 And we're good to go okay. Good morning. It's a convening of the Massachusetts gaming commission We're holding this meeting virtually, so we will do a real call Good morning commissioner Brian, I am here. Good morning Okay, can everybody hear me? Okay. Am I echoing? No Okay, good. Good morning commissioner Hill. Good morning here. Good morning commissioner Skinner Arning and good morning commissioner Hill Good morning, okay So We have a set of minutes to turn to first up. I should just do the column. It is October everyone and it feels like The summer months that we miss so hopefully folks can enjoy October 2nd and it's meeting Number 481 and we have minutes to turn to good morning commissioner Mayer Thank you, madam chair And I do have to apologize out front. I'm having some audio issues this morning That said we do have a set of minutes from February 14th Madam chair, I move that the commission approve the minutes from the February 14th 2023 public meeting that are included in the commissioner's packet subject to any Necessary corrections for typographical errors or other non-material matters Second Thanks, commissioner. Okay any edits comments excellent job commissioner bryan I commissioner hill I The commissioner Skinner I And commissioner Maynard I All right. Thank you. We'll turn to interim executive director Grossman you'd have an administrative update for us Yes, thank you and good morning, madam chair commissioners and to our team and all who are joining We do have Two matters we would like to present to you here this morning first, you'll be hearing from Bernice was one day our senior DEI program manager as well as Dave Muldrew who of course is our chief people and diversity officer relative to a Workforce and supplier diversity audit that is underway. I'd like to offer you a high-level overview of that matter And then secondly, you'll be hearing from caro bryan Who is of course our chief license a chief of our licensing division who will talk a little bit about an rfi That is in the works relative to an update of our licensing system So without further ado, if I may beniso, I'd like to turn things over to you if you'd like to jump in On the audit. Good morning to you Thank you. Good morning. Yes. So we are currently in the process of completing and working through a workforce and supplier diversity audit with the our licensees that includes on core ppc and mgm We've already had successful virtual kickoff meetings with all three of those licensees We've completed two out of the three in-person interviews We had to delay the mgm one due to their issues with their cyber security, but that Meet in a schedule for this friday So that will conclude that after that The audit is set up in three phases the introduction three phase were those kickoffs The phase number two is the planning phase in which our auditing team will go in and and do the testing And they will start drafting their reports and then the final phase of that is to deliver The reports to us. So as of right now On court and ppc are in phase two mgm because of their issues are still in phase one But we are very hopeful that everything will still remain on schedule And hopefully complete by mid november Excellent questions commissioners In commissioner skinner, I know that you've been working with this team any comments you want to add No, i'm bonnie sweat. Thank you. That was an excellent update. I just wanted to add to that that We've got some great participation From the licensees they are receptive. They are cooperative and we expect that that will continue going forward commissioner Any other Question excellent work. We look forward to the next update. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Dave Absolutely. Thank you Okay, thank you both Yeah, so now let's let's pivot right over to uh, cara. There she is and good morning cara Good morning. Uh, and good morning, madam chair and commissioners. I just wanted to Let the commission know that we have posted the rfi uh for a new licensing system as a reminder we are At a unique point where we are currently using multiple systems across the agency And so what the division of licensing has done is met with various stakeholders throughout The various groups that use our licensing system to Determine what our best path forward is so that we can have One system across the agency that it's user friendly And really supports our processes going forward And so as a preliminary step what we've done is we have posted a request for information and combines In order to get a better understanding of the technology that's available to us should we Decide to move forward in Whatever vein whether upgrading or that sort of thing Uh, and so, uh, the questions are due by october 10th and the responses are due Uh by october 30th at 3 p.m. And we're looking forward to Evaluating all of those responses questions commissioners I see All set Excellent work. And I know commissioner may turn and commissioner skinner. You've been working with Cara in support of this effort anything you want to add Nothing to add just that care has been doing a great job and um, been taking the feedback that we have And integrating it into the process Okay and commissioner skinner Who's commissioner skinner Just I am not seeing commissioner skinners No I think we lost it She'll join back Let's just see Yeah, okay, well um I'm going to take a Yield to commissioner skinner For comments later, but commissioner Maynard has indicated that that you've all worked together nicely cara. Thank you. And I am Very appreciative of the approach you're taking By using the rfi tool. I think it's very Um, smart and a great use of A great way to use our resources most effectively and efficiently going forward. So thank you Good work Todd Well, thank you cara. Uh, thank you for the opportunity. I think we've covered the the matters I wanted to hit I'm happy to address any other issues Any of the commissioners would like to discuss but otherwise the madam chair commissioners. That's all I had for you this morning Any questions for Todd now Consures or anything that you want for an administrative update. I know we have our agenda saying Meeting next week, but if there's anything you want to hear from Todd on or his team on for a next meeting Okay Madam chair You're back commissioners. Yeah, I I'm having some connectivity issues suddenly So I'm I'm making my way back on video. Um, as soon as I can get reconnected Okay, um, we can hear you clearly and I just um, I I don't know if you got a chance to hear Cara's full report, but commissioner may not have weighed in. Um, and I just asked if you had anything else you wanted to add No, I'm I'm good. Nothing else to add. I appreciate the update. I didn't hear it in full, but I was in touch with, um John Scully about the status of that, uh, posting. So I'm okay I'm I'm on my phone so I can hear you. Okay, and I'm glad you can hear me Um, it'll just take me a minute to get back on to my computer Yeah, and we can hear you clearly. Thanks All right, we'll move on then to a legislative update, uh, both Grace Robinson and commissioner hill. Do you have anything for us today as We navigate these matters So I the only update I would have is that the legislature starting with the house last uh, we Started um, overriding some of the vetoes that the governor had put forth But none of the overrides dealt with anything that we are concerned with Um, the section that deals with the abcc is still um Out there for consideration from the legislature. So we'll keep an eye on that And I think we talked about the issue of a list that we're putting together in our little subcommittee Um, that we had talked about that during agenda setting In the last meeting so Once again, anybody has any ideas or any changes that they would like to talk about within their department or Of course commissioners let us know and some people have reached out Um, but our little subcommittees going nice and strong to for that letter that we had talked about a couple weeks ago But that would be about all I think you'd need to know today unless grace has something else Nothing to add Thank you, madam. Jim Okay, excellent. We'll move right on then to um Our ieb we have a series of uh, updates and addressing issues The first matter I do believe we Are being requested to take action commissioners and we're going right back to chief o'Brien Well, you're wrong new I'm on you You think we would I would get used to that so we actually have a On core boston harbour has requested an amendment to their beverage license regarding red aid and licensing manager Dave mckay has actually prepared the materials for you today But we will be asking for a vote on that Good morning, Dave. Hi. Good morning, madam chair and commissioners It's nice to see you. Um first of all you as well I haven't seen you in real life to properly congratulate you on being a new dad Oh, thank you so much. Um And also that it looks like you've been able to restore your office space. You were hit Hard there Dave and Looks hopefully you didn't lose too many personal items Or uh, we're doing okay, but uh, thank you for the kind words and My my son officially was two months old yesterday. So we're Rock rocking and rolling And rolling pretty soon, but not too soon. Yeah, that's a milestone two months. Congratulations. Oh, thank you Appreciate it. Um, as as karah mentioned, we have a beverage amendment request coming from on core boston harbour They've applied to amend their gaming beverage license to update the licensed area description for red aid to include a portable bar The division of licensing has reviewed this application and recommends its approval The scope of our review included verification pertaining to the licensed area manager Chelsea bruster and a walkthrough inspection was performed by lewis lasano i e b casino regulatory manager This inspection Confirms the accuracy of the reported information and the application by on core boston harbour as well as the Licensed area surveillance and security I'd also like to note. We worked with juliana catens already executive director of legal on core boston harbour to obtain the necessary information to develop this request and i'm happy to try and answer any questions that you may have and I believe lewis is on the call as well in addition to karah and As karah mentioned, we are asking you to vote on this matter With the recommendation for approval Madam chair. Yes Dave or lewis, can you i'm having a little um Brain cramp what area we're talking about here? This this is red eight It's it has to do with a um portable bar, right dave Correct. Yes, right If that's helpful commissioner hill, I had to go back and look reread the papers to remind myself that it's a portable bar That requires all the um, of course inspections for surveillance And storage etc Have you had a chance to review the materials? the Both materials are in the packet and there was one document outside the packet. Yeah, perfect. I got it now Okay, thank you Other questions for dave. Um, lewis is here Um, lewis are you you've had the opportunity to do all the inspections that are necessary, correct? Uh, yes, that's correct madam chair And no concerns around storage or surveillance Right commissioners Commissioner skinner you're back. You see you clearly Yes, thank you, and I'm ready to move if my fellow commissioners are as well Okay, go right ahead commissioner skinner I move that the commission approve encore boston harvors application to amend its gaming beverage license to update the red eight licensed area to include A portable bar as included in the commissioner's packet and discussed here today Okay Any further questions discussion edits? All right, commissioner brian commissioner hill I Commissioner skinner I commissioner maynard. All right All right, and I vote yes Excellent work five zero Thank you. And uh lack of questions is a good sign dave Very clear. Thank you very much Memorandum, thank you so much Okay now, um We're going to move uh to item five b and The titles ieb report on branding relationship between penn sports interactive and bar still sports and bar still college football show and um Zach mercer enforcement council will be leading this discussion There has been some question, but um, I I'm not sure If in or when we would need an executive session, but executive session The option of moving into an executive session is reserved here um To the extent that the commission decides that it's necessary and wishes to to so move So I guess we can turn right to zack. Good morning. Good morning chair. Good morning commissioners Thank you. So obviously this is in regard to the reports submitted to the commission by the ieb The ieb report submitted to the commission explores the marketing relationship between penn entertainment inc penn plain plainville gaming redevelopment dba plain rich park casino ppc Penn sports interactive lc psi and barstool sports inc, uh, which we'll refer to here is barstool ppc holds a temporary category one sports way during operators license And psi holds a temporary category three sports way during operators license This report discussed the following two conditions of those licenses one The psi must make efforts to ensure that those 21 and older attend all live events conducted by the barstool college football show And two that psi must cooperate with the ieb and conducting a fulsome investigation of barstool sports inc In connection with its branding of penn sports interactive inc psi and ppc are both subsidiaries of penn entertainment Barstool is a sports and entertainment media company founded in 2003 by david portnoy Barstool maintains a website barstoolsports.com Featuring blog posts podcasts multiple youtube shows live events and other branded content Barstool's branding extends to different personalities to promote the band on the brand on various social media channels Barstool currently holds a non gaming vendor registration with the mgc And is registered and licensed in some in some capacity by seven different jurisdictions including massachusetts Turning to the penn barstool relationship, which began on february 20th 2020 From that date to august 8th 2023 penn maintained an ownership interest in barstool On february 20th 2020 penn made an initial investment of 163 million dollars in barstool Acquiring 36 percent of barstool sports inc Then on february 17th 2023 penn acquired the remaining interest in barstool for approximately 388 million dollars The ieb reviewed materials provided by penn detailing their organizational chart following their acquisition of barstool Penn owned ppsi ppc and barstool through subsidiaries The relationship between barstool psi and ppc was to provide marketing and media content for those entities penn's acquisition of barstool did not change penn's penn's board of directors penn's reporting structure Dictated that barstool ceo erica ayers then reported directly to penn ceo j snowden Barstool founder mr. Portnoy's interest in barstool converted to a mixture of cash and penn stock When penn acquired 100 percent of barstool mr. Portnoy's role at barstool also changed penn explained that portnoy's role moved into one of developing and overseeing content Mr. Portnoy was then subject to a loanout agreement an agreement allowing him to essentially work as an independent contractor for the branch In describing the nature of mr. Portnoy's role penn highlighted an incident involving the termination of a barstool personality penn mince Mr. Mince or also commonly referred to as mincey on may 1st 2023 specifically penn terminated mr. Mince following his use of the n-word on a live barstool broadcast On may 3rd 2023 mr. Portnoy published a video on twitter stating that he disagreed with penn's decision However, it wasn't his decision to make penn referred to this statement and incident as indicative of mr. Portnoy's lack of authority within barstool's management figure On june 5th 2023 however on an episode of the barstool rundown podcast Mr. Portnoy made reference to his involvement in content contract and salary negotiations with another barstool employee jeff nidoo Due to these public statements the iub inquired with penn as to how they reconciled mr. Portnoy's statements With their position that he had no management role In response penn reiterated that mr. Portnoy lacked control Or influence and that he had no corporate authority to act on mr. Nidoo's employment relationship with barstool Shortly after the iub's inquiry into these management roles penn announced a new partnership with espn Which will be discussed in greater detail later today penn also announced the sale of barstool back to mr. Portnoy on that date Following the vestiture of penn's interest in barstool penn continues to use the name barstool sportsbook And we'll do and we'll do so until it transitions to espn Bet later this fall, which has been represented to likely be in november Turning back to the marketing relationship between psi and barstool as stated earlier barstool content covers a wide range of topics The branding on the digital sportsbook product for psi is barstool sportsbook Until recently the physical sportsbook location at pbc was also branded as such penn identified certain barstool programs that were either gambling focused or contained barstool sportsbook advertising Advertisements for the barstool sportsbook were also present on the barstool sports website and at pbc Barstool reported that it treated psi in the same manner as other advertisers and that penn's purchase did not change the editorial focus of barstool Both penn and barstool stated that as the parent company penn had the ultimate say in the direction of content However, despite that authority penn stated that their intent was to allow barstool autonomy in that area during their ownership Penn reported that there was no specific barstool compliance plan in regard to content However, penn indicated that the barstool sports employee handbook And penn's compliance training presentation materials contained the primary compliance plan for barstool's content while under the ownership of penn Penn intended the handbook and the training materials to be its quote-unquote guardrails for employees And content to abide by the regulations governing its licensure and various jurisdictions Relevant to this investigation the handbook covers personal gambling policy is responsible gaming and rampant content The handbook required barstool employees to comply comply with all orders decisions requests and opinions and regulators All barstool employees were required to complete gaming trainings regardless of their particular focus within the brand This was conducted through a penn personnel described as a frequently updated training presentation The most recent training presentation provided to the IEB by penn was updated may 26 2022 The training detailed off limits gambling content such as discussing gambling as a means to make money Encouraging reckless reckless wagering appeals to minors or the inclusion of minors in gambling content Producing content while under the influence of drugs or alcohol using written profanity and sexually explicit content The training also covered responsible gaming obligations Advising against the use of certain language or referring to illegal operators or bookies The training also prohibited unwelcome over the top or unnecessarily repetitive personal remarks including discussing physical features The harassment guidelines of the training Go on to went on to advise employees not to incite harassment by barstool fans And an additional focus was placed on political content setting the regard the regulatory requirements for both penn and barstool The handbook notes the violations of company policies may Result in disciplinary action or termination This specifically highlighted the conduct by barstool by employees that jeopardizes licensure regulatory approval Barstool did not have a formal progressive discipline policy in each case was taken on by its own facts As part of barstool's marketing relationship with penn some waiters were promoted directly on barstool's digital platform While many barstool employees became penn employees during penn's ownership of barstool Some barstool personalities were contracts subject to loan-out agreements as referred to earlier These are grab the agreements establish a relationship between barstool and a company that loans out the talent of barstool for the content creating services Barstool contributors such as mr. Courtney and dan katz another prominent contributor Were subject to such agreements along with various professional athletes associated with barstool content production Penn provided 13 loan-out agreements for the ieb to review Because a portion of the media promotion that was originating from these talents and barstool personalities Who were subject to loan-out agreements? They were signed a full-time barstool employee who had access to their personal social media accounts To ensure compliance with the aforementioned penn guard rails The second condition that this investigation covered are the measures taken to ensure the barstool college football show was only attended by individuals 21 and over The barstool