 Dave. Good morning everyone. Good to go. Thanks. Good morning everyone. This is a convening of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission. It's Wednesday, October 11th and we have a virtual meeting here. I'm coming in as many of my colleagues are from Las Vegas and we appreciate the opportunity to conduct these meetings virtually. So, Commissioner O'Brien, you just shifted on me. Nope, I am here. Oh, but you know that we don't see your, okay, great. Good morning, Commissioner O'Brien. Thank you. Good morning, Commissioner Hill. Good morning, I'm here. Good morning, Commissioner Skinner. Good morning. And good morning, Commissioner Maynard. Good morning. Okay, and today is an agenda-setting meeting. Public Meeting 154 and you will perhaps enjoy the fact that I was approached out here at the G2E conference immediately by a Vixia reporter who said, will you make it back to your meeting this week on tomorrow? And I said, it's on Wednesday. And no, I'll be conducting it out here. But oh yeah, it's Wednesday. So yeah, you know, people appreciate the fact that they can they can reach us. We're one of the few entities that does everything in public. So before we get started on any real business, I do think all of us can just take time to pause. You know, we've had too many of these meetings where we do have to reflect on real hardships around the world. And I know that you join me as I have my thoughts with the people of Israel, including of course, the Americans who have either perished or have vanished. We're all continuing to monitor the situation and, you know, pray for a miracle, right? With that, we do have some good news. And I will not share any details other than Grace Robinson is a new mother of a healthy baby girl. We'll allow her to have some time to be able to make her personal announcement, but she is doing well. And that's that is very nice moves though. Congratulations to Grace and her husband, Adam, and welcome to the world, Babe Lane. Next, we'll turn to Minetz. Good morning, Commissioner Maynard. Good morning, Madam Chair. I move that the Commission approve the minutes from the September 27th, 2023 agenda-setting meeting that are included in the commissioner's packet subject to any necessary corrections for topographical errors or other non-material matters. Second. Any questions or edits for Commissioner Maynard? And I know you're working closely with, do you work with Ying on these, Commissioner Maynard? Ying and Judy are doing a lot of work on Minetz. And they do an excellent job. So thank you. Any edits? Okay. Commissioner Brian? Hi. Commissioner Hill? Hi. Commissioner Skinner? I'm sorry. Can I have a point of clarification? These are the September 13 minutes, correct? Not September 27. But mine are September 27. Yeah, these were the September 27 minutes. Okay. For some reason, I... Do you want to pause and wait to review those, Commissioner? Yes, please, if we could. I think they're in the packet because I, at least I printed the packet out before I left. Commissioner Skinner for ease. Yeah, I will need a minute. I, for some reason, I have the September 13th minutes, which I now recall. I made sense why they sounded familiar. They seem familiar as I read through. So I am going to need a few minutes, please. The quality of being human, Commissioner Skinner, right? All right. So we'll let you have time. And otherwise, we'll just hold on where we were. We'll just do a pause. And if Commissioner Maynard, Commissioner Skinner, if you can just remind me to go back. I don't forget. Thank you. Okay. Thanks. Then we'll get started. I thought maybe we could turn to the meeting schedule everyone quickly because the holiday season is going to get busy. And I thought we should maybe put have Trudy. And by the way, Trudy is here. She may be reaching out for questions. Please make sure to be helpful as she adjusts to new responsibilities. And she was doing and has been doing much of this all just. She does it very quietly. So Trudy will probably be putting some holds or actual calendar scheduling as we go along today. So the last, you look at page two of the packet, the last public meeting before Grace left, we did look at, of course, the Thanksgiving week and decided that it might make sense to hold an agenda-setting meeting or at least put a hold on for the 13th, which I believe is a Monday. And then have our regular public meeting on the 16th so that we could avoid a Wednesday agenda-setting meeting the day before Thanksgiving and then pop right into another public meeting on the 30th. It could be that we don't need that agenda-setting meeting on the 13th. If that looks good to you, I don't think we've heard any feedback to the contrary. We would keep that schedule. And then that would put us into the next agenda-setting meeting for December 6th, a Wednesday. Then the public meeting would then be, oh gosh, I might have, maybe the 14th, I just made a bad four. So December 14th would be a Thursday for public meeting. And then before perhaps the holiday on 1220 have an agenda-setting meeting to prepare us for a New Year meeting on January 4th, giving us a little bit of flexibility that last week of December, should of course there be urgent matters or any kind of matters that need to be attended to in order to do our job, we can remain flexible. But how does that look to you as you think about your holiday scheduled commissioners? Okay, Commissioner O'Brien is giving me a thumbs up. Commissioner Hill. Commissioner Skinner, you're okay with that right now. Thank you. And Commissioner Maynard, how's that looking for you? I'm sketching it out on paper, but it looks good. Okay, well, you know, but this is where I did the same thing, just, you know, look to see if we were to really hold our cadence. Those would be the dates. So, Trudy, if