mean by that? Just we take it in as it comes? Yeah, I'm fine with that. Simultaneous input. Everybody else okay with that? Got a consensus, we'll need a vote on getting the application out with simultaneous input, public input. And we have the capacity to change things up. We are going to absolutely welcome public input and embrace it and honor it, okay? So that's the survey, the red, the application gets posted and then we have the vote on the staggered and then we have a vote on if we, that's what looks like a consensus building if we decide to go with retail, a date that's acceptable. And then we would have an agreement on if we get the right advice from legal counsel that we would reconvene on Tuesday morning to continue this important meeting. I don't want to speak for the other commissioners, but I think we might be ready to go and make some votes. So you're going to need to ask for a break or are we okay to keep going? Let's... I took my own break because clearly, you know, there was still quite a bit of discussion I needed to be had. So I'm good for now, but I defer to you all. So we should not keep going. We'll keep going then. Okay, Carrie, I don't see it, but do you want to present your changes for us and thank you for your real time input? Of course, I did send it over. I can try sending it again if it didn't come through or I can just pull it up now. I do see it now. I can't believe how many more emails I got. Would you like me to share or? Yes, please. Okay. All right. Okay. Can everyone see that? A little bigger if you don't, thank you. That's good. The size? Yup. Okay. All right. So it looks like there's more redlining here than it really is substantively, but let me just explain what these changes are. So in this first section here one, which of course required submission of the application as put out by the commission by whatever deadlines established by the commission, I've added this section and I'll just read it here that says applicants shall at a minimum submit the following completed forms as part of their application for a category one, category two, or category three sports or during license. So this should lay out all of the components of the application. This first one, the Operator Inventor Scope of Licensing Survey, that's just the official title of the scoping survey or B, that's the official title of the actual application that you discussed today. I don't mean to say actual application, but the application form that you discussed today for C, D and E. And I did speak with Loretta about this as well. These refer back to their requirements on the gaming side for these forms where the requirements would be the same. I'm told from Loretta that their requirements would be the same for the BED, the MJPHD and the supplemental form. And I've just indicated that the BED and this again came from Loretta is for designated entity qualifiers and the other two are for designated individual qualifiers and have also added language at the suggestion of A and K as modified by the commission with respect to sports considering for each one. So if there are any modifications to the forms themselves that would be covered here in this regulation. Any questions on that part? This section two is not new. I just wanted to, it's what was one A, excuse me. So this section just makes it clear that the scope and survey is due first, that it's a prerequisite to all of the other application forms. And then the language is essentially the same, but I've highlighted this administrative and closed language because I just wasn't sure where the commission had landed on that if you wanted to just say that the commission could deem the application incomplete. And I've added this language suggested by commissioner O'Brien without prejudice and correct me if there's more language that needs to be there, but I just wrote exactly what you had said. Right now, myself in the back, it's perfect. So I just wasn't sure on if you wanted to keep this administratively closed phrase or remove that. So that's just one question I have. Jerry, I think that we seem to understand from LaVada and Karen that part one, that is absolutely a part of the application. And if they fail to make it on time, they will no longer be able to proceed in the application process. So I wonder if you don't include something it looks like we go back to the top of saying incomplete. Am I wrong? Did I miss something? The commission, but then there's still some discretion. Did I miss it? There is still some discretion. Are you looking in section one where it says the commission shall have no obligation? Right, which you did bring us up to that earlier. Like I wanted to make sure for this particular survey I do think if everybody else am I mispronouncing it as a consensus that if yes, you don't file on time, you're out. Is that everybody's understanding? So I guess in administratively closed without prejudice to hearing prior to that line. I don't really know what that means. That was the language that Commissioner O'Brien suggested. Because weren't we having a shorter deadline on the survey than the actual application deadline? Yes. The pre-react has a deadline that they don't meet. That they don't meet? We're basically gonna pocket veto it, but they