college football show is a web series that discusses ncAA men's football The show features various barstool personalities and heirs during the college football season In past seasons the show has been on on occasion been broadcast from various locations including college campuses For example on november 22nd 2022 the barstool college football show was broadcast before a live audience in ohio from the campus of the university of Toledo During that broadcast there was an advertisement for the barstool sportsbook The ohio casino control commission subsequently determined that because this event was open to university at Toledo campus There were likely individuals below 21 present As a result of this event PSI entered into a settlement agreement with the ohio casino control commission for a monetary fine of $250,000 PSI also agreed to ensure that no sportsbook advertisements would appear on campus Nor would it permit individuals under the age of 21 to attend live events IV investigators commuted communicated with penn representatives regarding proposed safeguards for the barstool college football show on several occasions Penn discussed potential options. However, no formal plan was in place at the time of penn's divestiture barstool in august of 2023 Following the the barstool divestiture penn reported it will no longer be involved in the barstool college football show Nor would it be involved in the decision? The barstool's decision to offer the show in the future Barstool has held the barstool college football show in studio and on location since the divestiture The show was broadcast live from the University of Alabama on september 9th 2023 and is scheduled to have additional on location broadcast throughout the 2023 season As noted penn announced their new relationship with penn on august 8th 2023 Penn sold 100 of barstool back to mr. Portnoy for one dollar and the right to 50 of the proceeds of any future sale of barstool Despite the sale of barstool Penn currently maintains the name and branding of barstool sportsbook for the online sportsbook and as indicated It's been represented that the change over to espn bet which has been described as a cosmetic one will likely occur in november At this point would likely go into some detail regarding that sale. So I understand the mr. Soriano may may like to be heard at this point Good morning, madam chair. May I be heard briefly? One minute. Yes, I'm I was following the memo. Good morning. Now I can see you Yes, certainly, please Good morning, madam chair and commissioners chris soriano on behalf of penn entertainment with respect to the first let me thank the commission for Meeting with us today and for for taking up this important matter and and I'd like to thank Councillor Mercer for thorough summary and the iub for a very thorough report and presentation with respect to the purchase agreement the sale and purchase agreement of barstool to mr. Portnoy There are high level facts regarding that agreement that have been publicly reported Namely the the consideration paid and the fact that you know, there are certain Covenants that are in place. There are certain specific portions of the agreement that are discussed in the iub report That to the extent there is any detailed discussion regarding Those specific provisions. I would respectfully request that the commission Hear that update and consider any questions that would be conducted in executive session in as much as that is an ongoing agreement That affects penn's business operations The disclosure of which I would argue would be proprietary information and competitively sensitive and so I would respectfully request that to the extent there is any detail Regarding the matter of that agreement that it be considered an executive session commissioners Questions will also turn to general counsel Grossman for his advice as to what the appropriateness of shifting to an executive session under the um The provisions that are provided for in the agenda First off commissioners. Do you have any questions for? Mr. Soriano now or counsel Mercer commissioner brian um, I have some but I I think the appropriate Vehicle may be to hear from mr. Soriano about how much of it is for public discourse and how much of it is for executive session Yeah, sure commissioner. I'd be happy to and good morning commissioner brian taking Turning to the ieb's report um, if I I think that may be the best way for us to uh to look at this I would suggest that um beginning in the penultimate paragraph on page 13 um with the word however and continuing through the Middle of page 15 ending with um the words exhibit 14 section 5.19 That the subject matter contained in That page and a half or so Is appropriate for an executive session So could you give me the opening paragraph the beginning again start where? Yeah, certainly page 13 parameters again to please chris. Sorry happy to do so Page 13 the next to last paragraph beginning with the word however however the agreement Of the middle of the paragraph yes, got it and concluding on paragraph 15 At the conclusion of the next to last paragraph where there's a citation to exhibit 14 section 5.19 b Um, so one follow-up question. I think is is safe to ask you in this environment the the representations that have been made um Alleging that pen was denied licenses because of the relationship with barstool And the it was indicated that um that was not in fact the case and we were given a list as of may 30th 2023 I just was looking to confirm for today's date that that's the same answer of As of today as it was on in may of 23 It's correct to mission or brian. I'm happy to make that representation pen has not been denied the licenses Okay, thank you And then I don't know if zack or mr. Soriano can answer this for me, but the What what exactly is the responsibilities of head of social? Well, if I'm a certain pen in regard to social social media or the title. No, mr And Mr. Uh, gosinski. Yeah Is is deemed head of social. I was just curious if you could I don't not familiar with what that is exactly The commissioner brian. I'll I'll take that if you're if that's okay. Is that mr. Marcer if that's okay? I'll take that that's that's all right. Thank you as I understand a commissioner brian. That's a a job title essentially Head of social being the the head of oversight of social media the person who who is in charge of uh of the company social media And and social media outreach so social being a short there for for social media social all being social media correct I do have some other questions madam chair, but I don't know what the posture is today in terms of um Whether we go into executive session to hear mr. Soriano's arguments about so much of it. It should be that or whatever I know it's not on for a vote today. So I don't know what the posture is in terms of how the commission feels about doing that today or And if I may commissioner brian, I would would appreciate the same Clarification from from the commission as to where as the commission's view as to um, you know As to where this matter proceeds at this point in time I'm of course happy to answer any questions that the commission has at any in any forum That said, I know this matter is on essentially as an update We then have a presentation following this on the rebrand and then following that is a discussion regarding next steps or amendments to an application And so I would just I'm with you and that I would Perhaps it would make sense for us to come to an understanding of what our procedural posture is And then determine the best way to handle it right So, I mean I I can go first madam chair in terms of um, sorry Yeah, you know, I'm just um, I'm sorry the um my Um, I'm just trying to get the document again at the top of my box I have the passwords but those are to the other documents and I was So I'm just struggling a little bit to get back into my documents to bear with me So general counsel grossman first off in terms of the appropriateness of going into um I'm going into executive session on these issues as presented by mr. Soriano I know that you wanted to hear today to be able to advise us on that so fair for first step We're certainly happy to talk with that. I know Caitlyn and I have Discussed this and I'd like to invite her to jump in as well I think The most important thing and Caitlyn you can you can jump in in one second I was just going to say is is to identify exactly what we would like to talk about. I think it is um The the idea of talking about the stock purchase agreement is on the table at the moment and certain provisions of that and if that's what we're talking about as Discussed in the IEB's report, uh, then we can we can go from there So Caitlyn if you want to kind of take that we can address the appropriateness of going into executive session to talk about this issue Absolutely. So, you know as Todd said we'll want to be as specific as possible about what we're talking about in executive session Mr. Soriano has identified specific Uh paragraphs of the IEB's report that he believes would fall under the exception that is in chapter 23 and section 6 I And I'll just read that back to you so that you have it at top of mind when you make a decision And that's that applications for operator licenses shall be public records under section 10 of chapter of chapter 66 Provided however that trade secrets competitively sensitive or other proprietary information provided in the course of an application for an operator license under this chapter The disclosure of which would place the applicant at a competitive disadvantage may be withheld from disclosure under said section 10 of chapter 66 So I think here there are a couple different things at play. One is that mr. Soriano Believes that the information uh presented in those paragraphs is trades or in in in that agreement or trade secrets competitively sensitive Or other proprietary information he has represented that that information is proprietary and that it has not been Released to the public. So I think it is captured under that provision of this exception Um, and it was also provided in the course of an application for an operator license because this report is a direct result of conditions on the license and the ongoing licensing procedure Um, because psi has a temp license right now and is still going through their full suitability So to the extent that the commission agrees that the information is a trade secret competitively sensitive or proprietary And that it would place the applicant at a competitive disadvantage to have it released It may vote to go into executive session for these materials our topics any questions So if the question is if Obviously deference is given to the request, but if the question is let me hear the arguments Much because it would seem like exhibit 14 also was in that not just the portions of the report mr. Soriano identified But then any exhibit 14 itself um The discussion of how much of that would have a distinct executive session It's appropriate to start an executive session on that fair to say. Absolutely. Absolutely. Yes We could go into executive session have that discussion And to the extent it's decided that anything should actually be in the public session We can just come right back in after and and have that conversation publicly questions commissioners for Your fellow commissioner commissioner bryan if you want to follow up with any of her questions or counselor want to hand commissioners commissioner maynard thoughts I just don't want going in and out of the executive session if we can be as broad as we possibly can Going into it. It would I think that would be helpful just my only thought Mr. Hill Well precedent has already been set that uh commissioner made and we we have done this on many occasion where we've gone in And figured out that we need to come back out. So I have no problem with that process Okay, mr. Soriano, then I'll go to commissioner skinner I may madam chairman make a suggestion And I think commissioner bryan perhaps our procedural question may still be on the table That's said madam chair given that this is on for again for an update as is our next matter And then that's marked up for potential for an executive session as well Might it make sense to conduct? To continue this discussion Do our presentation on the rebrand and then see if there are any matters relating to either That need to be handled in executive session and then do executive session all at once I'll turn to attorney mercer and counselor hall Chair Sorry Zach, I you know, I will defer to the commission on that in terms of the flow It is possible that there could be questions that connect to both of these issues That are set out on the agenda that The commission may wish to discuss an executive session I know that mr. Soriano is planning to present a deck which is public with respect to the Penn and espn Relationship so, you know, I think we could go in now on with respect to the psi 10 barstool contract come back out have that Open session presentation or we could Do it the way that was just proposed I will defer to the commission on that Well, I My thinking is that the issue in front of us right now is distinct and separate Um, I understand there could be some overlap What do you think commissioners I have no problem going Yeah, there is a duality to it there's sort of there's a Some discreet on this topic, but then to mr. Soriano's point there because of the change in august there's now an interplay between The move to espn and the status So right so in terms of the timeline, I agree with you Yeah, in terms of the timeline, I absolutely agree with you can assure brian In terms of going in and out commissioner maynard, I understand your point, but I I do feel that we have a very good record of being Very transparent and committed to ensuring that what we do in any executive Session is limited to what we are permitted to do so we would I'm comfortable if we have to bounce in and we have to bounce out. It's not As efficient as we like for the public's interest, but because they have to sort of hang around Commissioner maynard No, it's I just listen I I want to make sure that we protect Everybody involved both public and and You know the licensees and when they assert something like this and we have to go in and out It's me that I worry about and and us not not Not them right and so I want to make sure that we're not Putting anything out into the To the public that shouldn't be there and I want to make sure that the public hears what they should hear Yeah, right So it's it's more of a procedural thing than it is substantive I 100% agree that as much should be public should be public Oh, oh, yeah, but I think we can manage it well And that we're committed to it, but it is not ideal. I agree with you. All right, so Do we want to take um It's up to us according to Councillor home as to whether we would like to take Mr. Sariano's recommendation to Allow them to go forward uh I would assume go forward to the extent you can go forward on On the bar still arrangement and then move into the presentation on espm and then we would Go into an executive session to the extent It's appropriate and we so don't Commissioners are you inclined to go that route? I think I saw a commissioner may not going. Okay Commissioner brian, you're good commissioner hill. All right commissioner skinner now I before I was I uh You were into I didn't get a chance of swing back to you commissioner skinner I'm good All around any any questions you have in between and not just yet. Thank you. Okay, great All right, then it's um I'll turn back to you Zach You paused um to allow for mr sariano Certainly, and I do believe I just briefly I think prior to um from mr. Sariano's uh cited portions of the report I think that the conclusory paragraph would be the remainder of the IV's presentation outside of the executive session So essentially the following the divestiture Mr. Portnoy has publicly asserted his control over barstool This involves statements to the difficulty that he and barstool had operating in a regulated environment And additionally his displeasure with regulators In his initial public statement following the sale he made reference to pen having licenses denied because of him Which is obviously just addressed by commissioner brian's question with mr. Soriano There we received no information that that is the case But uh, otherwise would be open to questions in the bulk session and then obviously presentation of the executive session So before we turn to mr. Sariano any questions for zach at this sculpture Very good report. Thank you All right Good morning again chris Good morning, madam chair. I'm happy to answer any questions that the uh that the commission may have with respect to that matter Where we can proceed with our uh affirmative presentation on the espn rep rebranding Any questions at this stage We may circle back. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, madam chair And if I may introduce um our senior director of compliance for pendent sports interactive adam kates He will be making the presentation with me today and and also Sharing the slides. I hope they've popped up. Can everyone see the slides? We can Okay, thank you. And we did uh, we did submit a copy of the of the final deck earlier this morning So the commission has it for the record Adam can you hear us? I can can everyone hear me? We can thank you. Thank you everybody. Thank you for having us today Hey chris over to you. Thank you So we're very excited today, madam chair and commissioners to Summarize and and provide some more insight into our well-reported Transaction with espn whereby we're entering into an exclusive partnership Persuance, which we will be rebranding the bar school sports book to espn bet as Previously mentioned in the ieb's report and as previously discussed We are looking to complete that rebrand next month in november and are working as expeditiously as possible to do so There will be importantly. There will be no changes to pen interactive or pinched ownership structure or management as a result of this transaction In that we remain the owner and operator of the sports book espn's role is a branding and marketing partner again unconnected To the role of operations of this of the sports book As we discussed and as the ieb reported Effective as of august 28th. We sold 100 percent of bar school sports back to its founder mr. Portnoy And once the rebranding is completely we will no longer have any connection between pennon bar school sports book In the meantime as we go through this period of transition, which we discussed Bar school sports is not actively marketing the bar school sports book With respect to our internal documentation such as our house rules terms and conditions And internal controls We will submit revisions and work with the staff on those revisions In that name changes need to be made in all of those documents We will need to be removing references to the bar school sports book from the documents that apply to the online sports wagering project product as the commission may recall At an earlier meeting last month We submitted those same changes with respect to ppc's retail sports book To update the nomenclature remove bar school sports book from the documentation We'll be doing the same thing with respect to the category 3 psi operation One of the things that's going to be very important to us as we go through this exciting transition Is to make sure that we are appropriately staffed and appropriately scaled from a Both a staffing perspective any technology perspective So anticipating that we will be seeing an increase in volume We've begun our efforts to scale up our staffing levels such as customer support aml fraud and responsible gaming We're taking a very close look and in future quarterly reports We'll be back to the commission with information as to how that Project has been going in terms of scaling up our staff But again, we anticipate scaling up our staff as a result of this as we expect to have additional volume and Need to be handling that similarly our technical teams are at work on scaling up the existing server infrastructure to make sure that we can support The expected increase in traffic that we will be seeing With that i'll turn it over to adam to give a little bit more detail on exactly what is not changing from a technical perspective Yes, thank you chris So going into the rebrand specifically it is purely a cosmetic branding update only There will be no changes to our technology whatsoever The newly branded espn website and app will operate on the saint in-house technology stack that we've developed internally Then it currently operates in the commonwealth This is not a data migration or technology change of any kind This technology has already been GLI certified and lab tested And it's also undergone undergone rigorous testing and approval processes in all of pen interactive 17 operating jurisdictions Reskinning the website and the app to espn bet will not impact or change the underlying technology or the operations of pen interactive Other than as chris mentioned Scaling up our infrastructure to ensure that our hardware can support the