 Okay today this is an emergency meeting that we've called in light of the governor's announcement today. We are of course using remote technology made available by an early executive order heat issue to allow public bodies like ours can be using this remote technology. I'm going to call to order to the meeting. It is Tuesday December 22nd just past four o'clock at four o'five and it is our public meeting number 331. I'll get we'll get started but again just a reminder to everyone that we're at a really difficult time with respect to this pandemic. It has been a huge long haul this year and more than ever we have to be vigilant and keep up our resolve to comply with all of the recommended restrictions and advice coming out of our from our public health experts. You know we are all hearing there is light at the end of the tunnel but there's a big mountain to get over before that light shines brightly. So with that Karen I think that I'm going to turn it to you and I think perhaps Dr. Lightdown as well. Thank you so much. That's correct so Madam Chair members of the Commission in light of the press conference this afternoon in which Governor Baker and Lieutenant Governor Polito announced the issuance of the COVID-19 order number 59 which imposed some further restrictions in Massachusetts due to the COVID pandemic that impacted many venues in restricting the occupancy levels as one of the measures and the nature of that left it to the Commission to follow suit. So I'm going to turn it over to Attorney Rilio's to go over some recommendations for the Commission and how to be consistent with the governor's order in the operations of the casinos and with simulcastle facilities. Okay I know I'm too late but did we already do roll call? My apologies thank you so much I do need to establish that thank you Commissioner Cameron. I am here good afternoon. Commissioner O'Brien. I'm here. And Commissioner Zuniga. Here. Commissioner Stebbins. Good afternoon I'm here. And we can just pause and say thank you and and I'm here of course so I'll have a present thank you Commissioner O'Brien that was a piece of business I didn't take care of thanks. Let's go going then with the Loretta Liliosa Chief Enforcement Counsel. Hi good afternoon so as Karen mentioned the governor's new temporary order today addresses restaurants retail businesses and also addresses casinos. His order limits to 25% of seating capacity for restaurants and 25% of building capacity for retail businesses and his order specifically states that workers and staff are excluded from the occupancy counts there. With respect to casinos his order does talk about a 25% capacity limit and then leaves it to the Commission to reissue capacity restrictions as necessary so that's what we're here doing today. And these capacities are based on under the governor's order building code capacities as appearing in occupancy permits or those that are on record with the building department. To date casinos have been subject to occupancy limits since reopening after the temporary closure due to the pandemic. They've been subject to occupancy limits set by the Commission and the limits have given casinos a formula to utilize that takes into account available gaming positions times a multiplier of 3 also takes into account number of employees. And although the building code capacity limits are not a literal factor in the formula or the equation that we have been using the Commission certainly considered building code capacities when adopting the formula and that formula that has been in place up until now allowed for a maximum capacities in the 40% range for each property. So this 25% would be a reduction even when taking into account that we're using would be I'm proposing a different system not a formula based fully formula based system. So moving forward under the new order from the governor made public today, I'm suggesting that as in the document that's in your in your packet that with respect to gaming areas that each licensee may continue to consider and abide by the formula that we set forth in back in June, but in no event may occupancy level of the gaming area exceed the 25% level set forth in the governor's order today. And in calculating the 25% capacity limit of the gaming area, which is a defined term for each property workers and staff of the gaming area. I'm suggesting are excluded from the occupancy counts to the gaming area which is consistent with the governor's order on restaurant and retail and is for you to consider today. With respect to amenities as in governor's order today, I'm suggesting that each gaming licensee be required to abide by the 25% occupancy limits established in the order for the applicable sectors. I'm also suggesting that each gaming licensee be required to develop a plan to ensure compliance with these new occupancy limits is achieved in a safe and effective and orderly manner, including addressing instances where additional guests may be seeking entry that would then put them over the 25% area. You know how are they going to deal safely with capping entry. The requirements under the governor's order go into effect 12 or 1 a.m. on December 26 and remain in effect until noon on January 10th, unless further extended. I'm suggesting that we track that for the time being. And I would note that we have when adopting the initial requirements back in June. We worked with each property on their capacity limits. I've been in touch with each of them today and we're in the process of confirming that we're all working with the same set of numbers and that we're reviewing their monitoring plans and also have been talking to our gaming agent leadership leadership today about our compliance monitoring as well. So the two-page document is in your packet. I know that the licensees there on the line, the gaming agent leadership, Bruce and Burke are on the line. Captain Connors is on the line. If you have any questions we would try to address them. Quick question. So you said that you obviously you've spoken with the licensees and you're in the process of confirming that you both have the same understanding of of how to move forward. Is that what you were explaining? That's right Commissioner. You know we worked with their building code capacity numbers back in June and July. It was a factor in your developing your formula and I just wanted to confirm that we're all still working with those same numbers since now it's a you know multiple we'll work with 25 percent of that number. Okay thank you. Attorney Lilios can you just I may have a