have a window between there and the final application to get it in. We're giving them a little bit of buffer to try to get it in, but we're not gonna prioritize them if they don't get it in in that two weeks. I didn't understand that to be the case. Because aren't we trying to figure out the landscape here and we're using this as a tool? Trying to get it through the door quickly, right? That's what I thought was the... But at the same time, we were trying to give some flexibility to the commission. Right, Commissioner O'Brien? Yeah. And so I think that's why we said, if you missed the first deadline we're deeming you done and closed, you can come back, but you better be ready. You're gonna have to have your app and your survey into us by the time the app is due. That was my understanding of the conversation. So what do we envision by paragraph 10 that provides for an extension of time at the commission's discretion? That language came from the gaming side. We of course don't have to include that. It just was something that was included in the 100th series. No, I think it's good to have it in there. We've got to reconcile that with, you know, the preceding discussion. But that's important. I just understand the survey piece as being a prereq. Yeah. I mean, they will be informed of which BEDs to submit until they could submit the survey. So if they don't hit the survey on time, the only real recourse would be to extend the deadline for applications. And is that, can I guess- You could give yourself that authority, but that's, you know, that's- And that's under 10. That's under 10, but it'd have to be for extraordinary circumstances. Right. I think this extraordinary circumstances, my take on that is if, you know, if you were supposed to file it on Friday at five o'clock and then, you know, all the computers crashed at the company and they said, can we file it Saturday morning? Would we say, yeah, that's fine. Yeah, I get that. Like we have to be human beings and reasonable. So that's sort of that as opposed to, they waited, if they wait two weeks to submit the survey, Loretta can't do the scoping, which means she doesn't get the BEDs, which means you don't get the, you know, she doesn't have the time to do that evaluation. Is the way to cure it then, take off that latter part of number two and just refer people to 10 and say, you will be deemed administrative, the application will be deemed incomplete and administratively closed unless authorization is given pursuant to sub 10. Yeah, that'll work. Yeah. Right here. Open this, I'll fill this in. I know I just gave it to you, but that covers it, right? No, that's... It is a little bit of a tough requirement, but again, I think we had it for two reasons. One, to get the scoping underway and also for us to understand the land. Now, if we don't care about that because we don't, you know, we're just timeframe is endless and it doesn't matter to me that much but it was a tool for us to understand if we're gonna have maybe 35 or 17 or nine. So I like this and in the survey isn't a big lift as I understand it. So we also need, if we accept this language, we also need a date for it to be due. And I think we came up with... I say two weeks, was it one week or two weeks? One week. That's a shorter time period. I think that Karen said it's... So what's the date that you're suggesting? Most of tomorrow would say have it due next Friday. All right. Okay, is there any more discussion in terms of the language? So that's really tight for the companies. Maybe he needs to give them that weekend. It gives them the five business days, so the 17th. Yep. Can I just walk through the rest of the changes here? Yeah, I think that's what Commissioner Maynard had recommended to give them that extra weekend. Okay. So it'd be done, just so I'm clear, it'd be done Monday the 17th. Right. Yes. Yep, thank you. And we would have some good insight on that landscape. And then the red end team can get work underway. Okay. Question, will this survey and, quite frankly, the regulation that is promulgated or that we vote on tonight, will that be distributed to the operators, potential operators, at least those who were, those who submitted a notice of intent? We have that list. And I'll work with Mills and Marianne about getting that information out and asking me. I think that's a good idea. Absolutely. And for the regulation, Commissioner Skinner, we can get this posted ASAPL once you've voted on it so that we can begin to receive comment. The regulation. Yeah, what I'm also suggesting is that it be included in the, with the survey that will be distributed, as Karen just mentioned, to the potential operators. Or again, at least the folks who are, who submitted NOIs. I just want to make sure the survey says on it, it is part of the application, that language needs to be added out to the survey. In terms of getting out the reg, as long as she can do her, as long as she can get it out tomorrow, otherwise, would it be okay if the regs followed somehow? I just am trying to keep us moving. Yeah, that's fine. But there shouldn't be any added steps in the process. If we're sending the survey to those folks, why wouldn't, I mean, it should be simple to include a copy of the reg as well. Just thinking about