increase in traffic as well as our Scaling up a personnel internally to make sure that we have enough bodies To to meet the demand and the increase in volume that we're inspect expecting In terms of the marketing of espn bet so pursuant to our commercial agreement between pen and espn espn will promote espn bet through a comprehensive mix of content editorial and digital integrations talent promotion As well as traditional media inventory and sponsorships across their suite of linear and digital assets in addition Pen will also support espn with advertising through our traditional media channels such as television radio out of home digital and social I want to reiterate that all of our marketing will fully comply with the american gaming association's marketing code for sports wagering Which includes guidelines relating to college campus on-site marketing as well as predominantly marketing to individuals over the age of 21 As chris and I alluded to our internal operations remain The same our marketing compliance team remains fully intact and we will ensure that all of espn bets marketing is aligned with mgc regulations Including game sense requirements as well as the recently enacted guidelines towards in stadium branding Our operations on the compliance side remain the same My team will still be continuing to ensure that all of our marketing and the commonwealth satisfies all regulations and requirements Even with the new espn brand I think that that sort of rolls into responsible gaming being top of mind as well So pen interactive continues to further develop and enhance its rg program Which now includes limits that go above and beyond regulatory requirements on my last quarterly update Meeting with the commissioners. I talked about loss limits Which just serves as an example of one of the things that we've developed internally to go above and beyond The regulatory requirements and we're looking forward to continuing this pattern as well and introducing new rg features for our patrons in the commonwealth Uh rg is also top of mind for espn and its online sports betting market strategy Which will work in concert with pen entertainment's comprehensive rg programming Our pen interactive responsible gaming marketing strategy is also shifting to aim to destigmatize responsible gaming messaging and to incorporate the core pillars of rg Into everyday behavior and activity using language and techniques that patrons are already familiar with and other aspects of their lives such as budgeting Uh, we do so because we believe that targeted messaging on the importance of rg tools and strategies for all players Not just those who may be suffering from gambling issues We'll lead to an increased and more impactful rg engagement overall And as our develop as our relationship with espn grows, we will have uh additional access to espn's audience and their broad platform Which will allow us to expand on this strategy to reach a broader audience with this rg messaging again Introducing rg language into everyday life is something that we are looking forward towards developing To ensure that it becomes a part of everyone's strategy and again is not Stigmatized or maybe reserved for people who think they may be suffering from any issues Chris that that brings us to an end of our deck Not sure if we wanted to add anything else that we haven't Covered or if the commissioners or madam chair have any questions happy to answer them Now thank you adam in in conclusion Again, we at penn are very very excited about this opportunity That it brings to us the opportunity to partner with espn and bring that to customers in the commonwealth We continue to engage in a healthy dialogue with staff. I see director band is on we always appreciate being able to Work with him as we work through some of the details of some of which we'll be submitting On that which we've already been discussing So I know we'll be back to the commission I think there may be some procedural steps that we'll we'll need to work through As we rebrand, but we certainly appreciate the opportunity to give the commission this update Again, we're thrilled at the opportunity to be moving forward in this direction And we're happy to answer any questions the commission may have Okay, thank you commissioners If you have any questions on the deck, we'll keep the deck up Um, otherwise we'll bring the deck down so we can see each other Questions commissioners on the deck. I can't see you. So you'll have to speak up All set All right, sounds like we're all set okay questions now for um Mr. Soriano and thank you mr. Cates so I understand that It's position that the reskinning Doesn't require any further action. I'm just going to turn to director band Is that your agreement? Is there an internal control or an issue? You're on mute Bruce I see you nodding your head Nothing on the issue. Yeah, so you're all set. Good. Thank you And chair, I would just note that we do have chief O'Brien here as well if the commissioners have any questions with respect to You know that aspect of things in terms of the licensing Any questions for Cara all right So in order to get get the full sum report Um, there's information that I think would be shared In an executive session. Is that still the case mr. Soriano? Um, again, madam chair, I stand by my earlier request that if procedurally we believe that that Further exploring the report is appropriate at this time then those portions of the report that I Requested be discussed in executive session would be appropriately discussed in executive session Okay, given the timeline of these transactions that commissioners do you want to continue to Um discuss those portions that at this juncture we understand is Would be appropriate for executive session Or are you satisfied with the report as is and commissioners? I do need some input. Thank you Uh, I do have some questions With that today or whether we're saying procedurally we're coming back to do that Once we know where we're going to go with this but Commissioner brian, I just missed the very first part I'm not sure it's probably my my um Yeah, sure. So I do have some questions. Um that would fall within the section and then the exhibit The procedural posture of it is my is my point is They're absolutely right for executive session. The question is do we do that today or given When we got the report that this is the status update. Are we doing this today or are we setting this up for a false meeting that are in their future And I can go either way commissioners Madam chair. I see mr. Soriano has a question Go right ahead mr. Soriano. Thank you, madam chair and commissioner brian's here to your point regarding, you know What at what meeting at what point may I? One of the topics that I think is Upstanding at this time Is I mean there's several but one that is is I think most ripe or or is becoming ripe soon Would be the question of advancing and Advancing our application for a durable finding of suitability with respect to the category one sportsway during license at pbc Um the commission may recall That matter what a temporary finding of suitability was issued with respect to pbc and that's reflected in the report um, I would think that a Reasonable future procedural step then would be The IEB has completed its investigation and the commission may wish to seek some further information from either us or the IEB But that an appropriate next step May be to consider marking up In whatever procedural mechanism. We need to do so marking up essentially the continuation of that matter and proceeding to a Disposition of an application for a permanent category one license and that may be an appropriate procedural context Given the relevance of the IEB's report to that question That may be an appropriate procedural context in which to consider it and the commission could then proceed to a vote We would obviously make a presentation an open session. We would then consider Again advancing some of these matters in an executive session at that time similar to how the initial licensing hearings Proceeded given the relationship to suitability and I would suggest that that may be one way the commission may want to consider proceeding which is to Ultimately mark up ppc's application to continue. Well at this point time So if I could just interject on so you're really going into d on our agenda today I'm going to turn to council Grossman My thought would be that that we wouldn't necessarily Mark it up, but we would get something from the licensee That would be a request of some sort that would frame out the matter But maybe our regulation doesn't speak to this council grossman Yeah, I think that the way mr. Soriano framed it does make a lot of sense. I would just add to that Wait just one minute. I I'm asking wait, do he he's framing that we would mark it out and I'm asking Do we need something from them before? We set our agenda and I wondered if the regs spoke to that. Thanks Um, I I can't think of any specific provision of the regs that talk about this we would have to Take a look at The the procedures to make sure Caitlyn the application reg does there's something that addresses this Well, I do think that this is where the actually that topic d Will come in handy because no the regs don't specifically address this particular situation where you have What is functionally sort of a vendor Switching in and out while you're in the temp posture then potentially going to the full posture But there are some decisions the commission can make based on the information they're receiving today about what information they would like to receive from PSI what steps PSI was going to propose to take going forward and then then a path can be made to move forward I think Sorry, if that was well, I guess I'm still just wondering If I'm and I'm sure chris you're appreciating where I'm coming from Do we initiate something or do you initiate something and so Help me out. What are you thinking? I I think adam chair and and and I appreciate that we're we're trying to work through this together That we're we're in a situation that I think is just not has not been contemplated and so You know and I think that's the commissioner brian and I keep keep coming back to the where are we procedurally and I think that's for you Or as well madam chair We could certainly if appropriate and I'll I'll speak with I could speak with Executive director garrison interim executive director garrison and and counselor monahan about this to submit a request to the commission that our Light the temporary pps category one license the ppc holds be brought before the commission for consideration of the issuance of adorable finding of suitability And and maybe that's a letter with exhibits of you know, what we believe has has changed and why we believe that That the matter is right, but this time The i'm sure the ieb would want to take a look at that request and determine whether any further Presentation of the commission would be appropriate and then when ready the commission could call it forward We'd be happy we can we can get the ball rolling With a formal request to the commission for that if that if that makes sense Well, I certainly feel that that's probably more appropriate than us going ahead and marking it up Without anything triggering it This discussion is is helpful, but i'm not sure it triggers Something for us to put on the agenda Commissioner bryan, what are you thinking? no, so there's also What if any questions or requests may come out of? Executive session today or a follow-up on the status that was presented to us today And then to your point They may be an posture to come to us and make the argument that they should have Adorable and at a certain time or that sort of thing And then we can take up whether we're in a whether and when to mark up the durable, but I think it's They're they're separate but intertwined at the same time. I agree with that and and I wonder The application included so much of your branding Tactics that probably we'd want some amendments to the application, but again, I'm not sure if our We may we may not have been as detailed on our regulation as I would have liked Again, not anticipating this. It is a bender A question that's dealing with both the qualification issue Temporary license issue a request for dirt. It is not uncomplicated So as I'm as I'm processing through my my mind all the the issues that would be checked off So I do think we'll probably want After our two if we have our executive sessions To circle back to D and this is something our team can be thinking about As we proceed today It may mean that we have to come back even on what we would like to see to be um really prepared for for that That action that you're seeking Chris commissioners Help me out Mr. Maynard. Commissioner Hill. Commissioner Skinner What are you thinking? Commissioner Skinner? Well for one, I do agree that this is not uncomplicated I'm sitting here and I recognize that we have the Matter of the application to deal with assuming we can work out how that should be done procedurally But I do have questions about not necessarily IEB's report, but some of the Facts that have been reported within that report and so I guess Is now the time to get though try to get those questions answered. I you know, I I think some of us are kind of Holding off or I am at least until after the executive session if that's the vote that the commission takes but I do have some general questions particularly about Continued use of the bar stool sports book branding um Even though Penn has divested itself of the company. So I just need Some of those questions answered and kind of worked out And I think that is appropriate an appropriate discussion for public consumption I I think that we should address those questions that Are pertinent now that have been raised now now before we go into executive session Because if in fact they were addressed in public we we would need to address them in public anyway So I think this might be the right time. You may learn something more that actually You know results in Another question that remains in executive session or we bring it back in but I would say this is the right form Commissioner. I see commissioner may or may be agreeing with me um commissioner over I commissioner hill so On that point can I just hold for your question commissioner hill or commissioner may or were you thinking anything else on the process that Ultimately it will come back to de on to help out Pen entertainment and their procedural requests Okay, so why don't we turn to you then commissioner skinner if you have questions that actually may be very helpful to generate the Outstanding questions that other commissioners may have. Thank you. Okay, sure and I was kind of struggling with you know Whether I should ask the question now or whether we could all benefit from The executive session discussion first, but I think you I'm going to jump right in I appreciate Good morning, mr. Soriano Morning commissioners again So I think I alluded to my question. What is the plan the short term plan? I know that there Uh has been reported um the desire or the intent I I'll say for pen to completely cease The bar stool sports book branding quarter four of 2023. I've seen it also in another location referenced as november It's october 2nd I don't think that I've seen a date certain And I'm wondering what it would take To completely cease that part of the relationship with bar stool sports book Particularly given that the the fact that the college football show has resumed And Your platform the psi platform has not been reskinned Um the website as I look at it now for pen interactive It's concerning because Front and center it references bar stool sports book The bar stool sports Logo is plastered all over the website and it actually makes a reference. I'll read it to you Bet behind Dave Portnoy and big cat check So it would seem to me that there are some immediate steps that pen could take To separate itself In this in this in this space from You know the bar stool sports book to be consistent With the agreement That was announced on august 8th So if you could just speak generally to what pens plans are there I think That would be a good start Sure, I'm happy to commissioner. Thanks for the question The goal remains to have the transition Completed again in november I think we'll be back to the commission as soon as we're able with a date certain by which We will do that but everyone is working as aggressively as we possibly can As quickly as we possibly can One of the important things about it is we get and we get one chance To do it and and have it look right and have it be the way we want it to be So we want to make sure we're taking that time To get the the look right and to make sure that everything is squared away from a branding perspective But needless to say given where we are We would like to get this done as quickly as we possibly can and I can assure you that That is something that everyone is working towards and as soon as we have a date certain We will be back with the commission In terms of where we are right now Again, I recognize that the name is still Is a name that we're still licensing during this transition period We had we had used the name up until the You know up until now and so we Wanted to make the transitions from one to the other seamless and so In an effort to move as quickly as possible. We'll still use the name But just until again, we're able to transition out of it the barstool media As you know as discussed in the iub's report And as we mentioned in our affirmative presentation Barstool is no longer actively marketing the barstool sportsbook So I think that is an important step that we've taken to demonstrate The gap between us and that the fact that we're in transition. It has been very well reported both in the sports trading Space and otherwise that this transition is in place And so I will take a look commissioner at the specific Reference that you mentioned on the website and see that in its context in terms of names being used or whether That's something we adjust. I have not seen that so that's something we'll take a you know I'll make sure we take a quick look at to make sure that see if there's anything we can do there But I think we're we're working as expeditiously as we can. We're being very transparent Both with the public and with our regulators that we are moving as quickly as we can to conclude this separation We did it promptly with respect to ppc and we're continuing to try to do so With respect to the online sportsbook again as as rapidly as possible recognizing that there are some Requirements behind the scenes that need to be met in order to have the look good job Adam do you have anything you want to add in terms of what's going on behind the scenes on the rebranding? I would say aside from the technology chris. I mean as we mentioned before adequately staffing Making sure that our you know our headcount and our employees are in the right place that they need to be to address the volume So we are using this time to actively hire as aggressively as we can in the areas of operational That are dependent on operational volume So, thank you. I appreciate that representation mr. Soriano and mr. Cates like the problem that I have and the concern that I have is that Continued utilization of that branding creates confusion among the among the public among betters It Would seem to be not it would seem it actually is just an inherent It's inherently counter to the positions that this commission took when We initially took up The preliminary Application for a category three license for psi in that one of the things and that was requested and one of the things that Pan agreed to was um, you know to Ensure that there was not a continuation of this college football college This college football show and I understand that the relationship with Barstool is different today than it was then but it still generates in my A lot of confusion and it's I I'm not sure how to square that away with the work that we have ahead of us relative to the durable suitability review and so, you know, I I'll I'll join the bandwagging with trying to make sense of how we are to proceed procedurally But I I will say that I'm concerned about this interim period where Where pen is still utilizing That barstool brand On its sportsbook platform I understand the concerned commissioner. I didn't just say that again, we are It remains that it's it's us who's operating. It's you know, it's psi obviously who is the operator Again, I think we have done a lot to communicate to the public To regulators, you know, these conversations have been going on for a while now I think it's very well known that this transition is taking place And I recognize that there's a necessity for this period to be there Which we would again like to work through as quickly as we possibly can It is it I think it's it's a workable in our view It's it's workable for the time being for us to accomplish that transition Effectively and then the the moment that we're ready to do so to do so and for us to have Just move on with our with our different branding That's our commitment that where we will do the best