you want to at least put that on the calendar, we'll remain flexible. And then of course, you know, the beauty of being able to hold these virtual meetings is that we can address matters that are timely and critical. Trudy, you okay with that? Yes, looks good. Okay, excellent. All right. So then moving on, our next public meeting is October 19th. I probably will have a commissioner update about G2E before we get to further going in our process. I just want to note on how proud I am of all of you, but this commission is very, very well represented at G2E. And I can't tell you how many compliments I get on all the work that each member of this team does. And, you know, well, I just am pretty proud. So, we have from GEU, Tom Rogers and Kevin Owen. And then from the team, we have Bernice Vaughn. We have Bernice Vaughn today. Bruce Band, Crystal Bolshman, who will of course be honored this evening as one of the emerging leaders of gaming under 40. Andrew Steppen rounding out our sports weight training division, Katrina DeGroote Gomes, who is, of course, right now, you know, working in the thick of things, given many of the issues around cybersecurity with her teammate, Nathan Saylor. And then we have Tara O'Brien and David McKay in licensing, again, just doing such excellent, excellent work in their field to accommodate our crazy demands. And then we have Zach Mercer, who I haven't had a chance to speak to personally. We've just been missing each other, but I have seen him and I know that he's busy and attentive. And then Angela Smith is also here as from the gaming agent world. So we're really well represented. And I can tell you that each is walking around exhausted. There's just a lot and they're taking full advantage. Crystal remarked that she was getting to the gym, but she might not even be able to stumble into it today because there's just too much going on. So a lot to take in and it can be overwhelming, but this is a crowd that is utilizing it for the exact professional development that we'd hope some excellent job. So we'll probably have an update on that. And then we'll turn to Tara for administrative update. What do you think you have on your plate for the 19th talk? Oh, good morning. I don't have anything specific at the moment. I will certainly have anything straight of update. And I have a specific issue I'll certainly let Trudy know and we can make sure that's identified. Yeah. And for agendas matters that you could reach me and Trudy by email or call me right now, just as we're going through our process where we're trying to make sure we don't miss any posting dates. So that would be the best way. I think I sent an email to that effect and Trudy and I are kind of doing this in partnership with regular meetings till we get our cadence going. Commissures, is there anything that you would like Todd to address in particular? I have one item, Todd, that I've mentioned it to Chief Mildrew. Beniswa and Dave presented a DEI update at the GPAC meeting and it was excellent. Beniswa did such a nice job on that. I thought it might be a great opportunity for her to do that presentation. I don't know if others saw it. Joe and Mark, I know you presented at that, but I don't know if you heard Beniswa's because I think it was early on. But it was very informative about where we're landing on our numbers. Chief Mildrew, anything you want to add? I'm out of chair. Good morning. I have this question with Beniswa. She was very excited. She did a great job. It really keeps a thorough overview of not only where we are, but where we're heading. I think it's very important and it would inform folks where MGC is kind of like, so I think it's a very positive move and she's excited. I think it's timely given that GPAC has heard, I think we should be updated. So if that works for the scheduled Executive Director Grossman. Okay. Okay. Then the legislative update, Commissioner Hill. So I would like to keep it on, obviously. I think what I'd like to do, Madam Chair, with your permission is there's been a working committee here at the Mass Gaming Commission putting together our priorities. And I would like to update the commission on some of the work that's been happening with that subcommittee. As of today, there is no legislative update on any doings up on Beacon Hill. But I would like to just keep you in the loop of what we're doing internally in terms of what we would like to see legislative move done. Okay. All right. And General Counsel Grossman, different hat, but I bet you're turning it over to Caitlin and Carrie. Regulations. All right. We have a number of regulations for the 19th. So it's correct that we will have 205CMR 219 and 231 related to temporary licensing and renewal of a sports wagering licensing back for a final vote. We will also have 205CMR 258, which relates to sports wager operator secession. That's a new reg that you haven't seen before. So you'll be seeing that in your packet shortly. We also would like to propose a tweak to 205CMR 238.12, which relates to operator secession. They sort of go hand in hand to some degree. So we'd like to add that to the agenda. And then we also the racing regulation that's referenced there is 205CMR 2.00. And that's the racing regulation related to operator applications and licensing. So you'll be seeing that again for the first time for the 19th. Could you say that number again? Sure. 205CMR 2.00. Yep. Okay. Sorry, with respect to the cessation, will that even be recommending, sorry, do you, will you be recommending that being regular or emergency promulgation? So for cessation, we're going to recommend emergency for the cessation reg. We are actually going to recommend regular process for the proposed amendment to 238.12. As you'll see, there's sort of different issues, slightly related, but different issues. And then on the racing reg, we are going to recommend having an opening conversation on the 19th. It's long. There's a lot to think about. And then we can bring that back for a vote, hopefully at the November 16th meeting, I think, which is our next meeting. November 2nd. We do have the second, but I know that's out in Springfield. So it's okay. It really is a matter of your business, you know, and how you want to do it. We can wait to the later date, but if you want the next one, November 2nd. Well, maybe we can see how it goes, if you don't mind. No problem. But I am going to ask this, Caitlyn, when you said it's a long one. How much time should we allocate for regs on? I think we should hold an hour. I think 2019 and 231 will hopefully be relatively straightforward. 