the team, Makisha, just thinking about the team in terms of getting everything lined up. Any other questions on the language? So sorry, my computer just crashed. So I'm just at Todd's computer and I was just going to pull the reg back up in case you wanted to walk through the rest of the changes, but it just took me one second. That's telling. Oh, geez. Should I, do you want me to make a motion, Madam Chair, to keep it moving in terms of the due date? Oh, we need this motion on the survey first? Yeah. Madam Chair, I move that the commission approve the operator and vendor scope of licensure survey. I'm missing a line in here. Initial survey. And that the due date be set by close of business October 17th, 2022. Friendly amendment, could we say scoping survey? Initial scoping survey? Scoping. Certainly. Second. Any questions on that? And you've got the date. All right. Michelle Bryan? Aye. Chair Hill? Aye. Commissioner Skinner? Aye. Commissioner Mayer? Aye. And I vote yes. 5-0. OK. Now, we've got, perhaps we can open up our own. Do you want to share it again, Carrie? I've got it. Yep. Sorry about that. OK. So moving on at section three here, I've just made it clear that this section is talking about the form, titles, application for category one, two, and three, sports, leisure, and operator license. This is the section that has the different categories that are covered on the form. And I've also added the diversity, equity, and inclusion section here as the scrolling down. This is what you were discussing earlier as number four here. I've just added that the Commission may request supplemental information from an applicant at any time prior to its issuance of a decision on an application. Of course, open to any other suggested language there, but I was just going for the sentiment that you had expressed that you wanted the ability to request supplemental information. And I'll scroll down. On the public records piece, and I know that you're still discussing this as well, so this does have a May, but I just here made it clear that we are talking about the form, titles, application for category one, two, and three, sports, leisure, and operator license, given that application now includes several forms. Good with that. Anybody else have questions around that? If you could put that. OK. Hearing no objection. I'm sorry. Hearing no objection, let's go on to 10. Thank you. Of course. And then the last piece, I just made this plural here, given that we're talking about several different forms that are part of the application, and that they may have different deadlines, that they will have different headlines, I should say, given the scope of service. Any other questions? Any further questions? OK. I'll need a motion then, if we're going to move on to spread. Happy to move. Do we have any discussion on emergency? Or should I move it? Is there anybody who objects to it being on the emergency basis? I do. Let's go for it. All right. I'll do it all as one for this, for the expediency sake on this. Madam Chair, I move that the commission approved the Small Business Impact Statement and the amended draft 205-CMR 211, as discussed and edited here today, as included in the commissioner's packet. And further the staff be authorized to take the steps necessary to file the required documentation with the Secretary of the Commonwealth by emergency and thereafter. To begin the regulation promulgation process, I further move staff be authorized to modify chapter or section numbers or titles to file additional regulation sections as reserved or to make any other administrative changes as necessary to execute the regulation promulgation process. Second. Any further discussion? OK. Hearing none, Mr. President. Aye. Mr. Enkel. Aye. Mr. Stinner. Aye. And Mr. Maynard. Aye. And I vote yes. 5-0. Thank you. Carrie. Thank you for that. We took care of that business. Now we're on to the application itself. Thank you, Carrie, for leading us to the application. We did not get through the scoring process. We will need a reg on the application review process. Is it permissible for us to approve a reg on the application and post the application without having that reg in place? Councillor Gerson, is there any kind of big risk attached to that? And I'm turning also, I don't know, if Dave Mackey is still available on process. Mr. Mackey had to leave the meeting. But no, I don't believe there's any risk associated with posting this Republic comment at this point and moving forward in that fashion. We'd be posting the app, too, like getting the application itself out. Yeah. No, I think that's perfectly OK. So what's the scenario? What's the scenario? Excuse me. Sorry. I believe the question is, can the application be posted for public comment prior to the regulation being adopted formally? And I think the answer to that question is yes. The statute supports, of course, that there be an application and that it contains certain information. The regulation is designed just to kind of really clarify some of those points and make sure everyone is on complete notice as to what will be in there. But I think it's perfectly acceptable to move forward as discussed here. And when you say adopted formally, is that the filing of the Secretary of the Convalesce