I may need some clarification around the count of employees and workers. Our formula right now includes the gaming establishment employees as well as amenities. I know that the governor today announced that he was for certain industries was excluding employees from the count toward occupancy. I didn't hear him say casinos. Does the executive order suggest that for casinos that would exclude employees? He was silent on that. He talked about the 25 percent and left it to the commission to develop rules around capacity with respect to restaurants and retail. He explicitly excluded employees. So but you know it's really for your discussion and consideration today with respect to the gaming area whether you want to include or exclude employees for the gaming area calculation. And of course those numbers vary across the three properties can vary at time of day and are you know very downwards with the reduced capacity since the need for the you know the need is reduced with reduced capacity as well. Can I ask a question about your fourth item in terms of the recommendations for how we move forward on this? Sure. It ends with it talks about mimicking the governor's timeline and then ends with unless further extended and I would assume that that contemplates unless further extended by further order of the governor consistent with you know order 59 or this commission. Now do we need to spell that out or clarify whether we intend for it to be automatically terminating or would this be automatically renewing if the governor shows to extend that date which I think the the latter would be the way to go that it should be written such that it automatically extends if the governor chooses to do so and then of course we would always have the authority to extend on our own even if the governor didn't act. I just want to make sure that language covers what I'm hoping is in there. Yeah we could certainly do that. I pulled the language directly from the governor's order but of course that's how it appears on the governor's order so you may want to be explicit on our order. And I'm taught if you have thoughts on the language there in the end of number four. Commissioner I'm sorry could you just explain again what your concern is? It's the time period for the overlay of the supplemental restrictions on capacity and right now it mimics you know identically the governor's order 59 timeline and that ends with unless further extended and what's not clear I think in that language is unless further extended by the governor or by further order of us and I think what it should say is that it ends there and that either one of us can extend it but I think if the governor extends prior to the 10th particularly just given our holidays etc it should automatically extend without the need for us to reconvene. We always would have the ability to reconvene if the governor doesn't extend and we choose to do so but I would just like it written so that it's clear to the licensee. So we don't have to come back. We're not coming back. Yeah yeah for the governor but of course if it were for us we would have to convene again. That seems that seems right. Thank you. So in that case if I can just jump in so the language would then read unless further extended by order of the governor or this commission and then and then maybe in such case the this this supplement would extend you know an alignment or something. Yeah I think as long as you say unless further extended by order of the governor or this commission then it's clear that it would automatically continue if the governor takes action on capacity caps that references casinos. Okay. But if he does not act and we choose to come back on the ninth and say we want to continue. Okay. So be it. So can we go back to the employee issue? I'm struggling with that Loretta. All of our numbers that we've been thinking about include employees that we've discussed in the past. That's right. And now today you're proposing that they would not include employees. So that means that there would be more people on the floor than what we would be 25% of patrons that the occupancy would just be patrons. Not necessarily because the cap the cap is coming down for patrons which are represent the bulk of of the occupancy. You are correct that there's there's a formula there. There's a shift now. There's a reduction in that in the total with the exclusion of employees. So I don't know where that leaves us overall. Something tells me that it's less than what we currently have that has been 50% with the inclusion. Is it a 50%? The formula depended on the on the property and also the gaming positions. But yes you are correct. And I think the practical effect is that the the capacity would go down but not down beyond what we've seen in business operations. I think the potential practical effect is that there's not an incentive for a casino or other properties that the governor is dealing with to let employees go just up their capacity number. So an advantage would be you know there's no incentive to let employees go. They don't impact the numbers. But we have been including in our operations we have always said bodies on the gaming floor in order to achieve proper social distancing. All of our restrictions have contemplated that as part of the count. And so now we have a we I don't think we would include as part of the count the retail or the restaurants because they those employees have been excluded by the governor's order. We're also not including those patrons who are coming we would include them if they walk onto the gaming floor. So to that extent our formula did include the amenities before. It doesn't. It would not include the amenities but if patrons from the amenities came onto the floor those bodies would be counted as part of the fire code. And when I I think of a fire code I think of strict bodies. I don't think of patrons versus employees versus vendors I think of bodies and and and right now the we have to comply with the 25 percent occupancy rate on the gaming floor. So I guess minus employees. That's a recommendation of of Councillor Lillio's today and that's why I'm zeroing on it. Yes that's exactly right. Her recommendation would be minus employees and I think that's a shift in our gaming. So maybe the question to ask is currently what do we have as an overall percentage and what is the breakdown of typically of employees versus patrons. Okay so that and to be clear although it is coming to you as a recommendation I'm not strongly advocating for including or excluding the employees other than