258 is not long, but it's new. So there might be some discussion. And then I think there will be a fair amount of discussion about the racing reg. Okay. And we may actually have one other reg unrelated to sports wager to add on to if the timing works out okay. And it relates to responsible gaming and other being is available maybe to jump in on this one. But there's a draft in progress, and there she is. If you want to jump in, good morning, Ian. Morning, commissioners. We have a draft amendment regulation 205 CMR 152, which is relative to court word exclusion, which we anticipate will be ready for presentation and discussion by early November. And we'd like to propose that adding that to the agenda as well for our future public meeting. But is it for October 19? I believe November 2 would be a better date for us, but jump in, Mark, if you have any other thoughts. I actually, if you wouldn't mind, if we could just stick to the date of that we're talking about Todd. So this would just not be regulations in general, but just regulations that are needing to go forward on October 19. And then I'll go back. Otherwise, Ian, I mess up my notes. I've got a note now, though, for this, it's for court order exclusion. Yeah. So that would be for ideally Mark and Ying, or November 2, or November 17, 16th meeting. 16th meeting. Is that your preference? I think our preference would be November 2, but it's pending other agenda items that may be coming. Okay. So we can talk as we get to November 2 about how much we want to put on for that Springfield meeting, because I know we have other items, but please, Ian, don't let me forget that. Okay. All right. So right now I've got Caitlyn's items through the racing regulations will put Ying's item into the parking lot for November 2. Any other regulations for October 19? I think that'll be enough. That's what I was thinking, Caitlyn. Especially you kind of scared me with the race regulations are pretty long. Okay. So there we go. Crystal, I want to get you, Lucy, you can go learn sports wagering. Or maybe she's already, maybe she's up. There she is. Sorry, I had a quick call. So for that date, we don't have any items at this point. I think we of course want to reserve some in case anything pops up, but nothing in particular. Right now. Okay. We heard from Derek and Todd, I think you were included on the email. He would like to roll that over to November 2. I don't think that's a problem that is in Springfield, Todd. I should pause on that and we'll get right back to it. But right now it's not going to go forward on the 19. Right. Okay. Yes, that'd be great. Okay. And as soon as we get through the October 19th, we need to just talk about logistics for a second. The draft CMF guidelines job. Good morning. Good morning, Madam Chair, Commissioners. We should be all set for that. We'll be doing two by twos ahead of time. So hopefully we should be able to move pretty quickly at the meeting. Okay. Thank you so much. You think I've got to be like a half an hour? I would think we should be able to do it in a half hour. Because we've gone through it quite a few times, right? Yeah. Okay. And then we have the game sense quarterly report and response beginning education month marks. So two items. Yeah, actually, I think it's really just the game sense quarterly report and included in that game sense quarterly report will be a review of responsible gaming education with activities. So we could just leave it as game sense quarterly report. Okay, great. And you're going to be all set for the 19? Yes, we will. Okay. And those usually that's from each operator? It will be in overall. So I would anticipate about 30 minutes. Yeah. 30 minutes seems to be just perfect. Okay. They've done a really nice job. And I did see a good representation of the council out here. Yeah, they're doing nice work. And Mark, you and your division just get such praise. And real acknowledgement of a level of collaboration and the good news is just a desire for even expansion in that. So now in terms of anything else team for October 19th before we talk about logistics. So I do madam chair, I'd like to put on an update about the executive director search. It has been posted the internal and the external but then there are three recommendations I think in terms of in terms of the firms that they want to go forward with. So we wanted to bring that back in case any of the other three of you have questions so that staff can get moving on that. Excellent. Commissioner O'Brien, I was going to ask so October 19th works for you. Yeah. And if we could put it toward the end just as an FYI, I'm probably going to be on the meeting, but in a car for the first hour and a half. Okay. So we could put that toward the end. That would be helpful. Okay. We didn't have two other items manager and commissioners when you're ready. Okay. The first, if I may, and Mary and please tell me if we're not ready for this, but I think we are we're ready to go into executive session if the commission so chooses to talk about our