office? Well, I think either that and the final adoption, I think either way. I see. Got it. Thank you. So did I have a motion on adopting the application as presented with the amendments that we discussed today? And do we? And do we want to post what we're posting for comment through our meeting on the 13th? Is that my understanding? Or do you want me to restrict to the application with the understanding that be posted consistent with our discussions today? Great. OK. Madam Chair, I move that the Commission approve the sports waging operator application form as included in the commissioner's packet and discussed and edited here today and further that it be posted for public comment consistent with the commission's discussions today. We have a second. Second. Other questions? Commissioner Maynard, do you have a question? I can't find my new button, Eileen. Commissioner Maynard, do you have a question? I will table up to it. No. Commissioner Skinner, do you have any questions or no questions? Chair. OK. All right. Commissioner Maynard. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. And I vote yes. Thank you. OK. Now we're looking at the question around staggered launch date. I would like to preface this with that. I heard clearly that in our room, and we've heard from around the country that it's not unusual to have a staggered date and post retail first. I also heard that there was at least one or two entities that came forward in front of us that are requested at the meeting to say they did not favor that. They do think that there's an equity issue with that. And I want to make sure that that's on the record. I am concerned that the equity problem grows more we extend out category three licenses. And so at a certain point in time, I am going to assume that we will have a timeline that takes into consideration that the gap needs to be somewhat reflective of that and also the associated work because on this compressed aggressive deadline, we were launching them in February on this compress. So how much time after this February day do we need? And I would love the answer to that on Tuesday. And get the team so that everybody is on board. No one feels stressed, but it's got to be realistic. It's got to be realistic. I do. I personally, I don't know if anyone else cares about the equity. I care about equity with respect to small companies. And I care about equity across the board. So that question was raised. I heard and I'm fine with the staggered launch, but I will be very concerned. I take that vote today. And I see that we're thinking months after. So you're putting me in. I want to be unnoticed. I am uncomfortable, but I am trusting right now. We can delay the date. Does everybody understand what my point is? Because I know I'm tired. I understand at your point, Madam Chair, and I agree with it. And for that reason, perhaps we should consider holding off on the timeline vote for retail to be able to do that at the same time, just to make sure that there is not too much time in between. If we vote on a date in February for retail today, but then the team comes back on Tuesday and they say, and I'm throwing out a date, they say April 15th is as soon as we can get it done. That might create inequity. Madam Chair. Commissioner. I am as concerned as you are, and I did express my concerns earlier in the meeting that there was a few hours ago, very similar that I'm worried that we won't run through the tape if we get this set up. I look at it slightly different, Commissioner Skinner, in that I think I'm willing to take this vote to put pressure on myself, fellow commissioners in this organization, to get the category three running quick after the category one and twos are up. So, I mean, I think we're saying the same thing. It's just a matter of how we would go about it. Mr. Hill. Oh, you're talking to somebody. Oh, I caught you. Sorry. Are you talking to your dog? I'll take Commissioner Hill's turn. Just what Commissioner Skinner just said, I would also caution that, you know, to just be mindful that in putting pressure on ourselves as commissioners, we are also putting pressure on staff, which may be undue. I'll be short, sweet Madam Chair. I'm hoping that we take a vote on the staggered launch, and I hope that we put a date in with it, or at least a timeframe in with it. And I have no problem doing that. And that's on the retail now, Brad, Commissioner Hill, I'm asking, I'd like to be able to have a date for the launch, the universal launch, and I'm presuming that we would think it'd be universal and not rolling based on our input that we've received on the category three, and then I'm going to have some assurances around the timeframe, the delta between the retail, because I don't want it to be on Tuesday. Well, actually, we need an extended amount of time. Sterl, I'm going to hold. I've got just my commissioners. That's all I'm dealing with right now, commissioners. Yeah, I'm still concerned we're not going to be hitting women. And I want to put something, I want to vote on something to set a certain goal, if you will, for March 14, for our category three licensees, for all the reasons that we've already talked about all day today. Commissioners. Rhetorate what Commissioner Maynard said. I said