the sort of incentivizing that Karen talked about. I really put it in this way to follow the rationale of the other two sectors that are relevant to our casinos the restaurants and the amenities that the governor had addressed like 25 percent but not counting employees in that 25 percent. So it was really for a consistency purposes and not so much advocacy purposes that I did that. You know the number of employees does really fluctuate but at the bigger properties can be in the in the few hundreds at the biggest at Encore can be in the few hundreds. So you know it's certainly justifiable that you are you're considering that you know as a measure as a safety measure and how to how to address that. Yeah but if it depends on the ratio of employees to patrons now the formula is changing and and the change is meaningful the more the more employees there are per patron or the more that that ratio is the higher that ratio is it's less meaningful if that ratio is very low and that's the question that I'm asking and maybe we just don't have that information. What is that ratio of employees to to patrons typically um in our existing program? You say 200 or you know a couple of hundreds for Encore. Our existing our existing formula was based on the concept of the number of employees that would be needed to attend to the patrons and that's why there's all you know 100 employee number plus 100 of amenities three times the gaming position. So for three patrons all the employees and we always considered employees as part of our overall formula and now there is an an order from the governor that we must meet 25 we must have no more than 25 percent of the fire code occupied. I didn't hear an exemption from us but I'm hearing Loretta on that in the executive order where the governor does um turn to other industries is it implied that we can also exempt our workers because I'm I'm not sure that's necessarily contemplated and well they he he he exempted you know their industries and if we're trying to follow the parallel that would be one reason to to do that to also exempt uh the the employees. I'm not sure he exempt employees for all the industries. Oh then maybe I'm misunderstood I thought that's that's what I'm struggling with uh commissioner yeah I thought he might be wrong but I'm just not sure of that and I wish I had the executive order. So I I do have it um yeah chair uh so in the sector specific the first sectors gatherings um I think it's not addressed there but I think maybe it's not applicable you know the notes there say it applies equally to private homes and event venues and public spaces. Restaurants uh says workers and staff are excluded. That's that's that's my point. Close contact personal services that column is empty uh indoor and outdoor events workers and staff are excluded. Theaters and performance venues uh uh says 25 and maximum 50 people. I I think that's implicit that staff is excluded. I think that the 50 people means customers at the theaters and performance venues um casinos the notes section says 25 percent in MGC to reissue capacity rules as necessary. Office space it's empty obviously everybody there is is a worker. Places of worship workers staff excluded. Retail workers staff excluded. Driving and flight schools just says 25 percent um golf facility says 25 percent note section says applies only to indoor spaces uh libraries 25 percent note section is blank operators of lodgings 25 percent um no notes and then there are no notes for arcades fitness centers and health clubs museums or sectors not otherwise addressed. So when you say that there are no notes where there are notes it says exclude employees. Yes but where there are no notes it doesn't that that doesn't necessarily mean that those industries can do what they want. You could read that that um if it's uh omitted uh if there's no mention then employees are included you know that is one way of reading it. Laura could also harken back to the initial order which may further specify for that particular industry whether or not staff and employees are included. Well first instance arcades casinos and arcades are put together you know there's a big list a big list of all the all of us are all clustered together and that notation around employees is only made to a few is that correct Loretta? That's correct. I just wonder if um because of the scale I mean I and I'm hearing I would never want to create an incentive that folks are laid off somehow because of occupancy numbers I don't think we're going to see that um with our licensees but um I don't I I think that the 25 percent is a function of public health considerations in how we're able to maintain the proper social distancing in the the proper services and all the challenges that come with um COVID-19 in a fire code I mean it's bodies if you think about fire code it's bodies then they don't think they distinguish between employees I think there may have been other considerations for the governor to think about restaurants and those other few but I um perhaps perhaps I can I can try to articulate with this okay what we're struggling with with this with this example so roughly speaking my understanding is that we are now at 50 percent is that is that fair Loretta or at some point you mentioned that it's never before this order came into effect under the present um whatever varies depending on facility it could go high as a 40 but varies in the 40s in the 40s was allowable take take 40 let's say let's say it's 40 let's say it's it's 45 whatever it is okay around the 40s if under under that um scenario assume that in the worst-case scenario there's one employee per two patrons okay that it's not maybe this is going to be difficult math but the point is that the ratio of patrons to bodies matter as we go from 40 to 25 which is what I think what we're struggling with if you were if if for for the sake of argument if it was 50 percent and there was always one patron per uh one employee per patron um then reducing it to 25 percent and allowing employees would be sort of the same thing which is the scenario that you seem to be sort of thinking about but my point is that the ratio of employees to patrons is very low uh much lower than one to one so intuitively it it would appear to me that going from the 40s to 25 percent excluding employees is still an effective reduction maybe we just need to talk to to to think about the exact number of employees typically in terms of a ratio of patrons to employees I'd rather be conservative personally but that's just my instinct god