lease at the Boston office. And we will have Madam Chair get you and Trudy some language for that. Excellent. And also in light of the helpful conversation at the last commission meeting relative to the scope of my authority relative to personnel, we circled up and have an updated recommendation for the commission's consideration. If you're so inclined, we would be interested in putting that issue on the agenda for the 19th too. Todd, you're going to have to just go over that again. I'm sorry. Sure. So we talked, you know, of course, you'll recall about the scope of the interim executive director's ability to make certain personnel decisions at the last public meeting. And I believe the commission that extended an invitation to myself and the staff to come back with a proposal to address certain parts of that. And we've discussed that amongst ourselves and have a recommendation and proposal for your consideration. Can I just get a point of clarification? I want to make sure I've heard it right. So are you asking for clarification of our discussion or the decision or is it to come back to proposed positions? Because I think that was one of the outcomes that. Yeah, it's more the former, I would say. It's not about a specific position or anything like that. If you're seeking clarification, I think that, you know, I always feel that it's important for you to be clear commissioners. That's not a problem, right? Yeah. Maybe I misunderstood. I thought there was also maybe one position and ad position that we were going to be talking about, Todd. Or is that for a future meeting, potentially? Let me circle up with the team. I think we might be able to resolve what you were referring to with just an update or a clarification of the initial discussion. Okay. I want to remind everybody, I know it's really hard that we have to have some of these discussions in public. But we have to have them in public and to the extent that the conversations can be an executive session, we can use them properly. But we want to make sure that everybody is fully informed of all the same conversations that there aren't any, you know, kind of separate conversations going where folks aren't, you know, all five of us aren't equally briefed. And it's really important for us all to be equally briefed. Okay. That's why it's okay to just come on back. All right. Thanks. So that's three additional, Judy, you're getting the notes. I'm getting the notes. The three additional matters. One would likely be for the executive session on the lease. And then we'll have the update on the executive director search, which I suspect might be somewhat of a recurring. It's up to you folks on how you want to do that. We probably would sort of have the same thing for the search for the IEB director as well. So Commissioner Skinner and Commissioner Hill, we can turn to maybe some later meetings when you're ready. Well, actually, I wanted to get something on for the 19th, if possible, assuming that other commissioners want the benefit of reviewing the job description. It's my understanding that we would need to get that on the agenda to distribute it. Yes. So the 19th works for you for that? It does. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. We also have one additional item. And that relates to the PEN shift to ESPN, its partnership with ESPN. And so what we'd like to do on the 19th is present to the commission the legal overview of central next steps with regard to that transfer on that change and how PEN is going to be doing its business. So that could be an initial conversation on the 19th. And then to the extent the commission needs to sort of approve anything about the transfer that could happen at a November meeting. Probably the November 16th meeting. Is it likely that we need to reserve the opportunity to go into executive session in any way? The initial meeting is more a legal overview. It's not about sort of the specifics of the transfer. But if as we're sort of putting that guidance together, it feels as if we might need to go into executive session. I'll definitely let you know and provide language. Just point of clarification. You're saying ESPN, the transfer, that language is what I heard. What regulations, statutory provision are we looking at? And so that I understand the legal change. Sure. And I don't have all the details for you on that. We're still working on the analysis. But so basically this evolved from the last meeting that we had when PEN came in and made its presentation about what its new partnership is going to look like with ESPN. And then basically I think the question became, okay, well procedurally how is this going to happen? What does the commission need to review in order? And what approvals does the commission need to make before PEN can move forward with this change? Because obviously it's going to impact the app. It's going to impact potentially their application and their temporary license status. So that's what we're hoping to present to you or we'd like to present to you on the 19th is what we think the path forward is for that just legally and not any details specifically about the transfer. Thank you. When you said the word application, that's what I wondered if you were talking about. So that's really helpful. Thank you. Is there anything you need from Caitlyn commissioners on that? It's a little bit complex. Okay. So Trudy, I have one, two, three, four, five additional items. So that's the executive director search, the lease, the issue around hiring and personnel matters for the interim AD, the job description for the IEB director, and then the ESPN process that will be an update from our last meeting without a vote. So okay. Anything else? Team members? Good. Thanks, Trudy. Is that your works for you too? Okay, good. Anything else commissioners? Anything