that this earlier, but I'll say it again, which is I'm comfortable with staggered. I'm comfortable setting a marker out consistent with what we talked about in terms of the Super Bowl for category one. Category three, I agree. We don't want to let it linger. I think we move expeditiously. My caveat is we don't know what our timeline is going to be till we get the applications in. So I think we're in a bit of a tough situation. I would love to be able to say that date in March, Commissioner Hill, but I for one, I'm not willing to box myself in because I just don't know how many we're going to get. Again, the compressed timeframe actually got us to actually make a decision for Super Bowl on the category three. It was compressed with some risk I heard, you know, on the applicants. There's also risk associated with our own, which I know that we have to talk about that process, but it was at least 60 days for us to read to you about. If you can make some point about the number of these, well, Madam Chair. And I do think, I do think, and I think we were, we're planning on this that we, we could revisit that March date, should we get flooded at 30? And maybe we could compromise and say, you know what, we will, we'll shoot for that March date so that everybody stays on their eyes on the prize. And we continue to work at a reasonable, but I'm going to use a aggressive timeline so that we're meeting at the cadence that's, we're expected to meet for this implementation of this So could we at least say that rather than waiting, could we say we're shooting for March and understand that if it becomes clear that they, they're overwhelmed and that may be a great thing to be, you know, in abundance of riches, right? That we have to say, you know what? We're moving that date a little bit. Could we, could we flip it, Michelle? I'm just not comfortable giving us hard date on that because of the uncertainty of the number, but I leave it to anyone to make the motion. I'm happy to make the staggered versus simultaneous to get rid, get that out of the queue. And then if someone wants to make date recommendations, that's fine. Commissioner Maynard and Commissioner Hill and Commissioner Skinner, would you be comfortable if we were to vote today, stand up retail by that, you know, February, whatever date Super Bowl is before, so I guess the area is that we'd love for betters to have the opportunity to bet and Massachusetts at least have retail. Would you be willing to say that we also are looking for category three to be stood up by March Madness with an understanding that we might need to move that should we be fighting unexpectedly with applications? I would only offer that to say before March Madness. Before March Madness. That could be our target. And if we, you know, if we don't get it, we don't get it, but Commissioner Hill, what do you think? I'd be okay with that. Commissioner Skinner. I would only be okay with voting on the date for launch of the category one operators. By date, certain at this point. And I think I must have missed the discussion relative to what date that is being proposed right now, you know, to date in February, but what date? Karen, what would that date be? Prior to February 12th. Yeah, so you've got to give them the couple of days in case they need to work out something. So I would say the latest date, February 10th. That gives it on a Friday. And then they would have the weekend, you know, for patrons. And in that case, I would refer back to earlier discussion around the legal piece of this timeline. It's very much intertwined category one and category three because the regulations would be the same. Well, there are certain regulations that only apply to category three. In terms of the technical regulations, how do you improve controls, the house rules, those would all, you know, all category operators would be the same. And there's some additional. So I'm gonna hold then on the time for today on March. I think maybe, I mean, I can take a moment to make a motion if we're going to have a consensus that we're comfortable knowing that retail could be stood up and category three licenses could be hung out for a while without really any kind of guidance to them. How are we feeling about that? I'm not feeling great about it. I think we can do better. If I had my brothers, I would make a motion that included a March date as a goal, I would insert that term for category three. And I don't know if I have a good conscience vote, just stand up on part of the house without thinking about the second part of the house. Didn't we agree to allow Todd and his team to go back and review their timeline to see what is reasonable to put forward and come back before us on Tuesday? That's why I would use the word goal, Commissioner Skinner. And if he told us we couldn't hit the goal, then obviously the vote was symbolic. And everybody waits, right? I'm trying to give, I know that we don't meet daily because of the open meeting law. And I'm trying to give some direction to the team about a majority consensus of where the commission is. That's all I'm thinking. Again, I have no problem making a motion on staggered versus simultaneous and then we can have a separate motion on dates and I have no problem voting no on a date that