commissioner cameron commissioner stavins and commissioner ryan I'm I'm struggling with this well I am I do not want there to be an incentive to lay off anyone else so I did find that rationale compelling the other thing I'm thinking about is um how large these facilities are and if we're cutting back to 25 doesn't that in itself give us something to think about as far as a public health issue I I think it does in addition we we should remember that these are um new facilities with multiple air exchanges as well as all the plexiglass that was and the disabling of start machines and and and production per tables that we've already talked about it's it's a it's a layer upon a layer that that we've done in the past I am from what I read on this discussion and I understand that there's not there's still a question as to kind of like excluding and a formula changing because of the inclusion first and the exclusion now but in effect we would be just about limiting by half reducing by by half um portion of the calculation of the formula we have now plastic gaming establishment which is more than just the gaming area and so it's actually not apples to apples because you are tapping the area which is a smaller more defined space than the establishment and so it is a little it is albeit still large it is a more contained space but having said that the number of employees actually on the gaming area as opposed to I guess the question I have is if we're excluding or including uh the question would be if we're including do you have to physically be on the floor to be included as opposed to being at the back excluded and is that part of the reason that excluding from the calculations maybe gets that static number more trackable I would I'm right here that it that it might be route exactly how many people are on a shift change versus the people in the back etc and I don't know if that was the rationale behind certain industries being excluding and including that that count but I don't know for a fact either but I think it's a good guess if a cocktail server is going back and forth between the back office and at the back serving area and and and the gaming area there's less exposure and of course if there's all those sorts of people who are going to have the capacity to be on the floor but maybe not on the floor and you know on a regular basis but we do have a number I think that 25 would still give you the ability to have those people on and not worry about breaching a cab yeah I think that's that's what seems to be part of what the commissioner camera only saying as well I personally just want to hear from commissioner stephens please no I think I'm listening you know I lean I think and lean brings up a very good point you know capacity of the gaming establishment itself is not just the floor but we're talking surveillance folks back at house you know some of these start you know we think too much about reductions then some of these I think start to you know tip our ability to you know to monitor the you know the the performance of the games you know surveillance is critically important so I that's the question I have is are those folks also included in that count just worried about staff that's actually on the gaming floor yet the cocktail serve it be a dealer you know if we start thinking about reducing capacity does a pit boss go away is there more consolidation at tables I think that's that's a reason to exclude them yeah from the country from the camp so that you don't impact you don't begin to impact not just the incentive to for the perverse incentive to lay off people but but to begin to to affect you know the operation I mean we could do a lower percentage if there are concerns also about excluding whether we felt that we wanted to do 20% and exclude the employees I think the numbers are there to do 25 and exclude them and still fall what we've seen we would still be well below that number and so I would feel comfortable with that but we always do have the capacity to go even tighter on that number and you're ready to be bringing up some of the complexities around the particular types of employees you know surveillance versus you know the cocktail servers there's the issue of the cage as well you know that's a significant piece of the of the gaming area you know there are aspects of the setup there that are protective of staff to to patrons safety-wise but you know there's a significant amount of staff there as well Loretta the other the other thing that concerns me and and I think you referenced it in your notes obviously this order is really highlighting you know the holiday period that we're in the people traveling home or traveling into visit relatives if I look at your document again it gets down to number three which is you know working with our licensees you know to effectuate safe orderly manner including instances where additional guests may seek entry to the gaming establishment after the occupancy limit has been reached I really don't think we've confronted this under the current guidelines but again knowing the holidays and there may be more people about again it comes back to the question I usually have is how would our how will our licensees end up communicating this out and then if they start to get a backlog at the facility of people wanting to enter how do they deal with that I have had some discussions with them today you know obviously they have already developed pretty sophisticated communication plans around our you know all things COVID including you know social messaging you know sort of real-time messaging through mobile phones and and so forth so I think they're my understanding is they're still working through some of those plans but they you know have been working on those for months similar things for for months now this is a new definitely a new twist on it the possibility that you know guests could come at a point where they need to cap and you know they're working through that and I don't think it helps to think about years past and what those December and January numbers were like because it's just it's not the same oh yeah it's not it's not apples to apples because some people are very hesitant to go while others might not be in this I don't know that there's a way to gauge that right yeah there's there's a demand side here that is hugely unknown I mean some people simply just you know don't mind as much and others really do and they just don't don't go places we have those disagreements here with my family I think there's another aspect by the way which I've