else from the team? Okay. So I just, I've got a few notes here, so bear with me. I wanted to point out something going forward that I hadn't understood that there was a miscommunication and it's on me really. It's just that it didn't come to my attention until sadly just last week, but I learned that back when we first started getting some questions and waiver requests from the sports wagering operators, we had members of the operators coming into our meeting. They would get the link and they actually sometimes just would pop up and participate. And as the chair, sometimes I've had to say to folks, they can't participate because if everybody could participate, Mills would allow me to send out links to the public. But there's a reason why we don't do that. And that's because for public meetings, we have some rules in place and orders and we have honored elected officials who may pop up and haven't been on the agenda. But other than that, we really try to get folks on the agenda so that we know who's going to participate. We can prepare that way. And honestly, I can watch Windows. I hate to say it. It's kind of a practical solution for me and I have names. And when I don't know somebody, it makes it really hard to even know where they're coming from, what their position is, and even if they're authorized to speak for their boss. So I made an instruction that was just miscommunicated and it was miscommunicated to suggest that we didn't want operators to participate during these waiver discussions. And I am very sorry for that miscommunication. There obviously was one because it really does run afoul with what I know is my personal commitment to a participatory and transparent process. And I think all of us commissioners want that participatory process. So I think we've clarified and I know that Crystal will add to her to do lists now when she, if she, we want to provide operator representation. The commissioners may want to ask questions. We just want to make sure we have their name or a design or something on the agenda so that we can anticipate their participation. We know that that's not a perfect system. If you could just let us know and then Trudy will make sure you have the link. Again, at one point I think I offered to send the links to everyone and that's when Mills explained to me that that probably wasn't a manageable solution. So which I come to respect as I look at boxes to do this job. So again, my apologies for that miscommunication and to the operators. We really do want your participation and we rely on you for help. It's a model we've relied on for the casino. So we want to just, you know, project the same out for the sports wagering industry. Commissioner Maynard, I just also have a note. Oh, sorry. Commissioner Hill. Yes. I just wanted to add. I'm glad that this is being clarified. But to make it even more clear through you, Madam Chair, I would hope that when an operator comes before us for a rule change or adding a sport to the catalog, you know, those are the type of times that I would like to be able to ask questions of the operators. So if that it helps clarify this even further. If something like that is happening, I think that's when I would hope that we would have somebody from the companies come before us so that we don't have to go back and wait a week or two, depending on the schedule for answers that I think could be answered right then and there. Well, I just want to make it clear that I think everybody this is not intended to be a conversation that's critical of anyone or anything. Not at all. I just, you know, it became, I was completely unaware. And then once I learned that that was the miscommunication, we resolved it and we'll move forward and the operators, I think, are going to be glad to be helpful. I don't think there's certainly it's not on, it wasn't because they were resistant to being available. It's what my understanding is. It was just they thought it was my rule. Okay. Thank you for the clarification. Yeah, thanks, Commissioner Hill. And I think also just so it's really apparent, if that were a rule, I'd be asking my fellow commissioners to join me in that rule because it would have impacted you. It was just a mistake and I accept responsibility for it. And Commissioner Maynard, I was going to turn to you because Grace did make a note on her way out on minutes. I think there's some executive session meetings that maybe legal Scott that they might want to come back. They had put them on hold. And then there also may be some, I think for September 21st minutes from that Dave Mackey is working on with respect to the IEB director search. I don't know if those will be ready for the 19th, but I don't mind if you do that on the second or later too, but I just wanted to, I just am noting that so if you can get back to Trudy and me on that, that would be great. I can get that to you. Okay. And thank you for establishing the process going forward in Grace's absence for getting those minutes to you and Trudy. Oh, yeah. You're welcome. Yep. We're ready. Okay. All right. Let's move on to November 2nd and I'm going to turn right away to Mills because there are some logistic, of course, adaptations we have to make to have a meeting on the road with Springfield. We are planning on having at the Mass Mutual Center. With that, of course, comes some costs and some costs are higher given some of the decisions we've made as a commission. So because they are quite costly, we thought we should maybe revisit and Mills has the details. So I'll turn to you. Well, I hope I have good detail, Madam Chair. So I've been working with Grace before her departure on this proposal with the folks at the Mass Mutual Center. It's my understanding that historically, when the commission has held meetings in Springfield, we have held them at