we can to do that continue to do that as expeditiously as we possibly can Commissioner Ryan, are you leaning in? I do I have a follow-up question to the sentiment that commissioner skinner expressed but I think there might be some interplay with exhibit 14 and so I think I should hold the question until executive session But it dovetails with the concerns that were raised by commissioner skinner just now Any other follow-up that's appropriate for the public sphere right now or another question that relates to Our earlier public presentation No, at this time. No, okay So commissioners it seems to me that probably makes sense for us to consider I'm moving in Executive session and I guess it would be with respect to both items On the agenda items b and c of item number five Is that right? Certainly as it pertains to the bar stool piece. I think we we want to be clear Exactly what we would be discussing relative to the espn piece But otherwise they're very simple. Mr. Soriano. Do you want to remind us of that please? I would Madam chair, I left open the opportunity if I wanted to just leave open for us the opportunity in the event that any questions came up that were Related to any trade secrets of the of the espn transaction I don't have a specific request as to any questions that we answered with respect to espn That we continue any of that discussion in executive session. So at this time My request for a discussion in executive session would be limited To the items contained on pages 13 15 of the iv report and specific paragraphs that we discussed That we have not discussed in public That's correct. So Those are relevant to the espn But they are although I think madam chair that relates more Those paragraphs relates more to the bar stool divestiture and again, I don't have the document in front of me So I'm I'm straight a little bit to guess what I've read in the past. So those specific paragraphs relate to the bar stool divestiture Right, but I guess to our earlier point to mr. Brian's point is that there's overlap Do we anticipate that there are going to be questions around the espn deal? Commissioners that's relevant that we're going to want to ask questions. This is that might Come within uh, Caitlyn's analysis with respect to Either being proprietary or competitively sensitive Is there anything that you might be thinking you'll be asking about the espn deal? If if not, that's okay. We can always just defer to another meeting or go back into executive session So I I may have one in terms of And I don't know how to phrase it such that I wouldn't even be violent of wanting to be in executive session But it pertains to the branding and the current Shows that are available relative to sports wagering and how that will act going forward once espn bet becomes um The dba for for pen And I don't know how to say it any more specifically than that without maybe going too far Yeah, exploring that vein of questioning which I think that we we could have anticipated Is that something that is An area of exploration that can be done in public without concern for pen entertainment Being cut up at a high level, you know without anticipating commissioner brian's questions too much I could say that a lot of those those issues remain under review and discussion and we can provide a further update to the commission That said I think if we're going to get into any specific shows Or any specific items related to that it probably given where we are in the procedural process It probably would be best suited for executive session So given that answer, I'm wondering if maybe um because I feel like we're understanding each other speaking this language that Maybe an update to the commission Yeah, and in that vein Where you can sort of clearly control What you think is is you know protected or privileged or sensitive or not But giving us a heads up on where that stands that would be helpful to me So maybe not executive session today unless you feel like you need more clarity from a specific question from me Commissioner brian, I I think I think we're on the same page on this which is yeah, we did this out of future We could provide an update at a future meeting, which I think We may have to be back for our certificate of operation or other or any other changes and so We may roll a further update up into a future meeting and then I can affirmatively present And then flag any items that may be appropriate for executive session at that time Okay, that's fine that works for me okay All right, so then we'll explore with respect to item 5v the option of going into an executive session as you know, I must read the open meeting law language into the record But the commission anticipates that it may be Inexecutive session in conjunction with its review of the penn sports interactive LLC application and its partnership with barstool sports in accordance with gl chapter 30a section 21a7 And gl chapter 23 and section 6i to consider information submitted by the applicant in the course of its application Or an operator license that is a trade secret competitively sensitive of proprietary In which it disclosed publicly replace the applicant at a competitive disadvantage And in this case the public session of the commission meeting Will reconvene at the conclusion of the executive session We'll have a screen that keeps the public informed of that should we move to go into executive session with that Do I have a motion? Madam chair I move that the commission go into executive session On the matters and for the reasons just stated on the record by the chair Second Thank you any questions All right commissioner bryan I commissioner hill Hi commissioner skinner I commissioner manor I And I vote yes 5-0 So we'll get transported to a virtual room or do we have a separately grace? I will be using breakout rooms for this executive session. So you should have a notice from Dave Excellent. I just opened the room. Thank you And if there's anybody else that needs to be added that has not been added or has not received a notification Saying that they are able to enter the executive session link Please feel free to let me know either in the chat or just out loud here and I can move you over David if you don't mind I'd like to be included in that session as well Sound good at them just add again Dave could you move me over please? I'll separate Okay, David. You can take down the screen, please Mills Thank you so much I'll set I just closed the breakout room as well. So anybody left in there will be added back in in about 60 seconds or so Okay I think I've got all my fellow commissioners I'm sure Maynard I'm sure Skinner commissioner. Okay. This is a reconvening screen believes Liz Thank you so much. Well, I just closed the breakout room as well. So anybody left in there Yeah, I was getting an echo Just a reconvening of the master's this game commissioned to the public. Thank you for your patience We had an executive session that has concluded I'm reporting this meeting virtually. I'll do a quick roll call commissioner bright Here Uh, come on commissioner hill here Commissioner skinner. I'm here In commissioner Maynard. I'm here. Okay. So we um just want to thank um our uh guests from pen entertainment Chris Ariano and adam kates for your helpful input and an explanations We had a productive executive session and really at this point in time feel that we can include item number five So I want to just again. Thank you chris. Thank you adam and excuse you from Any ongoing responsibilities today and we look forward to the next update. So thank you Thank you, madam chair. Thank you commissioners. We'll speak soon Okay, and before and we break for lunch commissioners We have been given an update from Our racing group and dr. light down and director otul that we need to just turn to item number 10 because of a Scheduling challenge. So good. Good afternoon, steve. Nice to see you. How are you doing? I'm doing very well as a matter of fact I had an appointment this morning and i'm on to the next chapter of recovery. So uh other three months of Of working it out and hopefully that'll be the end of it Good. Well, keep up with that. That's so important. Thank you. All right. So you're gonna um I understand you're gonna be out of commission for us So let's move right to item number 10 dr. Lightbound If you want to do the introduction. I know we've got chat. Good afternoon chat Good afternoon So Dr. Lightbound first please Good afternoon, and thank you very much for taking us out of order today We do have sire six later on and steve's going to be heavily involved in that Due to an unforeseen circumstance and now i'll turn it over to chat board and as you know, we do have steve here as well. Thank you Thank you. Good afternoon So today we have three requests for the harness capital improvement trust And uh, one of them will be a request for consideration and the other two will be Request for reimbursements. Um, so how this works is each month funds are deposited Into the trust that a licensee can use to repair maintain Or improve the property where racing activities are conducted Distributions are made upon the commissioner's approval of the license Request for consideration and followed by the request for reimbursement So as alex mentioned The three the first one we'll start with is the request for consideration This is A request to revive an additional consideration that was approved by the commission on january 12th of this year They are asking for an additional $12,500 to be added To the original $95,000 for funds to also be used the additional funds to be used for the expanse expansion and renovation of the horse paddock and barn building Um, I did review the requests and all the documentation in the commissioner's packet. Um, it is in good order and Uh, I recommend approval, but we'll pause there for any questions or uh vote Uh, thank you chat and and I know that steve. You're also um available for do you wish to make any comments or Answer any question just the only comment that I would make is that um The additional request is for plumbing design that wasn't that we didn't see Uh would be necessary in the original request Uh, so for permit drawings for that, uh for the renovation We needed to have stamp drawings plumbing, so That's the reason that we had to come back and get a plumbing design That would be approved by the town for the permit. So that's why I'm asking for the additional monies for that Questions commissioner hill. Are you ready to move? That was actually my my question as I wanted to know exactly why We were asking for the additional money, but that was a great Explanation and madam chair. I move that the Commission approved the plain ridge park casino capital improvement press fund request for an additional $12,500 for funding for renovation expansion of the horse paddock and barn building as included in the commissioner's packet and discussed here today Second Thank you any questions um discussion Commissioner manor do you have a question? No, okay getting ready to vote getting ready to vote Okay, thank you very clear and uh and understandable commissioner o'Brien I commissioner hill I commissioner skinner I commissioner manor I I vote yes So five zero moving on then to item 10 b um Chat I guess right dr. My bound also Thank you chad Okay, and before we do move on to the uh request for reimbursements. Um, I just wanted to address the A question that um, I believe it was commissioner o'Brien raised about the eligibility of Certain items like taxes and fees um, so it I did speak with todd and It does state that Any items connected to a project or the purchase of a of a hard asset and if the licensee treats those as Uh capital expenditures, then it is eligible for for reimbursement So, um, I don't know if I should pause there if Maybe anyone else has a question with that or should I move on? Skinner's question. Um, oh my apologies. I'm fine. No, it's fine. Um, sorry I don't have any follow-up on it. No, it's fine okay all right, so uh, the second request is um again for the request for reimbursement in the amount of 81 706 dollars for the purchase of a tractor uh, these funds um Um These funds were approved in consideration on october 13th of uh, 2022 um, I I do want to note that uh, there is um on the consideration the amount of tax was not included However, the final amount asking for approval um for the 81 706 does is inclusive of taxes and uh, Steve and I have talked and going forward. We are going to be going to ensure that the the request for consideration And request for reimbursement match up and include all any taxes or fees. So um, but I I also reviewed the request and documentation included in your packet and I consider it in good order and and also can recommend approval I just want to confirm the ml right it's for the 81 706 note. Is that right? That's that is correct. That's the final amount being asked to approve. Yeah Thank you commissioners any questions Do you see the picture of the tractor? Um, I want one. I know I know right Um, I think that Steve might be actually in the racing truck today and I'm having a little envy about that All right commissioners Are you prepared to move Madam chair Yes, I move that the commission approved plane ridge the plane ridge uh, park casino capital improvement trust fund request for reimbursement in the amount of 81 706 dollars for the purchase of a tractor as included in the commissioners packet and discussed here today Second Thanks, commissioner o'brien. All right. Um, any discussion That it's all right. Commissioner o'brien I commission hill I Commissioner skinner I And commissioner maynard And I vote yes, so five zero. Thank you an excellent work. And then we have item c Yes, this item is for um, also a request for reimbursement in the amount of 121 161 dollars and 99 cents For the purchase of a new digital tow board like the previous item It should be noted that the rfc approved on october 13 2022 Was for 99 347 dollars and 50 cents Today's rfr includes taxes and construction services included With the project which brings the final amount requested To again 121 thousand 161 dollars and 99 cents I also reviewed the documentation in the commissioner's packet And I consider this also to be in good order and can recommend approval Any questions Bristol construction is a relatively local Company So giving them that business steve good. They are not I know at the alabor. They've been doing a lot of They do a lot of projects for us. They've been licensed with the commission for quite some time and they do a They do a great job for us. Excellent Okay Do we have a motion? Happy happy to move madam chair I move that the commission approved the plain ridge park casino capital improvement trust fund request for reimbursement in the amount of 121 161 dollars and 99 cents for the purchase of a new digital tow board as included in the commissioners packet and discussed here today Second, thank you commissioner. All right. Any questions or else? Okay, commissioner brian Commissioner hill. Hi commissioner skinner. Hi commissioner maynard. Hi And I vote yes No questions as an indicator that you are perfectly prepared So, thank you Thank you very much Just wanted to say also steve from my point too. I'm glad you're feeling better. I'm sorry to hear about it Oh, thank you I think i'm on the right track. Well, let's hope A lot of therapy. Well, we certainly express We've been expressing our sentiments all along steve. So it's really good to see you today. Thank you Madam chair So just publicly commissioner maynard and I Met with dr. Lightbaum and steve a couple of weeks back to talk about some host issues That we had seen at a recent convention that we had been at steve. Thank you for your time First and foremost and you're such a wealth of information and I would urge my fellow commissioners if you ever have any questions about harness horse racing Get a meeting with steve and he can answer them all and then some but we appreciate your time and all the great information you gave us Thank you at any time any time Okay Anything else go let you lose steve Um, so you can go wear your multiple hats Thank you. Dr. Lightbaum. Thank you so much and chat. It's good to see you as always chat. Excellent work and steve. Good luck Thank you. So at this point in time, I see grace tuning in and you recommending that we move forward um with lunch at this time or Um in the commissioners. Um, otherwise we are going to be going back to see director ban item number six Commissioners lunch to break for lunch. That's okay. I think the sportsway journey is expecting a lunch break. So Okay Commissioners are you all set? So it's uh 10 of um one should we do a straight one half hour And return at 120 Okay We'll keep things going. Thanks bruce for your patience Thank you Thanks steve I figured out my technical issue grace. So A little challenge there Okay, everyone's back. So this is a reconvening in the message of this gaming commission We again I work around 10 o'clock had an executive session and then um Took care of some racing details. We're holding this meeting virtually. So I'll do a roll call Good afternoon commissioner o'brien. Good afternoon. I'm here. Good afternoon commissioner hill Afternoon, I'm here Good afternoon commissioner skinner. Good afternoon and good afternoon commissioner maynard. Good afternoon Okay, we'll get started and again um, thank you to our our team members for getting us of bruce, um if I indicated not so But they were not uncomplicated Matters and appreciate everybody's efforts. We're going to turn now to item number six On our agenda And it looks as though we are turning to director ban and manager bolshaman this afternoon. So thank you Yes, uh, madam chair commissioners. I think chrystal has it all lined up here for you. So You can kick it off chrystal Right. Good afternoon commissioners. Um included in your packet are the additional Draftkings branding and logo waiver materials which were requested on the Previous meeting. I think that was the 21st Related to 205 cm r256 051 The primary consideration for these waivers is for a distinct determination from the commission As to whether or not master branding will be distinguished separately from sportsbook logos across the board for all operators and then As a reminder the three assets they've submitted the waivers for are the green banner for lack of a better word. I'm calling it a banner at fenway park the Celtics floor at the td garden and the sports zone sign at Gillette Just a note for the Gillette sign is that they are looking for a permanent waiver there Um pages 44 to 45 of our packet contain the letter to the commissioners regarding Um, whether there should be a distinction in the variance in the draft king's master logo and the sportsbook brand Pages 22 to 25 have that updated request with the Uh, the implementation details and uh, the time frames as requested for those, uh, the a The fenway park and the garden Branding And then um photos are on page 26 to 28 of those assets that the waivers are for And uh pages 29 to 43 they've provided a pdf Of the various stadium assets that have already been updated to include the 21 up messaging Um to demonstrate that they've been actively combined with the regulation and other instances And just as a note, I do believe David presswood is called he's on the call somewhere if there are specific questions that are better Directed to our drafts, but I'm here to guide you further. However, you want to proceed Thank you crystal So commissioners there Ultimately there are three waivers um I just wanted to point out That I did ask katelyn I mentioned this at our agenda sending meeting to memorialize the analysis that she gave us at our last public meeting because that analysis um helped us in the application of the pertinent regulation and And in particular it's to really understand what related to means And and I might have been singular not really understanding how to apply that analysis Barely and without ambiguity. So katelyn did Memorialize it in writing and that was very helpful for me added clarity I am still struggling with The regulation in terms of I think jack kim's request that applies to their master logo to ensure that we all understand the how What the analysis is and make sure that we're we're applying it without ambiguity For fairness factors and also just to make sure we've got everything properly in place as we move forward in the application of this This regulation. So I thought I would turn to katelyn And katelyn maybe you Pause to remind us of the actions we took at the last public meeting And then if you wouldn't mind going over The guidance that you you've given so that We can put it in perspective again for the three waivers today And and there and the question around the master logo Sure. Happy to do that. So at the last meeting Draftkings had requested waivers for three different locations. Basically, there was a location at the garden on the floor There was the there were two actually at Gillette one being sort of I believe the entrance to a restaurant and then A sign on the backside of the restaurant that could be seen out in the stadium And then the third was someone remind me what the third was