I'm not ready to commit to. But Madam Chair, if you want to hold on the dates, we can- We should hold on the dates because my fear that we make a date today and everybody's been listening. We've been really attuned to setting retail up. But we haven't really addressed the rest of the timeline. And I just want to make sure that the equity piece is addressed somehow with some degree of certainty. I don't want retail to get going. Let's be clear. I feel like we either vote on staggered versus simultaneous and we move it out and close out the meeting. I just feel like I don't know that we're going to make any headway beyond where we are right now in today's meeting. Well, I'll allow that to happen. But Commissioner O'Brien, the conversation has extended today and I appreciate that we're all working hard to keep things moving along. So I guess we can't convene tomorrow and that was a day that we could also consider. Can we extend? Yeah, you had mentioned, Kathy, extending this meeting into Tuesday. We're closing out. Well, like tomorrow, can you theoretically take a break for eight, nine, 10, 12 hours and then come back? I just don't know. I'm going to have to ask Todd whether that's an option. What do we call that? Recessing? Right. I think that's an option. We were just starting to look into that, whether you just recess this meeting until one of the holidays tomorrow or Tuesday, as opposed to reposting it. And or we have taken a look at the emergency provisions and we could possibly just post an emergency meeting notice even tonight if the inclination is to meet tomorrow. An emergency is actually a defined term under the open meeting law. So just before we even go down that road, I have a medical appointment in the morning. I wouldn't be available until 1030 at the earliest. And then I can go after that, but that we I wouldn't be available until 1030. And I can do it all day if we wanted to come in tomorrow. So I do think it is doable. As long as everyone is comfortable that this is an emergency situation, which is a sudden, generally unexpected occurrence or a set of circumstances demanding immediate action. And based upon the conversation, I think that this would fall into that category. But I think the other piece of it is that this might just be a scenario where we can adjourn for today and continue the already noticed meeting tomorrow or a later day. So we would move to recess till like 11 o'clock tomorrow morning, October 7th at 11 o'clock, is that sufficient? I don't think we would adjourn because then we would be adjourning the meeting or we can recess the meeting till a date, sir. Susan has to stay and keep the frame going all night long. Well, I have to wear the same clothes. What is the objective of our outfits tomorrow? Okay. So what is the objective in the meeting? Finish up our work, finish up our work. But I thought the point was to give Todd and his team at the risk of being repetitive here, an opportunity to go back to review their timeline to see what it is that they could offer us in the way of a deadline for category one and a deadline for category three launch to shoot for. So us convening tomorrow morning at 11 o'clock or 10 30 doesn't allow... I'm gonna refrain it, I need to turn to the executive director. She'll work with her legal team, she'll work with the finance team, she's gonna work with everyone and then they're gonna come back to address what's on our agenda. I can't, I don't really want this to be driven by one member of the team versus another. I have to honor executive director Wiles and if anyone wants to disagree with me, we'll just shift and we'll make it a different agenda item. I did ask that Council Grossman work with Karen to be ready for that discussion, but I don't know if I think that I really wanna honor our executive director's role. We are going to convene tomorrow, I would not be available before noon. Okay, well we have a majority and we have at least three of us who can meet at nine. Okay, we've done a medical review Okay, we've done a medical appointment. I'm gonna honor that and now it's up to, from 11 now it's moved to noon. So fine with me. So fine with me. Commissioner Maynard, is it good with you? Okay. Yep, I did. Okay, team, thank you for your patience. We're going to recess this meeting, we're gonna reconvene tomorrow at noon Karen, does that work for you? Yeah, I will figure something out. Yep. I'll have to res, I'll have, never mind. I'll have to go back to work. The truth is important, just make more sense for everybody to really be productive. I'm concerned about pushing this forward and not being as productive as we could be, especially given the executive director's answer right there. I feel like she's, and it's a long day. I think she must have something personal on her calendar. But maybe helpful, maybe potentially I can do it by phone, block of time, that might be helpful. But I do recognize, and this is where I'm going back to look at the timeline. There are certain things on the agenda today, particularly the discussion of how the commission is going to evaluate the applications. The team needs that input in order to draft the regs. So going forward with that would be helpful. In addition, the decisions on the vendor licensing is very