the Mass Mutual Center. So following that trend. And we worked with those folks to come up with a plan on what we may need to host a meeting in person that could also be hybrid. And they presented us with some costs, some options that are, as you mentioned, they are costly, but they are reasonable to hold the type of meeting that we're looking to hold. This includes a room rental and AV cost and then also labor costs from folks at the Mass Mutual Center. I'm happy to dig into those costs a little bit and talk about exactly what they are proposing, if you'd like. I think folks may have seen the costs. It does look similar yet slightly higher than when we were at the Statehouse last. And our friends at Charles River Media were our vendor for that one. I think the difference there being that Charles River was able to utilize the Statehouse system, their monitors, excuse me, and their AV equipment, where here we will be renting that equipment. And then additionally, at the Statehouse, because we are a state agency, the cost of the room was provided for free. The cost of room at Mass Mutual Center is not free. So I think it's fair to say that the room itself at Mass Mutual is not particularly unreasonable. I know that at least one commissioner said we may be able to use City Hall like we did in Everett. There's a distinction there is that the only distinction I would point out is that at City Hall in Everett, it was a public hearing where the public was participating. That's not the meeting that we're participating in Springfield. It's more of our public meeting where we'll do our business and then we'll be hearing from Jess, but not having a public comment period. And so that expense isn't high. But what really has added up, I guess, is the decision that we made to make it hybrid. I think that's the... I think that's fair to say. It's an additional $400 for that. And then in addition to that $400, there's additional monitors and things like that for folks who may be participating hybrid who would appear on that monitor in the room. Those costs add up $150 here, $300 there, where I'm sure we could work with the Mass Mutual Center to pare down that. But you are not wrong to say that the hybrid upgrade has added a bit of cost. I'm feeling like we need to be more transparent because I've got a big, big number in my mind and you're adding hundreds right now. And the lease itself is the space, I think, was $1,500. The overall cost, I think, approached $10 grand. Yes. So the AV rentals is $4,800, which includes the hybrid upgrade, and then the labor costs to run that are $2,436. So that's where it was. Yeah. Sorry. To do the AV at all, whether it were hybrid at all, would that be a $4,500 or does that hybrid make it? Hybrid is included in that $4,800 cost. The hybrid upgrade is $400. So of the $4,800, $400 is dedicated to hybrid? Yes. And then there will be additional costs for the hybrid, an additional monitor, let's say a commissioner has to be hybrid, they would appear on a monitor. We wouldn't need that monitor if all five commissioners were present at the meeting if that were the case. Well, just to throw back here, we used to have meetings in person and not hybrid. And when a commissioner were absent, the regulation allowed a commissioner to phone in and participate by phone. The chair had to be at the location where the quorum was. The reg has changed post COVID, but the chair had to be there or, for instance, I remember I had a round table out here and I designated a commissioner and I called in and I remember it distinctly because I sat next to a coffee bean grinder during that meeting, I couldn't hear anything. But so we could use the phone system. We just wouldn't be on video. Yeah, I'm sure. I'm sure that that would be possible. That is not something that we explored with the Mass Mutual Center, but I'm sure that would not be a problem. So and they had done that in the past. So I throw that out because I didn't, I want to make sure there's not a burden for commissioners to think, well, if it turns out I couldn't be there for that amount of time for some reason because of their schedule, they could participate remotely by at least 12. Is this planning on being streamed? Yes, this was always planned on being streamed. The streaming should not be an overwhelming cost. That should be a pretty simple technical. So the $4,800 really is the AB cost and then there's some labor that goes with it and that was I'm sorry again. Approximately $2,430. So the grand total for the labor and the AV rentals is just over $7,200 which does look similar to the costs that we incurred when we did the meeting at the State House, which was approximately $5,500. And again, some of the rentals were provided by the State House at that time. At that time. Mary Ann, you have experience. You remember these back? Yes, I do, I do. But we did, we never had to hybrid. We always just stream the meetings. And then had a phone available for outside participation, whether it were a commissioner or somebody who was calling in from Canada, for instance, one of Director Vandal Linden's specialists, now they can appear by video. I think Commissioner Hill and I had a little bit of sticker shock and so we wanted to revisit this with each of you. I think the prices may have gone up, Mary Ann. It was expensive, yes. It was expensive then. Yeah, yeah. I could actually pull some of the invoices, if you're giving me a immediate, I might have some. Hold on one sec. Yeah, so of course, the commission before us, Commissioner O'Brien and I had a few sessions out at the Boston Convention Center. Yeah, that too. What are you thinking, Commissioner O'Brien? So, yeah, I was never told the price tag when we were going out to Springfield, and I know the convention center was different. What I'm wondering