observed of restaurants at some point it becomes commercially unfeasible to run the operation I don't know what that is for every each one of our licensees we may be finding out or about to find out but but there's it's not just the incentive or the disincentive of including or excluding employees eventually and by the way we have to everybody has to comply with the governor's order I'm not suggesting otherwise but further limiting what would be you know saying you know just a lower number just for the for the sake of let's see what happens there's the flip side of you know perhaps becoming um not not worth it to continue one just so just so we could all be clear I'm I just want to make sure that we um I'll see the executive order could you share that about a please that would be helpful what I want to make sure is um of course we don't want to see layoffs and I think that's uh and and and um um you know the I think our licensees understand that there is during the short period of time a 25 percent occupancy um over land over the restrictions that were in place um that includes not only our occupancy formula but also the plexiglass and the sanitizer and the 9 30 p.m restriction so there are a lot of restrictions in place um and now a 25 percent occupancy restriction if we look at the executive order I just want to make sure that we're going to be fair um in light of what the governor contemplated for all industries Kathy I'm not able to share the final copy of the official version oh um is it on mass.gov I can try if you if you could that'd be great I think I can do it thank you thank you I'm sorry to have tested that technology because I don't know if I could have pulled it up that's why I was asking somebody else to do it thank you um thanks so much okay so and it's the chart it's the chart um Todd does the whereas is um address employees in any place the recitals to show intent you got it I don't think so I thought it was you know largely in the chart okay so now so the governor says that the top effective at um on December 26 um Department of Labor any other agency to use hereby direct to provide notice to the public and enterprises to revise capacity limitations applicable during the period which his order remains in effect okay so gatherings restaurants 25 percent notes most contact workers excluded indoor and outdoor events 10 that's the 10 people theaters 25 percent but they don't say employees are excluded places of worship now he did say this during the he did say this during the the press conference where he noted he noted specifically restaurants staff excluded theaters he mentioned I know he mentioned places of worship I'm okay I think I noted all of this in my notes okay um casinos so we're given MGC to reissue capacity rules as necessary so that's a suggestion that we have a license to do um to redo our rules revise capacity limits 25 percent it's and there's a little note do they describe capacity as as people or patrons and see I think that it must be people otherwise they wouldn't exclude staff the um Kathy they do in the earlier part of the order talk about you know what what the definition is and they refer to you know building code capacity that that's the whole number that you're working with right they talk about um so office spaces let's talk about office space because we have office space right so that's 25 percent of course employees that's kind of funny isn't it because you don't have patrons coming in I guess certain office space you'd have patrons and clients coming in but normally it's more employees than clients okay can we just grow down then please thank you retail businesses staff is excluded driving and flight schools no notation golf facilities no notations libraries doesn't exclude staff operations of lodgings applies only to common areas I guess that makes some makes you know practical sense and then arcades fitness centers museums are all 25 percent I I I believe at least a couple of these categories um the number of people relative to patrons is very minor I'm thinking of you know in order to operate a performance venue a movie theater let's say you only need the person running the I guess the tickets are for the movie um so maybe maybe maybe a reason why museums museums have staff museums have considerable staff okay I guess I just want to be I was just thinking I guess as to why they may have chosen not to address the exclusion or inclusion in some areas maybe related to how um the the ratio of staff um to patrons is significantly smaller in those that they are not mentioning it well there's also a reference in the second to last paragraph on page four of the order that's specifically references allowances to exceed maximum capacity limitations shall be available as currently provided in COVID-19 workplace safety rules in order to accommodate public health and public safety considerations or restrict compliance may interfere with a continued delivery of critical services um so it may very well be that those industries I don't know whether they have specifically uh referenced allowances that allow them to address what you're talking about are making which is they know that they're allowed to not consider certain safety personnel or things like that in their industry that may be in there I don't know commissioner varian what are you thinking I'm thinking that 25 percent with or without them is functionally not going to make a difference based on what we even I agree with that um and I would not want to see anyone laid off unnecessarily I also don't want to unduly risk going over the cap um it may sound strange to say 23% and exclude but if you're looking at the ratio of employees to the cap if you did something like that number and excluded it would give them the ability to make sure they had the employees coming in and on that area without worrying about breaching that cap but would absolutely fall below the 25 absolute number that the governor seems to have committed can are we permitted um I don't want to put you on the spot north but I see you do not have to try in but to the extent you could shed light on this and I see Jackie as well I welcome it because I'm obviously struggling I I just really want to be in compliance with the intent of the executive order and um and and actually during the press conference you know noted the few industries that employees were exempt and didn't hear casinos so that's why I'm struggling with this I want to be 100 compliance and especially if there's no practical likelihood of exceeding the 25 where we've been