uh, oh fenway. It was the sign at fenway um And what the commission decided to do was it did determine that for most of them um, possibly not the one at the at the restaurant, um, the 256.051 would apply But they asked draftkings to come back with more information about timelines for complying with the regulation And whether there was any additional information that they wanted to present Regarding you the costs for complying and and things like that And so they were given an extension of their waiver until today to bring back more information And that extension of the waiver was necessary because the reg went into full effect on september 28th um, so we're now several days into The reg being fully effect it fully in effect. So before I go on to the legal analysis any questions on procedural history Great So as um, you may have seen in the memo that I circulated um, what I've done is Basically write out an analysis Um regarding how the commission may determine Whether an operator's logo or trademark is related to sports wagering for the purposes of 256.051 And again, just so it's in the record. So everyone watching knows what we're talking about That statue or that regulation states that advertising marketing branding and other promotional materials published air displayed disseminated or distributed By or on behalf of any sports wagering operator shall state that patrons must be 21 years of age or older to participate Provided that branding consisting only of a display of an operator's logo or trademark related to the sports wagering related to sports Wagering shall not be required to comply with 205 cm r 256.051 Unless it is or is intended to be displayed on signage or a fixed structure at a sports venue where it is likely to be viewed by persons younger than 21 years old so again here What I focused on in my analysis is Um, how the commission can determine whether an operator's logo or trademark is related to sports wagering so What legal the legal department recommends is a two-step process for determining if that logo is related Um, and this process takes into account both the design of the trademark or the logo and how it's utilized by the operator so the first step entails determining what kind of logo or trademark you're talking about and I believe there are three different kinds of logos one would be A sports wagering specific logo or trademark The second would be a logo or trademark that is specific to a non sports wagering arm of an operator's business And then the three would be an operator's general logo or trademark that could be used for multiple arms of the business So if the logo or trademark is sports wagering related specific Then it would be related to sports wagering on its face and clearly fall under the auspices of 256.051 If the logo or trademark is specific to a non sports wagering arm of the operator's business Then it would not be related to sports wagering. It would not fall under those auspices So an example of that might be a trademark specifically related to an operator's daily fantasy sports arm And then finally if the logo or trademarking question is a general logo or trademarking could be applied multiple ways Um, the analysis would proceed to a second step to determine if it's related to sports wagering So moving on the second step of the process actually involves looking at the facts and determining how an operator Utilizes that general logo in its business practices So if the operator does use that logo for the purposes of advertising marketing or promoting sports wagering Then the logo would be related to sports wagering and fall under 256.051 You know, and for instance an example of that would be if an operator is routinely using their general logo in sports wagering advertising If however the operator doesn't use that general logo for the purposes of advertising marketing or promoting sports wagering But rather uses a separate logo for those purposes Then the general logo would not be related to sports wagering for the purposes of the reg um And so again, you know, the commission could choose to adopt this method of analysis and For the purposes of determining whether a logo or trademark is related to sports wagering But each individual analysis is fact specific depending on the facts of how it's being used What logo it is How the operator uses that logo generally so happy to answer any questions questions So I I have a couple of questions One is that this is a recommendation from legal Our reg is kind of silent on this analysis, right? It says related to the another way to look at related to would be it's solely For instance the those that have sportsbook have to have the 21 plus and the master Would not and we did have some discussion around this because as we know Many of our licensees do have multi Factor businesses many different types of businesses and some of them it wouldn't make sense that 21 plus would be attached to that So there is an alternative Interpretation to related to but we didn't really discuss that in our in our reg is silent so what um Caitlyn's analysis and this is what I was struggling with while we had our discussion last time I was thinking about the logos where there are companies that have multiple businesses and So I asked Caitlyn how we will make that determination Caitlyn It might be really helpful When you do the fact analysis, it's my understanding that either like legal would actually be looking at advertising um and I and I suspect what One person looks at and looks at like a website and they see See the master logo of one of our licensees and sports betting is mentioned there Does that trigger A need for 21 plus or is it, you know So many hits of advertising that triggers a 21 plus I see that as a difficult Task to do but my fellow commissioners and I This may not be difficult for you. I just Worry about the ambiguity of the analysis If it was if it were solely that would be easy for me, you know, and if they say sports betting Or it's you know 20 21 plus would be easy and clear and I understand That many of the licensees are going to move in that direction because I think it just makes good sense with respect to logos This is my Was one of my questions and I don't know Caitlyn if you want to describe I think it's legal department right now As opposed to sports. I don't know which division is making that analysis That's and what would trigger a determination of of now 21 plus is needed Um, or is it recommended that we make that determination? I guess I'm trying to also figure out that part of the process So If we can have clarity from the majority of the missions on this it would be helpful to me I have a quick question. I'm not sure that that question was directed at me or not Sorry It was directed at you to have you help go through the process the practical analysis, but commissioner mater I just have a quick question before I think about that madam chair. Thank you Um Caitlyn, can you go over the rig again on where this applies and where this doesn't apply? So where would we do this analysis? Sure, so this analysis relates to So there's the opening provision of the reg that says that, you know Advertising marketing branding promotional materials has to have the 21 plus language on it Except branding consisting only of the display of an operator's logo or trademark related to sports wagering shall not be required to comply with the reg unless it is or is intended to be displayed on signage Or a fixed structure at a sports venue where it is likely to be viewed by persons younger than 21 years old So we are only talking about logos and trademarks that are in sports venues where it's likely to be viewed by a person under 21 So wouldn't apply to a website or anything like that because we narrowly tailored where this would apply Oh, I agree with that entirely. I think that the way the analysis is as to related to they look to see how the logo is used um for advertising purposes, so So if uh, that's the part that I worry about ambiguity. Commissioner Maynard is just What what are what steps we're taking to decide what triggers a master logo? The other two examples are very clear to me. Um, you know What triggers a requirement that that logo equals a 21 plus and so I understand and that's why it's important I'm just having Caitlyn go through The analysis that's used to determine When a licensee sufficiently It's master logos sufficiently related to sports wagering to trigger the 21 plus It's it's a I think a fair question to ask Because we want to make sure it's fairly applied across all of our licensees And so Caitlyn explained the process somewhat to me, but I'm not sure if any of us really knew what that process was So Caitlyn Sure, so that specific piece. What would you know, how does that? Yeah, so so I mean The long and short of it is the reg refers to you know logos or trademarks being related to sports wagering and so legal was Asked for its analysis of whether it started with the draft king situation. We were asked about draft kings and so in Seeing that question and taking that question. We Conducted what we thought was illegal now what we believe is a legal analysis of it and created this framework for Making a decision that we believe is a reasonable way to interpret the regulation and to apply the regulation Of course, the commission can choose to take or not take the guidance That's completely up to you and and again with regard to the facts There's a question of do you want to Who do you want to answer the question? Would you like in certain instances to farm it out to sports wagering or legal? Would you like to take it up? That's that's all questions the commission can answer But we're just presenting a framework for how the question can be answered Every time it comes up if it comes up again So so go ahead hit commissioner hill Thank you, madam chair. So Caitlyn I'm one of those people where I need examples when you're explaining something So I'm gonna I'm gonna give you the example that we have before us today We have a restaurant in front of us Owned by draft kings In the back of that outside where the public can see it on an electronic board Is just draft kings So in your opinion and in your analysis What do the regulations say for each one? Absolutely So let's take the let's take the entrance where it says i'm going to get it wrong, but draft kings barn grill, right? The sign says draft kings barn grill it is the entrance to a restaurant And so we would say first step of the analysis. What kind of logo is this? Is it sports wagering the sports wagering specific logo? No Is it a logo related to another arm of their business? Yes, it's a logo related to this particular restaurant So in that situation The analysis can end and you can say this is a logo specific to a restaurant not sports wagering You don't need the 21 plus language Now shifting to the second logo, which is I guess on the back of the restaurant, but can be seen out in the arena That is just so again, let's do the analysis again Is it a sports wagering specific logo? No Is it a logo related to specific to a non sports wagering related arm of the business? No, is it a general logo? Yes Okay, you move on to step two How does draft kings use that general logo? Well based on a review of draft kings advertising We have seen that draft kings routinely uses their general draft kings logo in their sports wagering advertising And so for that purpose we would set for that reason We would say in this situation that logo would need the 21 plus language Based on the type of logo that it is and how that logo is used by the operator And where it is to Can I just interject one clarification there? And it's this is in the packet with that logo that you're referring to commissioner hill That was digital signage is already corrected because it's um, it has the 21 and up now So it's just that restaurant And I I think I'd have to clarify with Dave, but they don't own that restaurant This is again branding of that particular space So No, that's understandable, but In the in uh, I'm trying to understand our regulation as it's written Um, yes, it's been corrected already, but had it not been corrected What would we have done and it was explained to us very well by katelyn in that instance um But thank you for the clarification crystal and katelyn so in terms of um my question so katelyn said that draft kings Mastery logo is used generally for sports wagering and I wonder if another um master Logo Was used not as generally as katelyn implied, but maybe occasionally Does that require 21 plus in other words? I'm not sure I want to be really clear commissioner hill first off to everybody I care deeply about making sure that we do not use Our licensees do not in any way promote sports betting to underage and those who are an eligible wager I think we all know we're very united on that. So that is not about that What I'm struggling with is just to make sure we're going to apply this analysis in a very consistent and unambiguous fashion because It it is an expensive venture for um logo to be all Transformed to meet Massachusetts needs when they use them nationally and internationally. So I'm just very I'm only worried about fairness factor But I it will never be at the um at the risk of youths or those ineligible To to wager. So I want to be very clear. So as long as if if if um, we're applying this analysis what I'm hearing is katelyn use of word generally and And I do I wonder if there's a spectrum katelyn if you you can You know give me your you know your thoughts on that For the master if there was a one hit that you found like a website or whatever, but not anywhere else Would you decide it's not used? You know, it's our you know, I I'm just if I could madam chair Yes, we we had a lot of discussion about this The day that we voted and there was a conversation and I can tell you what my concern was which was Having people it's one thing to have a very specific logo for branding for this product It's another to sort of have your cake and eat it too And so if you're going to use something interchangeably on occasion a broader thing and that in my view You err in the side of putting 21 plus on it so That was what I said at the time. It's still my belief at the time I I seem to be going further than katelyn is in terms of where that line is my if you are using that In any way that is non-exclusive that is will on occasion refer to sports wagering put 21 plus on it And if you want to get a brighter line because you don't want to do that and you want to have the overall not refer to that Well, then just be consistent Be consistent, you know That's that's where I come from on this And I'm and commissioner brian. Thank you for tolerating me I I know that I am asking for a little bit more clarity and for time and and I think that we all agree that we Offer that to each other when something is just sticky for us. So I really appreciate this discussion commissioner skinner Thank you. So I just to follow up on commissioner brian's comments. I'm a little confused now in katelyn's analysis In understanding whether or not This restaurant draft king sports zone should or should not contain the 21 plus language because it appears that That logo is a general logo, but it is a logo that is also used in connection with sports wagering So could katelyn could you clarify for me? I may have missed something in your analysis that Will shed some light on that question, but um, I'm a little stuck And I apologize commissioner skinner my internet is dropping me out over here. So was the question Sorry, sorry, could you just repeat the question? I very much apologize Basically, can everybody hear me? Okay. I could still hear you. I think it's a me problem. All right. All right Just in a nutshell, could you just Go run through the analysis with respect to this restaurant again? I know that's Asked for and ultimately my question is should This signage include the 20 plus language 21 plus language or not Understood. Thank you. Um, so Using the analysis again, what I would start with is the first step which is determine what type of logo it is And again, my understanding based on what I've seen so far is that it's not sports wagering specific Um, so it doesn't meet the first bucket It it is arguably related to a a non sports wagering related arm of the business And that would be that it is a a barn grill or a restaurant And the logo isn't just the general logo, but it's um, and sorry, I don't have language in front of me But it's it has special language that indicates that it's the restaurant And for that reason, I believe that it would fall into the second bucket Which is it's specifically related to a non sports wagering related arm of the business and therefore Wouldn't be related to sports wagering and wouldn't require the 21 plus language I see so in in the the picture that's included here on page 28 of the packet Draft King sports zone Because that sports zone. It's a sports zone restaurant type venue then the 21 plus language is not required, but Hypothetically Should draft kings change that signage to just read draft kings Is that when we'd be discussing the requirement of the 21 plus language? Yes, I think if they took out the sports zone, which is the name of the restaurant and just had the standard draft kings logo Then we'd be back to the initial question of what is the logo and how is it being used? Okay That's helpful. Thank you So Caitlin, do you want to if If there were another example Back to my question. Do you do you see a gradation or do you see it as And and also I should ask who's commissioners who's doing the analysis? Is this a sports wagering division analysis or is this a legal analysis or is this our analysis? Because again your question about gradation Apology is your question about gradation is how much it's used for yeah, if it's once is that sufficient to require 21 plus or are you seeing Like you just the word generally which I I attach that to house the meaning. Maybe it wasn't intentional Sure when I use generally I was I was referring specifically to draft kings what we're seeing with regard to draft kings Having not done an analysis of any other entity at this point I do believe as soon as you start using the logo for sports wagering related purposes It's sort of out in the I mean the purpose of the reg is to protect the public right? It's an advertising reg It's to you know, it's it's for youth and underage and so as soon as you start associating your general logo with sports wagering I think arguably It becomes sports wagering related now again with with regard to the facts on the grounds The commission can delegate to whomever Sports wagering legal a combination to sort of make those determinations about how the logo is being used But it is ultimately your decision. Um, and again, there are waiver processes, too. So I have to leave that to to the commission on on how it wants to implement that piece We'll take commissioner. I can kick off. I have an opinion um, I think that um I'm perfectly fine with legal and sports wagering talking about when this does come up in the minuscule times it will ever come up because it's about Arenas 21 plus. I mean, it's so so narrow, you know, and so to answer your major question, madam chair I have a big national brand wants to come into tv garden And put it's a logo only I think they would look at this analysis hear this and all these hours and hours probably 50 plus hours of conversation now at this point about the 21 plus And say, you know what we're probably going to have to put 21 plus if we're going to put that logo in tv garden nor finway park or Or or gillette stadium And so I would be comfortable with legal looking at this and then if they disagree they being the potential, you know, the licensee wanting to put the the ad up It can come to the commission and we can look at it That's how I would look at it, but I think it's fine. I'm fine with the analysis Madam chair Yeah, if you're looking for opinions, uh, mine is is similar at this point to commissioner maynards Um, I I've heard from our legal department and I've heard from our sports wagering section And I'm comfortable with what they have told me today I've come to my opinion on how I would vote on these today and it's a little bit different than what's being asked for um in one sense when it comes to the Gillette stadium but but overall getting the the Um Analysis from our legal and from uh sports wagering I'm very comfortable now with what they have to say and in the future As commissioner maynard said should this come before us again? Um, and they have an issue. I have no problem bringing it back to us thank Michelle bryan Do you want to I yeah, no, I feel the same way as commissioner maynard in terms of Where you know where I'm going today? It's consistent with where it was the last time and then in terms of the analysis I'm comfortable with As you pointed the few times it may come up in the future Legal and sports wagering looking at it And if there is a disagreement on the part of the licensee, they're obviously free to come and ask for a waiver or determination that it doesn't apply Thank you. So um, that seems to address crystal Um, and commissioner skinner and I didn't mean