is, can we do the agenda in a way that sort of minimizes any add-ons? That would be my inclination. I mean, we used to go out almost quarterly to Springfield. So, and I do think it's good to get out there. Commissioner O'Brien, I'm not sure if it's me or if it's Commissioner O'Brien. Commissioner O'Brien is freezing up because of the lag. Commissioner O'Brien, you're just slowing down. Meeting down at Plainville. What? Yeah, I must also with Plainville. Let me see if I can. Plainville will be different because of their setup. Commissioner O'Brien, Mass Mutual is a little bit different. Madam Chair. Yes, Commissioner Hill. Since we're talking about this, and you know, I was convinced that we could move forward with the plan that we had put in place, but you just brought something up that I'm trying to understand in my mind what the difference is between what we do out in Plainville and what we could do out in Springfield in terms of using a city or a town property. If what we do out in Plain Ridge, what is the difference? Plain Ridge is a public hearing to get the public input. That's just like we did in Everett. So we could still use a city property to have our meeting. We don't, right? We're not expecting any public input, but we certainly could use a room that I think would be a lot less expensive for a meeting. So I'm trying to understand why we are spending $1,500 to rent something when I believe we could probably work with the city to have a room available to us for a lot less than that. That's all. And I'm sounding like I'm angry. I'm not angry about it. I think I woke up on the wrong side of the bed. I'm just trying to understand. I mean, it's a huge cost that I don't think we need to spend if we've reached out because all we're looking for is a room to have our meeting in. So convince me I'm wrong with that. No, I don't think you're wrong. We can explore it. The distinction again that we made was it's just not a public meeting where the public with respect to the city. We haven't been offered that. I don't know if we've reached out and asked. I don't know the answer to that. I cannot, Madam Chair, may I? Yes. I agree with Commissioner Hill. I mean, I hope the members of the public in Springfield come out and I hope they sit and watch. That's part of the reason I want to do it. We are inviting them. We will be reaching out to them. I understand. I don't want anything to get in the way of us being able to visit any city or town in the Commonwealth and also being a good fiscal steward. Want to make sure that we can do it as affordable as we can. So I support Commissioner Hill on that. I'm happy to reach out to Mayor Sarno's office. I'll take care of that today. I don't want to be a skunk in the garden party here because it's getting close to the date. No skunk. I will reach out to Mayor Sarno and I am hoping that Mayor Sarno will be available to, of course, he likes to participate and come to our meetings. Commissioner Bryan, you've seen that. Mr. Hill, I'm not sure. I guess you haven't been to a Springfield meeting. And we've started the outreach to other members of the elected officials. Commissioner Bryan, do you have any concerns? Well, the only thing I would be is for some reason the city is weighing in on anything in our agenda. I wouldn't want to be in their space for that, but it doesn't seem like we have anything on the agenda that would get the bill on them. We do have the modifications for the community mitigation. So yeah, that would be so I think I would be more interested for the second in paring down the price as much as possible, eliminating hybrid if we can as much as possible to keep the cost down, but staying in the mutual center for this meeting, but then exploring what Commissioner Hill talked about and what Commissioner Maynard talked about going forward. If we have sort of a more innocuous agenda that doesn't involve the city at all, you know, pivoting into a space like that to save money makes sense. Hi, Mr. Skinner, what are you thinking? Nothing too much beyond what my fellow commissioners have expressed. The only thing I like clarification on is the way I heard it, Mills, the hybrid add-on is only $400. Is that correct? And so all we'd be doing is saving. If we did not make this a hybrid meeting, is that $400? Plus some auxiliary costs, if you will, for an additional monitor, a more advanced sound system for what we need to pipe in the person who would be hybrid, things like that. So the $400 is the hybrid add-on and then there are a few additional costs as well. I think I heard the chair say adding up hundreds. Those hundreds do obviously add up, but I think, yeah, we'd probably save and I'd have to talk to Mass Mutual Center. I wouldn't want to, you know, please don't take my word as gospel here, but you know, probably save somewhere between that $400 and maybe $800. And we're not sure what the city could offer us to, but I am mindful of exactly the point that Commissioner O'Brien raised and I think that's why the commission has a history of going into the convention center space and the mass mutual space rather than even going to the state house was a deviation from our work, but because it was really legislative related, if you remember correctly, the state house proved to be a savings and there wasn't anything that could be looked at through a lens that was favoring the host in any way. Commissioner, I see Mary-Ann's guide. I do. Our last meeting at the mass mutual was on February 27th, 2020 and the live streaming fee was $5,750 and the services for the Skype call-in was $300. The total balance for the meeting was $6,050. Can you remember that date was? The date we had the meeting was February 27th, 2020. Yeah, two weeks prior pretty much, yeah. What was on the agenda? Can you remember, Commissioner O'Brien, what was on the agenda? No, other than I'm sure it was Springfield heavy. I mean, we usually try to make it Springfield in Springfield. Okay, sorry. Thank you. I'm sorry, Mary-Ann. I'm thinking, in Boston, my apologies. I missed that. Okay, so it's not surprising these costs have increased. It's 2020 versus 2023, post COVID, post supply issues, post labor issues. Labor has gone up, so that's probably where we're seeing that. So the reason why I said hundreds, I knew that we had the other costs related to the AB, which was the big piece, like to have that number in front of me, Mills. So you're quite right. It's the pieces, but a base is the base kind of is at 7,200 from my notes, right? 