helpful in moving things forward. What might be helpful, because I recognize that we want the legal team to do that. Maybe we could potentially exclude most of the legal team and put them on call and have them come back so we can do both simultaneously in the interest of efficiency. Because I would really like to move forward here. So what is the plan, Karen? Could we do the meeting tomorrow, please? And you're okay, because I could see that it looks like you have a personal update. Yeah, that's all right, I will figure it out. Why don't we make it Tuesday? No, no, don't do that for me, Kathy, please. Please don't. I wonder if it benefits everybody to do Tuesday. Well, it's just Karen. I can do tomorrow, absolutely. But is there anything else we can add to the agenda in the interim too, to make Tuesday even more productive? Well, my concern is that we actually will need Tuesday in addition to Tuesday. I'm very concerned about the rate of our decision-making. I am very concerned about it. I'm concerned about our ability to move forward. So we have time before the personal time on the calendar and where all five of us could get together. Could we essentially move it back a little is what I'm looking at, or was that? I'm sorry. I'm trying to see what, I'm not a scheduler. Let me say that first. I can't remember when Commissioner O'Brien and Commissioner Skinner- But on that end, when the Commissioner Skinner- 1030, I'm not available to 1030 and Commissioner Skinner's not available until noon, so. Okay. I would like to try to get Karen out before- I know we're on- I have no other commitment tomorrow. I'm hearing medical appointment and I'm hearing, Commissioner Skinner, you've got something. We can convene it at noon and it might be a full afternoon. And I would say that we should probably plan on figuring out that we might need, I don't know. We've got quite a bit of work ahead of us, so. Tuesday isn't looking so great for us either unless we get going. Okay, let's plan on convening then at noon, Karen, if that works for you. Yes. I think what I didn't really understand was how you were defining things up. I'm sorry, I just, I couldn't. So I just need to have, are you going to be available at noon tomorrow? Yes. And if legal is doing something else, I guess I just need to know. I know that legal generally has all the lawyers on for all the meetings, so let me talk with them to make, we may be able to break off a piece so they can do more. So just to be clear, Madam Chair, we will not be taking a vote on tonight anyways, on starting our retail in January and then a possible category three opening sometime after that. We're going to wait. Commissioner Hill, I would have maybe entertained that, but it went from January to February. And my concern is that now that is, that we're starting to create a really big gap as to getting to our category three. The proposal went from a staggered start in January, which then would give us February to work on getting the other business, because that's kind of the timetable Karen had out. We're pushing everything down, which I understand. My concern is I don't have really any ability to judge how far out this, you know, and honestly, we may override the team. We may override the team because that's our job. Our job is to implement sports, weight training and the commonwealth, but I don't want to do that. I really need to be informed. And it means being, you know, I'm not saying nobody wants to do that, right? No one wants to do that, but I just need some more. But we've gone from a January proposal date now to February, you know, Karen may be able to get a little bit more clarity between now and tomorrow on that. Then we could have that full-out time. I'm happy to take the staggered vote on just the staggered vote right now, but not a date. You know, let's everybody else wants a date. Then it's fine. I'd perfectly move on staggered versus simultaneous without a date. That's fine. Madam Chair. I think I'm okay with that. Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Go ahead. I think I'm okay with that, but I think at some point tomorrow, I would be making a motion for some dates. I'm beginning either yes or no one. I mean, it's, we don't always have to be five-zero. I know we like to be, but I think we can overnight think about it some more and then tomorrow I would be prepared to make a motion for some dates. If it fails, it fails. Yeah, I actually think in the absence of dates, I'm not really sure how I feel about taking the vote. If our meeting anyways, we might as well have the vote with tomorrow was what I'm thinking. I'm happy to make it. If I don't get a second, I don't get a second and we can do it tomorrow. I would move that the commission vote to approve staff to proceed with a staggered retail and mobile launch process. I have a second. I think beyond me probably to think about this overnight and well, I think I do think we have a consensus in terms of why we think retail being stood up makes a great deal of sense. I just think we're just stuck on the dates right now. Okay. We can do it again tomorrow. Do it again tomorrow, a little recess until noon tomorrow. Thank you everyone. A lot of great input and I appreciate every word so much. Thank you. Bye. Bye.