counting employees all along why not stick to what we've been doing all along and not risk being out of compliance but maybe the 25 percent and and that's because let's be clear there's a lot of restrictions on your industry right now anyway so your occupancy isn't what you normally have you know it's different so Jackie and uh north I'd like to hear thank you um we can absolutely comply with the order with 25 including the employees is the practical matter the way that we count them the employees are included in the counts and we can't exclude them from the counts because it's everyone entering the casino that's right other sort of nuance is we do have a number of restaurants and the people in those restaurants are included in the casino count but as a practical matter I think we can comply with the occupancy restriction the way it's written right and included in your count now of course I do believe that what we are saying is that they could be excluded but you're saying you know your scale of your space is so large that this is you know you'll continue counting and feel comfortable and and meet the 25 percent occupancy now I know in Charlottesville is a different each facility is different and special in its own way would your count be more of a challenge north um or do you count the employees now um so we the the capacity restrictions that were given under the previous guidance were such that the number of team members didn't factor in um or we're not a practical consideration um in terms of us breaching any capacity limits that we would have under this scenario they very likely would come into play um under under this scenario as a practical matter it is a little bit more difficult to track team members coming and going you know and then there are things in terms of like as we look at the casino cage and determining whether or not that's technically part of the gaming floor that's usually a sizable number of team members and then those who are potentially in the main cage or participating in the count that that goes is something that goes into that and then from a surveillance perspective the back of house um you know depending on the size of the surveillance room if we're held to a 25 percent of fire code in that room could put us in a situation where we might not meet a mandate for staffing requirements on surveillance so there are some some some things for us or you'd have to have fewer patrons right whoa potentially potentially not so i mean i i'm since we don't have table games here i know that that probably drives some of the requirements uh potentially but in in either case um normally what we would do in other jurisdictions on this matter is determine what a maximum number of team members is for us midweek and weekend and then add that number in as a buffer to our capacity so we would essentially say if our capacity was x that we would go in our team number max number of team members is y that we would simply say our max capacity is x minus y and we would manage to that north i would just point out that i don't think a small a small matter of of a comment that you made i don't think that 25 percent is intended to apply to every room you mentioned the count room for example um i i think you know it's it's an overall cap to have a low density type of operation with the understanding that there's going to be movement and there's a number of other measures in place it's i know your point is it's not necessarily that one but you made a mention of of um that that would seem to believe that that 25 percent applies on a on an area basis and i don't think that's the case yeah we were looking at it just from the office space requirement commissioners i guess so that's that's where that was coming from but we're happy to receive any clarification that the commission wants to provide to us you know what i i actually do think um that we may be misinterpreting on this executive order um and if people if my fellow commissioners would allow me i'm wondering if we could do a five minute break and if councilor lilios if you could call um to see if in fact we were to exclude employees is that contemplated by the if you could call the um uh your contact sure um because i i believe that 25 percent based on a fire code is people and now in terms of the gaming establishment floor we've been always contemplating that to be everything right and so now the idea of all the cages and everything i do think this is hard this is going to be hard but it's not forever and it is to to have fewer people together and that includes employees uh so i get i i just want to make sure that should let me ask i think that's a good idea but that to make sure i would ask why why would the the restaurant be different well you know what our retail space is i i can't speak for the governor this is his executive order um and how it's written but i do think there's enough in there that suggests to me that if we went ahead and excluded employees that might mean that we're not meeting the expectations there might have been a reason for the exclusion that you and i don't know commissioner um but i might be wrong and i then then we could just then we could go back to um all right then we we do 25 plus employees if we can exclude them or or something else because the numbers like jackie says it's not going to she's going to be the scale of their property is such that it's not going to impact them but we're hearing from north that it could impact them so it sounds as though we should really understand whether we can to begin with we we have the ability to ask um counselor millios what do you think am i is this is this uncomfortable um to be honest i i'm i'm thinking more if there's any doubt about it it's a two-week period do we do a slightly slower percentage such that the buffer is there and then they're not worrying about this if we go down to 23 22.5 whatever that is that is a number they can calculate that the licensees can know that you know their employees are part of that we're not running a foul potentially of any interpretation of the governor's order and it would provide resolution well except i think that um for for north you know i said that you could just mean at the count of the door you just have to stop letting patrons in um that that was what was always contemplated right with our formula that a certain point in time when if they met the formula cap they'd have to say to patrons you know you'll have to hold we haven't had that given the continuing restrictions and the public health metrics aren't going in the