to skip over you. I was hearing three so I I I heard three and that was majority commissioner skinner your thoughts now you have four ditto I I think it's the objectives are pretty clear. I think that um, there's no wiggle room when it comes to sports venues So I am comfortable as well with having legal make the determination on these future requests Okay, and so um crystal with respect to the request from the letter from giraffe kings with respect to the master plan I think that what we're saying that there would be a consensus that um We would not Give them a waiver on them on their master logo Do commissioners do we need to vote on that or do we just move for their with respect to their their waivers? Madam chair, I unfortunately did not hear your question. I too am having some issues with my my Up today Can you repeat your question, please? I'm having issues with my ears. They're very very cold today. Um So we received a letter from giraffe kings That was separate and apart from the waiver request and it had to do with this master logo which prompted my You know my inquiry here today to make sure we were all clear on how that was being assessed the sounds as though there is agreement among the commissioners that um They that the master logo would not be exempt despite uh, their Their requests made in that letter and so I'm wondering do we um formally do we need to address their Their request which was separate and apart from their waiver requests Michelle brian Uh, I mean we have consensus that it does not but if we're looking for formality in the terms of emotion I'm happy to Make a motion And that would be with respect to their letter that was submitted Like saturday friday or saturday, right? Um Saturday and what page is it on? Um 44 so maybe we should formalize that because I'm sure they're listening and they did They really created it as an alternative argument It wasn't necessarily going to reference but I certainly can reference the letter. Um, it's september 20 29. So it's 20 23. Yep Okay, um I move that the commission find in response to the question by draft kings and letter dated september 29 2023 That the master the draft kings master brand logo um is subject to the requirements of 256 0.05 subsection one In the context of that regulation in our discussion here today We have a second discussion I just want to point out that um This would be treating all operators the same and operators who have already Um complied with the 21 plus Um, I've seen those already. So second with that second And and I would just add that Given that I'm not hearing um a desire by the commissioners to further um Clarify the regulation as solely then I am agreement that It applies to the multi use logo and I also want to Just also say that while I very much appreciate our other licensees for already amending their logos at the meanest I also respect the fact that we are always welcoming um our licensees to ask for clarification and um in and address their business needs. So I thank draft kings for their submission and understand Where clarity was was perhaps needed So thank you. Do I have a second? I think commissioner maynard second second with that second with that discussion. Thank you As I said, my ears are really ringing right now. So my apologies Um Zoom ears So with that any further discussion or edits commissioner bryne I commissioner hill I Mr. Skinner I commissioner maynard I I vote yes five zero All right So now we'll go on to the other Um The three items crystal if you want to walk in katelyn. Thank you very much Very helpful work for me and I appreciate but you know, I appreciate um You know every time a member of the staff responds to a particular inquiry that I have Personally to help me do my job. I am terribly grateful and I know that every commissioner joins me in that We um, we have to just make our decisions in the in the public and sometimes we know we might have an individual question That there's something that's just not You know ringing true or something. We simply don't understand It's critical that the staff be able to respond to these inquiries to help us do our best work That doesn't mean and and we expect that cooperation Doesn't mean that we're not terribly grateful for it. So thank you so much All right. So now moving on to crystal's good work So uh with that in mind we now have the actual Weaver dates to review for For what graph king says put together based on their conversations with the venues Um, so I'll start with I'll just go right in order here. I'll start with the fenway park signage so they've identified that um They would need until november 20th for the waiver on that one to ensure the logo Is taken down and updated uh at fenway and that could happen In that time frame and then they don't hear that that would be before the high school football games november 21st and 22nd Should we pause on and do them individually commissioners? I would like to I would like to do that because there's going to be one that i'm going to Throw a little wrinkle into so if we could do them separately um, that would be my We'll try to iron them out for you. Thank you a lot of Do I do you have any questions for crystal on this particular request? I think they were the request is um Is appropriate and knowing that the high school games are coming in on the 21st if we can get it done by november 20th Um, then I I would be okay. We're moving forward with that particular date for fenway park Great any any further questions for crystal and otherwise commissioner hills prepare to move Okay, go ahead Madam chair, I would move that in accordance with 205 cmr 202.0 32 The commission issued a draft king's a waiver until november 20th 2023 From the requirements outlined in 205 cmr 256.05 1 With respect to the use of its logo at fenway park as it As included in the commissioner's packet and discussed here today as granting the waiver meets the requirements specified in 205 cmr 102.03 4 and is consistent with the purposes of gl chapter 23 n That here's thank you commissioner Okay, any further questions on that? All right discussion. Okay commissioner ryan I commissioner hill I commissioner skinner I commissioner manored I And I vote yes five zero All right Moving on to td garden crystal, thank you So the Celtics logo on the floor they have had further conversations Originally they explored whether there could be a decal The nba rules broke prohibit that but they can get portions of the floor up And they've identified that that would have to take place sometime between november 14th and 25th So they're asking for a temporary waiver through december 1st to come into compliance with that Madam chair Yes, commissioner. Is this your wrinkle? No, my wrinkle is going to be with Gillette Uh However I would like to um look to director ban Who also had a conversation with our folks over at the boston gardens? And I believe I heard unless I heard Wrongful that um that date could probably be a little sooner than what they're proposing Yeah, they told me that Those dates are correct between november 14th and the 25th The Celtics are away and have a national game at that time And that's the week that the uh Celtics General counsel told me that it could be done. It could be sanded down laminated and refit So with that madam chair, I would probably move I would request that we move it up a month because I think it can be done sooner It it's november is the dates that they gave me sir And and that's in our Crystal could you maybe offer some insight as to why they asked for december 1st because I this is noted in our documents um I can't that's just a week later. So I presume they just gave a little bit of leeway because there is that holiday period in there Um, I could ask david. I do believe he's still on if you would like to have more information. He's on a phone on the phone um Madam chair, that's how I interpret to the request that december 1st date I I think that um rather than have drapkins come back for potential extension of that Due to circumstances beyond their control I do think december 1st is a reasonable date given that The time frame that they've been given By by the Celtics is november 14th through the 25th Yeah Thank you for that mr. Skinner Always open to compromise madam chair December 1st would be fun. Yeah, thank you. I I didn't think it was unreasonable either They were transparent. This is their document that I'm reading right? This is not yours crystal on page 23. They were transparent about november 14th to the 25th. Yes This is their waiver request yeah So maybe it'll get done during that week, but a little wiggle room as commissioner Skinner Suggest might be reasonable Commissioner hill do you want to move? Um, I most certainly will I move that in accordance with 205 cmr 202.032 the commission issued a drapkins a waiver until december 1st 2023 from the requirements outlined in 205 cmr 256.051 with respect to the use of its logo at td garden As included in the commissioners packet and discussed here today as granting the waiver meets the requirements specified in 205 cmr 102.034 and is consistent with the purposes of gl chapter 23 m Second thanks commissioner Okay, any questions are for Our sportsway dream division. All right commissioner brian Hi, mr. Hill. Hi, mr. Skinner. Hi commissioner maynard Hi And I vote yes five zero Okay So now on to gelat stadium Yeah, so with this sign they're requesting a permanent waiver Of not including the 21 plus logo as you've seen how they've done it in the pdf stofalo Because it is a bar grill area and the concern would be it's not a 21 plus environment to enter So they're looking for consideration on that aspect of it for this waiver And and to note they did change the digital signage outside the bar, but the the sign itself that you're seeing they are looking for the waiver That's on page The final page 20 20 is the sign Okay, commissioner hillan your wrinkle After on you. Yep. I think my wrinkle has been addressed I I just want I have no problem with the restaurant And I think I said that a little earlier and giving them a waiver for that I really don't have an issue with that I just want to ensure that any Led advertising that it is within the stadium. It's meaning the What I'll call the bowl, you know the where no matter where I said I'm seeing an electronic Led advertising And it sounds to me from what crystal just said they've addressed that They hadn't as of last week at least during our discussions Um, and if that is being addressed, I'm okay with that As long as that's happening I want to ensure that Somehow we memorialize that I think it happened It's already And it's that logo Um I'm I'm careful to distinguish branding our logo from advertising because an advertisement may actually have additional requirements. So Logo, it's just there's been an additional 21 plus added. Okay So that if that's the case then I'm Go ahead madam. Uh, uh, jim. Oh my god commissioner rome. I I'm just gonna have like I'm number two. I'm the three. Um My only Procedural point of clarification on this is I think the request as we've discussed it and come down on this It's not a permanent waiver So much as a finding that 25 256.051 does not Require additional markings as to the drafting sports on restaurants sign So I just wanted to make sure that's where we're all coming from. It's not a permanent waiver So much is saying this particular sign does not require Um, the application of the rig because it falls outside that requirement But that's that commissioner brian. Do you want to move on this? Sure. Uh, happy to thank you Um, I move that the commission find that the drafting sports own restaurant sign Um as identified in the commissioner's packet and further discussed here today is not subject to the requirements of 205 cm r256.05 one second Any further discussion? That it's and we all said on that Okay Commissioner Oh brian I Mr. Hill I Mr. Skinner I Commissioner Maynard I And I vote yes So five zero Well, we are root item number six To vote um legal and um our sports waging division Ruth crystal. Thank you so much. Excellent work and and thank you to drab kings um But that grace I see it pop on am I okay should we move on to item number seven? Yeah, sorry. I just had a phone call. Okay I always wonder when I see if there's something up um Grace is always there whether on video or not. So now we're turning to our community affairs division and Chief glaney Thank you mad and chair and commissioners Up before you today, we have several uh members of our local community mitigation advisory committees that I need reappointment and also one new member Uh, so these we have typically appointed these folks for a one-year period And these folks are up for renewal. So uh in region a we have uh vincent panzini Who is our chamber of commerce representative? And he is the president of The Everett chamber of commerce We also have david bankcroft as the regional economic development organization And he is from he's a senior vice president with mass development. Uh, those are renewals In region b. We have a new member Joan kagan levine Uh, a human resource provider She is a retired president and ceo of square one We also have diana assignal Chamber of commerce representative was the president Of the springfield chamber of commerce We have ellen potashnik He's our human resource provider Who is a retired long time department of children and families Organization and also Richard sullivan our regional economic development organization He's a president and ceo of the economic development council of western mass And we also do have um An opening that we need to fill for our community mitigation advisory subcommittee, which is the commission member and that has For the last year been um commissioner hill and uh, if you would like to continue on in that It's certainly welcome or if the commission would like to appoint someone else um, those are the all of the things that uh, we need from community affairs But there are also two other positions which are the public safety subcommittee which commissioner o'brien has been on For the last year and also the addiction services subcommittee Whose commission role has been filled by uh, mark vanderland So with that I will open up to any questions or whatever motions you'd like to make Any questions for joe Okay, excellent summaries on each candidate. Thank you Um, I know I see lily and mary. Um, thank you for those summaries and Commissions, are you prepared to move on this or do you have any particular questions for the team? I would be more than happy to make a motion on the first, um Request, okay Madam chair I move that the commission appoint the following individuals to the local community mitigation advisory committee For an additional one-year term as included in the commissioner's packet and discussed here today vinson panzini david bankcroft diana synell ellen patashnick And richard k selivan jr And I further move that the commission appoint joan kagan laveen To the local community mitigation advisory committee for an initial one-year term as included In the commissioners packet and discussed here today second Thank you. Any questions? That it's okay commissioner o'brien. Hi commissioner hill Hi commissioner skinner. Hi commissioner maynard Hi And I vote yes five sarah. Thank you now we have consideration of the subcommittees and first we're noting community mitigation Advisory subcommittee and these of course all fall under the g-pack grace works closely with the chair of the g-pack and We have in the past designated commissioner hill. Do I have a motion? or discussion If he is willing i'm happy to move Yep, I am i moved that I moved that the commission designate commissioner hill as a member of the community mitigation advisory subcommittee As included in the commissioners packet and discussed here today second Any further discussion? Thank you commissioner hill for your willingness commissioner o'brien I commissioner hill I commissioner skinner I commissioner maynard I And I vote yes We also are looking at the public safety subcommittee again another subcommittee by statute under The g-pack uh, commissioner o'brien. We thank you for your service chairing that Again, if commissioner o'brien is willing she does of course have that expertise um, if you're looking at your motion document, there might just be a bit of a typo So, uh, commissioner brian, would you be willing to serve again given particularly your level of expertise? Absolutely sure. Thank you Can I have a motion? Madam chair, I move that the commission designate um commissioner o'brien as its representative on the public safety Subcommittee as included in the commissioners packet discussed here today Okay Is it me that's frozen? No, okay that was commissioner maynard. Yeah And and thank you for correcting that for me commissioner maynard. Do I have a second? I Okay, commissioner scanner. Thank you Any further discussion? All right, uh, commissioner brian abstain Okay, commissioner hill I commissioner skinner I commissioner maynard I Then I vote yes We do allow people to vote for themselves And as a force or habit former former legislator knows that that's the first vote you take So, uh, that's a four. Um, yay and one abstention on that last vote and then with respect to The addiction services subcommittee. I don't even know if I guess mark here mark is there Mark has done a terrific job chairing that. Um I have one question is that there is not that is if I remember correctly in the statute mark Um, that's something that the committee itself votes on the members within the committee vote on that They would uh vote to For the chair of that committee, but in terms of designate. Got it. And I was selected for designate So it's for membership in this case and and and uh mark is right now the elected chair by the committee So are you willing to remain our designated member? Yes, I am Okay, that's Glad you showed up mark. I wasn't sure She got something to present next Do I have a motion? Madam chair I move that the commission designate mark van der linden as its representative on the addiction service Says subcommittee as included in the commissioner's packet and discussed here today second Thank you Any further discussion? kusher right I kusher hill I commissioner skinner I commissioner mainer I And I vote yes mark. Thank you for your additional commitment on that committee. It means a lot and I know it's Good work is underway. So thank you Okay Congratulations Thank you All right. Thank you everyone on that. We took care of some of that homework And now we are turning to am I right joe where I'll set turning to Item number eight And that would be Chief lemon there you are. Good afternoon Good afternoon, madam chair and commissioners I'm joined by douglas o'Donnell and john scully and we are here to present the f y 23 closeout reports for the gaming control fund And the sports wager and control fund the materials begin on page 51 of your packet The massachusetts gaming commission approved an f y 23 budget for the gaming control fund Of 35.7 million which required an initial assessment of 30.5 million on licensees After three quarters of adjustment the mgc's revised budget was 35.97 million which required a 29.88 million assessment on the licensees The gaming control fund spending for f y 23 was 34.98 million, which was 985,000 or 2.74 less than the approved spending level Mgc regulatory costs under spent by 146,000 or point or a half of a percentage point while indirect under spent by 115.6,000 a 4.78 percent Under spend in the office the attorney general under spent by 723,000 which is approximately 19 percent The abc spent all almost all of its allocated funds The table on page 52 of your packet Shows final spending and variances to budgeted fund to budgeted amounts by areas of the gaming control fund as well as brief explanations for large variances of particular note are the Under spendings and the and the over spending in the consultant services line Which represents the billings for the independent monitor that were received after our third quarterly update we only budget and spend for the independent more monitor as we receive bills As well as there's the large under spending in the operational services line of our budget Which is where our g eu costs are funded from We've seen large turnover as well as large vacancy remains in those in the g eu The final large under spending came in the attorney general Line item which we reported earlier was an approximate 19 percent under spending Moving on to the revenue area Um after three quarters of adjustments to reflect better licensing revenues and account for the revenue associated with the billings of the attendant independent monitor The most recent revenue projections for the gaming control fund were 35.79 million relying on the assessment of 29.88 million FY 23 final revenue received was 36.39 million, which was approximately 600,000 higher than the anticipated revenue The majority of that Variance is in the independent monitor billing as you will see the a large amount of bills came in after the third quarter and we recognize that revenue After that third quarter estimate That can be found on page 53 of your packet 205 cmr 121.05 paragraph 