right way um the other thing look ahead jackie yeah i was just gonna say as a practical matter from the way that we count we're counting everybody that goes in and out so um if it if our preference would be to keep it at a set percentage and either add an additional amount for employees we'll just keep it at the 25 because they wouldn't be a way for us to distinguish between employees and uh guests um i'm sorry i was just gonna say it makes sense if we can make a quick call and get clarification it does make sense to do that given this is such an important time frame and it's limited and it's to holidays i think it makes sense just to make sure we wouldn't be in violation if we went ahead with something um and you know and and i don't know what the answer will be um it may be no we have a license to to have more or maybe that was never contemplated for the larger venues or something um then if we could if we could do a five minute pause and reconvene if um and see if loretta is able to glean any further insight on this 458 so 505 yeah she's gone she's on it Karen thank you thanks everyone we'll just take up a reconvene of five minutes okay sounds good okay um Loretta can you continue now i think that's where we last left i can okay thank you okay so thank you um and and thanks for the recess and i was able to reach my uh uh contact over in the uh legal at the governor's office and you know they've done a very careful sector by sector uh review and presentation in their order and it's my um uh recommendation after the discussion with him that we take the staff exemption off the table now and that we include the employees in the count now there is a short period of time uh of this governor's order uh you know through the holidays in this crisis period in um uh in the interests of continued safety and doing everything that we can uh in that arena that based on my conversation uh that's the direction that we we should take the the exemption uh as indicated on the chart is limited to uh smaller venues uh as you know made explicit in that chart uh and not to the larger venues like our three licensees so that would mean 25 percent all bodies counted on the gaming establishment floor and if they want to include like encore may want to just include also the amenities just continue their count they can do so but the overlay is 25 percent in compliance with the um the governor's order which is a significant reduction from the 40 percent range depending on each um the gaming positions available for each um uh property um okay thoughts everybody's got to digest this i'm and not thank you loretta for that explanation um and to be fair it it was it it's a hard thing to to understand so that was an important call to make loretta so thank you um karen did you have insights before we get going with the commissioners that you wanted you know that i think that information is really helpful because you can't specifically tell that from the order so i think that was really helpful for the governor's office to respond so quickly because they have the benefit of dph and the public health um experts and if if that's their recommendation it seems like for the next couple weeks that shouldn't be the way to go i think you know we're obviously moving pretty quickly right here this is you know a couple of hours after the order issued so it's not surprising there'd be a little um discussion here but that seems to make sense commission karen yeah i i agree i'm um that was a very good suggestion to call and get clarification because we were not clear and so now we are and you know we move on that's that's the i certainly think that we use the recommendation from the governor's office which which is to include employees i think that you know this is real-time stuff and everybody is really working hard to to be helpful so we don't usually have that luxury do we commission a camera you know and you know what that was excellent that we could we could have that call made in such a quick time and i think discussion over as far as i'm concerned commission stavins your thoughts yeah i mean it's great clarification great work by the team obviously they built some great working relationships with the people that are on the front line of these decisions over in the governor's office so um you know it it is what it is and hopefully for this short period of time then it will change back but you know we have to go with the feedback and their input they're they're getting and you know hopefully you know we're not reaching that 25 percent limit um and hopefully there won't be any issues commissioner um ziniga yeah same here i mean it seems prudent i'm glad we we got clarification and i think we should just move on commissioner brian i know that you're thinking maybe the 23 percent of your thoughts um my only question now is really for north if he's still on the call which is because he you know you indicated that you may have some concerns with being able to comply with the 25 is are you going to be able to work with ivy come up with what the number is so that you make sure that with ways included you don't violate the order i have no concerns about our ability to comply on your either scenario great so we'd like to hear welcome again to massachusetts north my only my only point was just that as a practical matter it's sometimes difficult to predict the exact number of team members on the floor in this instance will just be overly conservative and build in a larger number and again right now it's through january 10th is that right loretta that's right kathy this is tough all right so um karen todd loretta what are the next steps with respect to this item on the agenda so i think the next thing would because it needs to still have to address simulcast again i know alex dr lightbaum has been very patient on the call so i would suggest we do do a vote uh to on this and i think we just the direction of general counsel grossman on that and then move on to simulcast well i yeah i think a motion is appropriate to cover what you've just discussed to lay the to adopt the 25 cap including employees as discussed in the governor's order and i'm happy to make that motion um madam chair i move the commission incorporate the four supplemental requirements described in the document included in the commissioner's packet and reviewed here today and as amended at this meeting relative to paragraphs three and four any further questions does that in that works taught excuse me i think it's relative to the amendments relative to paragraphs one and three there was also four terms of timing yeah yeah okay but also one because that's the employee paragraph okay so i'll say it again i would move the commission incorporate the four supplemental requirements described in the document and included in the commissioner's packet today into the previously adopted minimum requirements as amended and discussed today relative to paragraphs one three and four second any further questions excellent libretta um and and team everybody really um did libretta was working over the weekend to really uh as we said crunch the numbers so this has been uh you know insights that you were getting to in the event there were going to be there was going to be an announcement so you've been working so hard so thank you anything further on the um okay then let's take a vote commissioner cameron aye commissioner o'brien aye commissioner zuniga aye it's not your last one commissioner stephens aye and i vote yes so erica five zero thank you so again a great deal of credit goes to libretta for sort of being on top of this early on and that appreciate it and of course the entire team that got together to to support the work thank you um now in terms of simulcasting dr liben there you are um and and dr liben too you really jumped up you know yesterday to make sure we could be prepared in the event this became something that the governor ordered and so thank you too do you want to update us on your work thank you the three simulcast facilities are aware of the governor's order and they will limit the simulcast occupancies to not more than 25 percent at their facilities for the time period of uh december 26th through january 10th and the wording we used was in less further extended so hopefully that i think that can mean either by the governor or by the commission either way the um original plans by plane ridge and random didn't include uh occupancy numbers it was more based on the distance to promote social distancing the six feet apart with the tables and all suffocated have numbers in their original plan uh limiting it to less than 50 percent so in one of their areas that um would hold 600 they actually went less than uh 50 percent to 250 and so now that would be down to 150 for the occupancy and um during um the conversation about the casinos and whether the um employees were counted or not i was able to reach out to each of the licensees and they said it would not affect their abilities much one way or the other so that they are able to fully comply with the 25 percent including um employees as well as patrons good work to reach out during the meeting excellent work Dr. Leipzig. She's good. I have uh great uh folks on the simulcast end that are very uh responsive very quickly and i appreciate them getting their documents to the commission meeting quickly this afternoon. We appreciate it very very much and you know that we like to use the word nimble um everybody gathering today for this meeting shows that but it's all for the real high stake reason right we're all working hard here and and in doing the very best we can for the right outcomes um this is hard but there's a lot at stake so um so Dr. Leipzig you need a vote as well is that correct i'm not sure if it was written up for a vote um maybe Todd can I think yeah Todd you're recommending a vote right in this too yeah I think that's appropriate the commission has taken votes in the past and there have been approved protocols so this is a supplement to that I'm happy to make that motion Madam Chair. Thank you. I move that notwithstanding any provision of uh an approved simulcasting guideline to the contrary the maximum occupancy at the simulcast facilities at Suffolk Downs, Rainham Park and Plainridge Park be limited to 25 percent of the authorized capacity consistent with Governor Baker's COVID-19 order number 59 dated December 22nd 2020 and further that the limit become effective at uh 1201 a.m on December 26th and shall remain in effect until 12 noon January 10th 2021 unless further extended second thank you any further discussion excellent report Dr. Leipzig, Karen thank you for putting everything together for us no further questions or comments we'll take the vote Commissioner Cameron. Aye. Commissioner Bryan. Aye. Commissioner Zinica. Aye. Commissioner Stevens. Aye and thanks to our team for their great work and I vote yes five zero okay now in terms of any other comments anybody want to say to the team commissioner you have the chance this is your chance for other business I see Mr. Tuttle's on say again Commissioner Cameron. No again just really good work everyone was so well prepared and and you know gave us great insight into this matter and I think to all the licensees both on the racing and gaming side for understanding and quickly able to become compliant I see Madam Chair I hit the wrong button no apologies needed um Mr. Tuttle we wish you well and thank you for your work with Dr. Leipzig today you're very welcome always a pleasure happy holidays you too um Commissioner Stevens before you make the last motion that we really do anticipate to be your last motion do you want to make any comments no just again thank everybody for their good work and you know our our licensees we all know this is now where we want to find ourselves but doing the right things and taking the right steps to keep people safe so great work and happy holidays everybody thank you everyone quick turn around yeah and Commissioner Bryan and had gotten some briefing on this through the working group this was a very quick turnaround and not uncomplicated because we had such a thoughtful process before right um I mean right so so anyway I am I really appreciate everybody being able to pivot today in this way and to get to what I think will be the safe outcome let's cross our fingers that it is limited to January 10th if it has to be extendable no it's for the real the right reasons but let's let's just knock on it for a short duration Karen anything else that you want to add no I think we're all set Madam Chair okay for everyone um for those who are celebrating Christmas Merry Christmas um be safe and I would love it if our fellow Commissioner stephens would make the last last motion probably of this year and of his gaming commission career uh let's hope so uh working on motion to adjourn team thank you second thank you Commissioner Cameron I Commissioner Zunaga I thank you Commissioner oh Commissioner O'Brien aye stay safe I vote yes Commissioner Stephens aye 5-0 happy holidays everyone okay good bye happy holidays all right happy holidays