2 requires the commission to credit any surplus funds at the close of the fiscal year to the next year's assessment In the same manner in which that excess assessment Was a set was received The tables on page 55 of your packet illustrate how the assessment will be credited to each gaming licensees fy 24 assessment Basically, what we did was we took the first half years of the assessment based on the Gaming positions the second and a half years of the assessment based on those revised gaming assessments as of january And gaming positions as of january 1 combine them and said this is what they're going to get back If there are any questions regarding the gaming control fund, I can answer them now otherwise I'll move on to the sports wagering control fund Okay, I'll shift gears and move on to the sports wagering control fund The commission approved an fy 20 an initial fy 23 budget for the sports wagering control fund of 2.19 million This was reliant solely on the sports wagering suitability fees the initial 200 000 that each applicant gave to us After three quarters of adjustments the mgc's revised budget was 4.74 million which Which required an assessment of 2.23 million on licensees The sports wagering control fund's final spending for fy 23 was 3.97 million, which was 779 000 or 16.4 percent less than the initial than the final approved spending level The table on page 55 of your packet shows final spending and variances to budget and amounts by budget areas within the sports wagering control fund of particular note Was the drastic under spending and payroll and contract employees and this was basically based on a Delay in hiring from what we initially wanted in the sports wagering area As well as substantial consultant costs That were required to get the framework up and running and this was both gli We had anderson krueger. We had earnston young. We had rsm so You know trying to get those numbers perfect at the beginning was I think The herculean task. I think we did a pretty good job trying to estimate them and the final numbers came in pretty close Once you line them all up Um The commission's operational revenues for sports wagering is generated from vendor and employee licensing fees background suitability fees and an assessment on our licensees initial revenue projections For fy 23 were 5.3 5.43 million. Sorry about that. My phone's a ring Um Comprising 3.2 million and suitability licensing fees and an assessment of 2.23 million Fy 23 final revenue received was 6.65 million We received 1.15 million and vendor and employee licensing fees that we had not included in our initial projections variances between estimates and final amounts are included on page 56 of your packet for revenue Final spending in the sports wagering control fund of 3.96 million combined with final revenue of 6.65 million Resulted in revenue exceeding spending by 2.68 million however of the initial 3.2 million background suitability fees 296,000 or almost 297,000 Which is included in your packet on page b an attachment b on page 60 Was was excess revenue that was not spent of the initial 3.2 million licensing fees So we brought in 3.2 million. We spent almost all of that only 297,000 is going to carry forward into next year 205 cmr 121.03 paragraph 4 requires the commission to credit any surplus funds at the close of the fiscal year to the next year's assessment The 2.38 million that's shown in your packet will be credited to licensees f y 24 assessments And we'll reflect a full refund of their f y 23 assessments The f y 23 assessment collection, which were in your packet showed that they were only 2.27 million So we'll be refunding 2.38 so they get everything back plus another 100,000 or so that'll be credited back to them in proportion to the initial 2.27 million dollar assessment We did not include a table in in your packet that shows how that'll go back because the initial assessment was based on some confidential information that was Initial estimates by our licensees for their sports wagering applications and it was covered in executive session If the commissioners would like to see that Doug is more than willing to sit with each commissioner to show you how much each licensee is getting back At this point if you have any questions regarding the closeout reports, I think it's pretty good information Both licensees are getting and both areas are getting substantial refunds and they will be credited back to next year's assessment And I think that gets to the point that all of our directors have Had had drilled into them and we're seeing that Being carried forward in the sports wagering division As well to only spend money prudently And to not be like a typical state agency that spends as much as we can at the end of the year in fear of losing the money Which I think is one of the very nice things that our statute allows us to do. We're not worried about Cuts coming if we had a delay in hiring or delay in a project moving forward We don't spend that money for other things at the end of the year We carry it forward as a credit to the assessment and move forward wisely in subsequent years Any questions for Chief Lennon And I'll most likely have to turn to Doug and John as they are The large generator of the of this information and I as I say every time Lucky to just be able to present it and know it's good information There can you just bring me back to where The expense is on consultants and legal Yes, so if you look at page um, and this would be under the sports wagering control fund, correct Like I should I should be looking at both. I guess I'm sorry that I'm I I'm sorry that I missed out on that a little bit Not a problem. Um, so if you look on page 55 of the packet You'll see for the sports wagering control fund We had an initial projection of 500 000 under the hh line consultant services to departments Yep, we increased that up to 2.2 to 3 million We ended up spending 2,442 000 And that is an increase of 212 000 the majority of that That overspending was a late bill that came in from Ernst and young That was above what our initial initial projections were Um, and I think that was around 137 000 of that and then we had some additional costs I mean we had huge costs for rsm We had huge costs for andison crieger to get this started so To throw a dart at the wall and only yeah So to only throw a dart at the wall and only exceeded by 212 000 while under spending in many other areas I think was a pretty Pretty good job by our by our teams Right, and I remember we revised that but that does include legal that was sort of my question and then in terms and then in terms of our regular Our regular yes, um, so that would be on page. Let me scroll up Page 52 of your packet and once again you would see the hh Where we started off at 815 000 We increased it to 901 000 which was for the independent monitor bills that we had received Through our first three quarters. It went up to 1.5 2 million and as you can see I'm 1.58 million 600 which is a $680 000 variance 604 000 of that variance had to do with the independent monitor bills that came in after the third quarter In the balance of it was um, a lot of it had to do with outside council getting ready for the union The union Yeah And so and that and that is not Anderson Krieger No part of that is Morgan Brown and Joy and the It's actually all Morgan Brown and Joy Anderson Krieger handles other matters for us under under this budget Our litigation defense and some general consulting Okay Thanks, I was looking for the word legal and now I know we we include it in consult that makes good sense to me Thanks, Derek. My apologies everyone Absolutely Okay We don't need to take action on this today correct No action needed it the year is closed and there's nothing we can do about it at this point I can only report on it Well, and we can report back to you. Nice job Everybody. Thank you John, thank you done. Thank you Derek and then I know there are other members of your team that are present today to the entire finance team. Thank you for your good work Uh commissioners any questions for Derek? Commissioner Hill? Uh, no question. Just great job by the whole staff. I reiterate what you said. They're the great. They're great Yeah, and of course now you're working closely as treasurer Any other comments or questions? Commissioner Skinner, you did much of this treasury work under this So I was just adding my voice to the chorus of things Good to see you again and John and you too Derek. Thank you. Thank you. Okay Excellent All right Then we're moving on to item number nine We have the whole range of topics this meeting which is always Both a challenge to keep our minds fluid But also a lot of fun. So here we have Mark Vandalinen on responsible gaming and the research agenda Great. Um, good afternoon everybody I'm joined, uh, with dr. Bonnie Andrews. Bonnie. I think you're you're on There you are. Hi So we wanted to talk to you about making an agenda to the FY 24 gaming research agenda So as you know, the commission is charged with carrying out an annual research agenda to comprehensively assess the impacts of casino gambling in massachusetts Specifically mgl chapter 23k section 71 directs the research agenda To examine the social and economic effects of expanded gaming and to obtain scientific information relative to neuroscience psychology sociology epidemiology and etiology of gambling Um, mgl chapter 23 in section 23 extends the scope of the research agenda To include in understanding of the effects of sports monitoring in the coming up As you recall the the process of developing our annual research agenda regardless of what year begins early in the calendar year It includes initial presentation to the commission followed by um feedback from the gaming research advisory committee and the gaming policy advisory committee which is statutorily required The final research agenda was voted on by you and approved on May 4th this year As many things do We things change and shift in the research agenda And we will we are hoping that you'll consider a few changes to the research agenda for FY 24 and I'll outline those for you Um, and probably the the biggest one is what I'm going to talk about first, which is um a proposed study Called new approaches to advancing pre-commitment assessing whether a mandatory versus voluntary limit adherence Feature and reward facilitates responsible gaming Um, so the the purpose of pre-commitment tools such as play my way is to then minimize gambling related terms by cultivating responsible positive gambling habits So for example setting a budget setting a limit before you you begin gambling um This study would build upon Researchers previous findings that a hard lock in other words where the player cannot Go beyond the the limit they set Is more effective in reducing the number of visits in gambling expenditures over time compared to the standard soft lock option, which is um, you can reach your limit You're provided with information and notifications, but it doesn't stop you from continuing to gamble Which is the case with uh with play my way Across two studies and two experiments this study will evaluate attitudes towards pre-commitment tool um including play my way and determine the characteristics of players who choose hard lock option versus um a soft lock option um And now just to back up a little bit the commission um back in 2000 December 2014 january of 2015 Um discuss the hard lock versus soft lock options As we were proceeding down this path of identifying what we wanted pre-commitment to to look like And how to work most effectively with our operators in order to to implement this This tool the commission at that time did decide that a soft lock meeting that we can extend beyond um your set budget with notifications to support informed player choice um So this uh introduction of pilot project for a hard stop is a shift in in that decision making um And and I would support it for the following reasons one is that it would We would be advocating for a pilot project not to be implemented across the state but with a Operator that would agree to do so um second There does appear to be some emerging evidence of the efficacy of a hard stop versus a soft stop that wasn't present back in 2014 and 2015 when the commission made made that decision and then finally A hard stop appears to be the direction that a lot of operators and and definitely the sports wagering industry is going that Where play management is offered in sports wagering What what it is is basically a hard stop you can't gamble beyond the limit whether it be time or deposit or loss You can't gamble beyond beyond that limit So it seems it feels to me like a natural extension one to explore its effectiveness in massachusetts through slot machine play on a on a pilot basis The other issue that the operators want or that the um That the researchers would like to investigate is is what role does incentivizing the use of pre-commitment Play so in massachusetts, we do incentivize enrollment in in plain language Largely in in cooperation with our operators that we very very much appreciate So we would like to just take a step further and look at what role does that incentive page incentivization Play both in enrollment, but probably more important in limit adherence Is there a way that we can take a step further and looking at how does how would an incentive encourage people To stick with the limits that that they set which is something that we haven't done in massachusetts, and I think Holds a lot of possibility as we continue down this road promoting responsible gaming in the state um The proposed study would be conducted in collaboration with carleton university and specifically dr. Michael wall Who is a professor of psychology at carleton university be the principal investigator at this? um being our role as the mgc would be to facilitate recruitment of players enrolled in plain language As well as after sort of a liaison between the research team and a casino partner to obtain the data And when I say casino casino um partner We've had discussions with um a couple of our operators They've been very positive, but we haven't landed on the specific operator that To carry this study out. So that's a big caveat that we need to have that in place in order for this study to perceive Um, and I feel confident that we can we have really pretty amazing operators in state that Have a commitment to responsible gaming and seeing the advancement of responsible gaming In the industry The funding for this specific study would come from at the international center for responsible gaming To the tune of a hundred and seventy one thousand nine hundred and twenty five dollars So that's the first study that I would I would uh Wish the commission to consider adding to our apply 24 research agenda and and madam chair I don't know if we want to pause and see if there's any questions on that before and we want to be mixed to We do it section by section correct commissioners and we want um I'm wondering do we have to formally vote or do we want just to have a consensus? I guess we do for an amendment to it. We would normally vote right And I can move on to the next item Yeah, well, but um, there's going to be three recommendations So commissioners we could take it one at a time unless I mean maybe we should go through all three because there may be Uh different choices for commissioners, okay Item two Item two is interesting a small study Looking at the role of AI from gambling And this study would focus on current and possible uses of AI in the gambling industry with a particular focus on marketing Player acquisition game integrity and responsible gaming initiatives as well as implications for problem gambling and player health Um much as part of our research agenda this year. It's looking at what what are the possible implications and looking around the corner On eye gaming, which doesn't exist This is also this this type of study where we see see the emergence of AI in its intersection with gambling and in order to stay ahead of this in order to For the commission to to be informed as we move forward This would be a small study. Um in order to it. It's explore of this specific issue Okay Any questions on on that Okay, and then item three and then You're closing. Yeah, so actually item three. I'm sorry root. It's it's here only because this wasn't Explicit when we had the research agenda adopted in may but it's the ad hoc report that the commission adopted and approved voted on on august 17th It's just as a very quick reminder without going into detail is A study on the early economic impacts of sports wagering in massachusetts in beginning to set up a system where the commissioner can Can measure these economic impacts as as we move as we move forward So this was adopted on august 17th And so there would be no changes to that. We're currently in the process of moving this specific study The only other piece and and dr. Andrews and I Are recommending that we delay until f y 24 I'm sorry f y 25 In order to allow for adequate resources Um As well as wait for a study on the impact of advertising gambling behavior on to massachusetts There was a study. Um, it was adopted in may Looking at sports wagering advertising specifically Look at different marketing affiliate payment structures on the in the impact on players So in other words, we we would like to pursue this but delay it to f y f y 25 Largely because we don't have there's a study that we currently have underway And won't be wrapped up for a while that looks at the impacts of gambling The or looks at the impacts of advertising on gambling behavior in terms of massachusetts So the commissioner we'd be just deferring that Previously approved study and then adding the other two that we hadn't approved before That is correct. Yeah, so commissioners thoughts questions for either recta vandalin or dr. Andrews Commissioner may be leaning in yeah, I um As to i'm thinking of each section separately Mark and I have been spending more time together after your assignment madam chair and I appreciate it and um You know, he spent a lot of time talking about the history of the hard stop and the soft stop And um, I just think it's really really worth doing really looking into seeing What the implications are You know, I think that we pride ourselves on being on the forefront of this We're known for that whenever we go to conferences all of us We hear about it and um, I I support it. It's it's You know a public meeting can't capture all the good reasons Uh that mark vandalin it can explain in a one-on-one meeting Uh adequately in my opinion because I I think that it's it's something that we're going to learn a lot from So I just wanted to express my full support Thank you commissioner And as to the ai piece I had mentioned to mark on the That possibly he could be on the forefront of exploring On the impact of of ai through proper research It's going to be the subject matter conferences around the world and And for our operators for our fellow regulators This research could be helpful there's You know for ai there's so many good opportunities and then of course I think we have to think about defensively to how we We work to make sure ai isn't used by bad actors particularly with respect to threatening gaming integrity Money laundering issues of course And then of course ai might even be able to be an enhancer for some of the cyber security issues Now I'm making this up because you know like so many of us. We really don't know The reach of ai how it can be used so you could really be on the forefront and I understand it's a small study But it could um raise issues that we could explore more deeply so I I am I like Pursuing that and I'm in full agreement with commissioner maynard. I also understood the implications of this This pivot possibly mark. So thank you Any other questions or comments commissioner hill? Yeah, just Elaborate a little bit. I think there's going to be an extra cost to this over what we had budgeted Correct commissioner hill. Um, it would be adding 25. We anticipated about 25 000 in order to to carry out this ai study And so but that would be the extent of the addition to the gaming research agenda for f y 24. So Go ahead. Uh, so the increase from 1,865,000 to 1,890,000 dollars I'm not penny pinching and please don't think that of me when i'm asking these questions By putting ai off for one year to f y 25 What's the big downside to that if there is one being off one year instead of next year? um You know, I think that this is a very quick moving issue within within the gaming industry I think that we're all reading about the impact of ai Um in our day to day lives and seeing what the potential impact both positive and negative within the gaming industry Is it very timely and important issues? So That's that's principally why you would certainly see it on our f y 25 research agenda recommendations If it if it doesn't get approved In the f y 24 research agenda So this probably I'd like to respond to that to commissioner hell if I've had conversations with mark on this But just as I said we pride ourselves in being on the cutting edge and if we wait a year We're going to be a little bit late. So I think this is a small study for We have the budget and It it could raise some Really timely issues that then the team could explore with even more depth So, I mean I would advocate for now unless Chief lennon has real concerns about the budgetary implications So don't take anything that I have said as that Um, I just want to know the answers because my and this isn't probably the place to bring this up um Please to bring it out But you know, I I see $25,000 in addition to the budget here And then when I start looking at other departments I mean now that I am looking at the budget a little bit more carefully than I had in the past Um, we seem to be increase increase increase increase and that should be worrisome to us And I hope it is that we keep an eye on, you know, the budgetary items that come before us It all adds up Is this money well spent? Absolutely. I'm going to be supporting it mark But I want my fellow commissioners to know there's going to be more requests for more additional money for this agency Um as the year progresses That's all Sure could respond to the the budget piece, uh far better than I should Yeah, so we do not have concerns for the $25,000 for this because this comes out of um, you know, a separate separate funding source um and mark Mark's budget that he put in for this year is below what we think the deposits for the public health trust fund will be And that's even with our conservative estimates. So no concerns here, but I do hear what commissioner hill is saying It's a good thing to address each one as it comes up Take a look at the competing interests and in this matter We do not have any competing interests and it does look like mark will have a surplus on top of what he has budgeted Thank you for that explanation and thank you madam chair I um, I work very closely with the finance department on the research and responsible gaming budget Um, we we recognize want to recognize and maximize the revenue that comes into the public health trust fund that's the the share of the commission um and Have a little bit of a buffer and moving forward in anticipation of Of new and emerging issues that we we would want to respond to in any given fiscal year And commissioner hill um in light of your past position I have to say whenever I get the chance and I I I know mills can um, you know attest to this whenever I am Asked about our research commission. I'm sure my fellow commissioners do the same I always say how appreciative we are to the legislature and ultimately the governor for signing off on legislation both 23 k and 23 and that gives us resources to do research that Our fellow regulators do not have across the country So in many ways mark can lead a conversation on research because we have the special funds Into the public health trust fund. So the you're I'm with you I'm frugal and careful And I do think this is $25,000 that will be well Additional $25,000 will be well spent if we can get a little bit of some insight on this emerging topic And so again, I express my gratitude to the legislature for these Really exceptional funding arrangement that we have for research Any further discussion? But we do need a vote because we're amending if we move forward on this on these I guess really as the on the whole unless anybody wants to carve out something Or add something Commissioner Maynard, are you leaning in? Yeah, madam chair. I'm happy to to make a motion I move that the commission amend the fy 24 gaming research agenda As outlined in the memorandum in the commissioner's packet and discussed further here today Second Any further discussion? Okay, commissioner o'brien I commissioner hill I commissioner skinner I commissioner Maynard I And I vote yes. Is there some sound coming from some pet? It's like once man go quiet The other dog So I think it's time for a break If we do need a break, I'm not sure where we are. I'm going to test that I I do have An appointment that I will need to leave for four But if they're a brian, you would be able to take over for me if need be I'm hoping we will be done by four Should we do we need a break for 10 minutes? Otherwise we'd be turning to I don't know if I know Dave Mackey is uh coming in rather than Mina on our next Item which is item 11 with respect to the selection of the screening committee Or the director of investigations and enforcement bureau. He's here. Can we move ahead with With Dave from right now. I'm I'm flexible. So I can also just turn my camera off and deal with this and we can keep marching Keep it moving forward Just a five minute break madam chair Time constraints by well, thank you. It's all it it's um Swinging my daughter to the airport and then I have a medical appointment. So it's a little bit of a challenge. So thanks Thank you so much Well to break for five minutes and return. Thank you Okay, Dave Thank you Also Thanks so much Happened a lot today Dave We're going to get started in just a second. There we come. We are on Live right now. Okay We can get started. Um, we're holding this meeting of the master's game commission virtually. So I'll do our roll calls Good afternoon again commissioner brye I am here Excellent. Thanks commissioner hill. I'm here Great commissioner skinner. I'm here Excellent and commissioner maker I'm here Okay So we left off um And thank you to everybody lots of ground covered. So now we're turning to the selection um process for the screening committee for the director of investigations and enforcement bureau And we have uh, Dave Mackey from Anderson fever who's standing in for Meena mer and the karios and so thank you so much Dave we'll have you we'll turn it right over to you All right, so should I just uh, just outline briefly what the open meeting law provides with respect to a to a pre preliminary screening committee and Then uh, you can take it from there ask questions. Uh So, uh, the the open meeting law Provides a public body with the ability to go into executive session Uh, if it's an executive session meeting of what it refers to as a preliminary screening committee and uh The idea is that this preliminary screening committee that can meet and evaluate and consider an interview candidates in executive session Could go through, you know, for example an initial batch of interviews and potentially in an initial batch of resumes and potentially an initial batch of interviews and then forward Has to forward more than one candidate to the full public body to get evaluated uh in a public session and the idea behind it is that I think the legislature recognized that if anybody who sent a resume into a public body for a job Was likely to be outed potentially to their current employer. It could kind of chill the applicant pool. So You're able to go through this initial process By using a a preliminary screening committee and you're able to do it in executive session uh A couple of the requirements are can't contain the the preliminary screening committee can't contain a A quorum of the public body. So in your case, it could only be two Two commissioners on the public body Should appoint a chair and the chair of the preliminary screening committee can announce any public session before it goes into executive session that You know having a public discussion about even this Original raft of resumes could be detrimental To the public bodies the way the statute reads is ability to attract qualified candidates for the position And then with respect to what the preliminary screening committee can do in executive session There's some guidance from the AG's office that reflects that the preliminary screening committee, you know shouldn't deliberate about You know qualifications for the job or appropriate questions to ask or that kind of thing that's all public Should be vetted in public really what the preliminary screening committee does is limited to uh interviewing evaluating and considering Which of the pool of which of the original pool of applicants will get forward into the public body for For a public vetting and then ultimately a public selection so that's That's the idea and i'm not y'all that's really helpful guidance or the um our other initial This preliminary screening process that's going on Um commissioners i'll remind you that with respect to the executive director. We selected commissioner O'Brien commissioner jordan to be the two commissioner representatives for this that Screening committee and we discussed at the time that the possibility of of having commissioner hill and commissioner skinner Be the members on this particular screening committee I think we had kind of a consensus at that time and I just thought we'd be turned quickly to that To help us with respect to that portion of The selection process commissioners. Are we still in that mindset? commissioner o'Brien No, yeah, commissioner hill and commissioner skinner are still willing. Um, that was where my head was. Yeah Still willing Still willing commissioner skinner as am I Good good. So then um their The recommendation is to have You know, I think we have four on the other. I always like an odd number, but um I think we have four on yours. Uh commissioner o'Brien commissioner maynard Is that right? It gets five for us. It is five. Okay. Yeah So the two and I just think it's the nature of the position. It's myself commissioner maynard Dave moldrew derrick And heather Here, that's it. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, so um, oh three on this one is sufficient or Or five, but I think an odd number is important um We haven't discussed whether or not we would use a we we've discussed, but we don't I don't think we made a decision Whether a search farm would be necessary I'm thinking that you probably would still want to have certainly representation from cheap moldrew I would agree with that Agreed So is it a three or a five? I have an opinion, but I I am I'm being asked I'm being asked to I think you should give your opinion. Yeah, so I think we only need three I think uh commissioner skinner and I and Uh, Dave moldrew could handle this ourselves Commissioner maynard commissioner skinner input I don't disagree Uh with commissioner hill that he Myself and Dave could get this done. I just wonder what other perspective The group could benefit from um, you know, maybe Just in an area of responsibility that does not fall within our Area of expertise So, you know commissioner hill I I just I I wanted to refer to you, but I do think um I'd like to hear from Dave moldrew Um as to what his opinion is here. Um, I just I want to make sure that we have a full complement of Individuals who would be useful to this screening process? Commissioner skinner madam chair commissioners, um I I have no problem with the three I I think that um Um In regards to I don't know if this is the place to how we conduct it, but three would not be an issue. I believe that um It could be handled properly with three. I do I believe it could be handled properly with three Yeah, I don't doubt that. Uh, it could be handled properly. I was just wondering if we're missing some Um You know it's insight. Um that Falls outside of the three of us. Um, just asking us to consider that and as I as I'm sitting here. I don't I can't think of you know, what would be helpful here in this regard, but it strikes me I mean if I if we were in a perfect world I I want a former ieb director To be participating in this process and I know that's four but And we'd have to consider A fifth assuming we could make that happen With a former ieb director, but I'm just um Want to make sure that we've got All avenues covered Um, and so yeah if the consensus is the three of us Is sufficient. I'm happy to I'm happy to roll along with that Michelle broyan You've turned up here Here's no, I just never I just never muted myself again after saying I was okay with three Um, I I know I understand the sediment commissioner. We don't really have anybody on staff who fulfills that role Other than the person doing the interim job right now. So we can't do that. So right Well, I I think that's an interesting perspective. Um, I would say members of our team Um interact with ieb and and have interacted with the former directors and members of that team Commissioner skinner you were once a member of that team Then they might have some real insights on the leadership and skills that Could be of influence And to make for the the best selection um I I think I mean we have derek Who actually is selected by the executive director on that team and for very good reasons There are people within that team who might wish to participate who could give insights as to How the ieb runs That all three of you would benefit from because commissioner skinner raises a good point And it could be Helpful I don't know if we've ever used any ge you folks. Um And that's another area of exploration because they would be working closely with the The director those are my thoughts I don't think we have to go outside of the organization. However Although I respect that I respect that suggestion commission Chief mull true. What are you thinking? I'm thinking uh, I think we are an executive session now correct. No, no, no Okay, okay You know what Dave? I fully appreciate that because we have chief mull true in and out and sorry And out of the screening and you know what you are revealing to us. It's it's challenging and we appreciate that so Public session um, and and it's about the committee and it could be three and I think we've heard You know three will work, but we also could do we could do four or might be challenging and five Okay, commissioner skinner. I was just thinking Being a new position and the person And I'm really having um Not having anyone online I think it would it would be a great opportunity to have someone a senior manager from operations Uh, just you know having our current Director of field operations possibly be part of the team to um, really provide and ask and look for what's going to be needed Because the majority of this role is oversight of what's going on in the field And that individual some candidates may have transferable skills Um that apply and only this person may be able to see that So I after listening thinking about commissioner skinner says maybe going to a four format I would say if we were and we were to expand it internally um I I would look at one of our Look at our senior ops In the field and see if that's a possibility. That was my thought Yeah, Dave. I think I think um that that's it. I hadn't Thought about the field operations perspective. I was thinking more um in and um The chairs mentioned of a member of g u. I was Precisely thinking about um the law enforcement perspective. So I think I mean no, but I think it's a good addition And so I think if we did Invite Someone with law law enforcement background Along with you know, what you recommended someone with field ops Experience, then I think that would nicely round out this subcommittee. Um And it just gives us a uh a richer Review of of any potential candidates, I think Richard maynard, you're You're thinking I'm glad that um That the ed ones already set. That's what I'm thinking Um because I know how hard these decisions are are um to be made. Um You know, I I think three's fine. I can also see the benefit and I you know, I believe I've mentioned this in having a A non-department head Be a part of of a committee just to give a different perspective. Um, I like the idea of um Um someone with with the law enforcement background And I wasn't opposed last time nor am I this time to to getting former folks involved. I know that's Some people don't like that idea, but I I've often liked it Um because you can be a little more candid when you're not here and subject to to being here every day So, um, you know, I've kind of you know, so I can see this going either way and I'm happy with it. So Madam chair I want to see just I oh no. Oh commissioner skinner by all means I was just gonna ask if we could hear from commissioner hill Um, I I want to see this process move as quickly as possible um And you've made some great reasons why you would like to see a fourth member or even a fifth But i'm still comfortable with saying commissioner skinner and dave moldu and I would do a fine job in Hiring the next ed for this position Mr. Skinner Yeah, I'm I'm I'm going to rest on that And three is the magic number here So dave mackey, is there any advice that you have for And we'll vote on that and it looks like we'll have a consensus and on that any advice for the the group as they consider this The hiring process for this big position. No, I think you know, you're you're balancing off You know the broadest array of perspectives with some sense of being able to be Efficient and move nimbly on this. It's three strikes means an entirely reasonable way to proceed The group and maybe you're you know, your first meeting you'd want to elect a chair Just so that you can fulfill the statutory requirement that you you know make the required statement before you go into executive session But other than that this seems like a A great screening committee and I'm sure you'll get a lot of terrific applicants Excellent. Okay with that. Do I have a motion? Um, I moved at the commission doesn't the following individuals is the number of the iv director screening committee um commissioner hill commissioner skinner and director dave moldu second Okay point of clarification Ultimately, there has to be multiple candidates brought forth You're doing one two, sorry You know crazy unlikely scenario where you only have one applicant, but uh, but otherwise, yes, you need to court Okay Commissioner um, o'brien I commissioner hill I Mr. Skinner I abstain Okay, commissioner manor I And I vote yes, so for um yeas and one extension Again the legislature the legislator wins All right Okay, so with that we'll move on to item number 11 by 12 and that And 12 and 13 and 14 commissioners there's um They're topics that anticipate the need for executive sessions and they're familiar topics Topics that we are For the first two returning to and then the third one in the same vein That we'd be looking at and that has to do with seizure cyber security matter. We'd be looking at um First with respect to I um mgm resorts um request for an extension On a matter that we've looked at before a letter regarding some safety and security issues and then mgm cyber security issue An update on as well as seizures with that said, uh, I can read Into the record for purpose of the open meeting law the three, um relevant components and We could vote on all three. I can also take them separately Commissioners, do you anticipate going in on all three years? Uh, if I can get kind of a a nod to pursue on three and if we sort it out Okay The commission anticipates that it will meet an executive session in accordance with gl Chapter 30a section 21 a4 to discuss the use and deployment of security personnel or devices Or strategies with respect there to mgm springfield specifically with regard to firearms The public session of the commission meeting will not reconvene a conclusion of the executive session Commission anticipates that it will meet an executive session in accordance with gl Chapter 30a section 21a7 and gl chapter 4 section 7 subsection 26n Certain records for which public disclosure is likely to jeopardize public safety or cyber security ngl chapter 30a section 21a4 to consider information related to cyber security The disclosure of which is likely to jeopardize public safety Or cyber security and to discuss the deployment of security personnel or devices or strategies With respect there to in relation to an mgm cyber security issue And again the public session of the commission meeting Is not anticipate reconvening at the conclusion of the executive session And then finally the commission anticipates that it will meet an executive session in accordance with gl Chapter 30a section 21a7 ngl chapter 4 section 7 subsection 26n certain records for which the public disclosure is likely to jeopardize public safety or cyber security ngl chapter 30a section 21a4 to consider information related to cyber security The disclosure of which is likely To jeopardize public safety or cyber security and to discuss the deployment of security personnel or devices or strategies With respect there to in relation to an caesars cyber security issue Public session again of the commission meeting will not reconvene at the conclusion of that executive session if so voted On some commissioners do I have a motion To go into those public executive sessions, please Commissioner brian madame chair I move that the commission go into executive session on agenda items 12 13 and 14 And specifically on the matters and for the reasons just stated by the chair Again Okay, any discussion all right all those in favor Commissioner brian hi commissioner hill hi commissioner skinner hi commissioner maynard hi And I vote yes five zero So to all those who participated today on the team members. Thank you for excellent work And thank you also for hanging in another long meeting, but a very productive one We are now being escorted to a virtual session And we'll eventually adjourn from that meeting. Thank you to the public for joining us