7,250 maybe. Yeah, absolutely. And like I said, I'm happy to go back to our friends at the Mass Mutual Center and ask if we took away a camera operator, what would that look like? If we took away a monitor, what would that look like? And come back and show what those costs might be. They might tell me we're unable to take away a camera operator if you're looking to do it in a specific way. And that's what I'd have to learn from them. You know, I know what our system downstairs does for us and how we can do that. And I know the limitations on that. And I know the abilities that it has. So I'm happy to talk to them and come up with a slightly different option. And when we use the convention center in Boston, of course, it preceded me that practice that was where the meetings really occurred because we didn't have the room downstairs. The cost for similar, right? Yes. Similar. And I do think greater, I would say, because we did explore that before the statehouse turned out to be available because of where we were in the legislative calendar that that they were out of session. And that that, you know, you mentioned sticker shock that had me some sticker shock as well. Yeah. Right. Remember, we talked. It's it's hard. But the independence factors one, I don't want to overlook. We could alter our agenda maybe. But I also have to tell you, I am okay going to the mayor. But it is not all if there's a cost associated. I we need to think about that because I don't want to put Mayor Sarno in a position of feeling that he has to accommodate us. There is a, you know, it's just our ethics boundaries, guys. That's really what I'm talking about. So I mean, one could make the argument, Madam Chair, that the legislature had a lot invested in how we were going to choose operators. And we dragged every operator into the into the statehouse. So I would I would actually argue against what you said earlier. But yeah, I would agree with you. I understand. And I just understand where Commissioner Hills coming from also having more to the state government is that usually, you know, municipalities and governments help each other out, give each other space at each other, you know, and try to make sure those forms and especially when it's a cost saving. So that but you know, I submit on this issue. It's, you know, there's just a lot of different competing issues. And we balance them out in the statehouse. We balance them out. I remember, Executive Director Wells, weighing in on the matter as well. Todd, I don't know if you have I know, Todd, you were concerned about the cost too. So you're also our ethics advisor. Any concerns? Well, I think that Commissioner O'Brien kind of is striking a good balance. Let's let's move forward with this meeting. We'll get through this. And then I think everyone has expressed their views and we're all hearing it. I think everyone's generally on the same page. And we can step back and see if we can develop a good plan going forward for spaces and streaming and all of that good stuff. So for this one, I think it's there's not much more to be said. Madam Chair. Mr. Hill, your thoughts? Are we where we started? Where we thought we were going to land? Not yet. So I am not digging my my heels in the sand here. I am truly trying to understand a couple of things. So I always thank my fellow commissioners for allowing me to ask these questions. In regards to Commissioner O'Brien and your concerns with the CMF modification discussions, I'm just going to throw out something from the ethics law or ethics training that we took. And I'm trying to understand why the CMF modification discussion would be in conflict to what I'm about to ask. And the question is under the what I read it says neither general legislation or a home rule legislation are particular matters for purposes of the conflict of interest law. So in this case, it's a regulation change that I believe affects the entire Commonwealth, not just the city of Springfield. And as I continue to read it, it says a state employee. So I'm assuming that also means a city can participate in general legislation and and home rule legislation, even if she or he has a financial interest in such legislation. And of course, it goes on. I'm not going to read the entire ethics law to everybody. So with that particular piece, I'm still trying to understand why that would be in conflict with the MGM quarterly excuse me, the CMF modification discussion and why we still couldn't go to a city place. A regulation is different from a general law. And I know that Todd, you're going to weigh in and say that is a particular matter. And then there's the appearance issue, not even flat out, you're conflicted from participating, but also just the appearance of whether someone might perceive it as being unduly fair to someone or unto to someone. Okay, that's where I was coming from on that. Parents issues. But the reg in general legislation, we got to be careful, and that's where you get lawyers help because it's dicey. But the appearance issues, you know, we could take that off and looking at what we're anticipating, we're going to go through the agenda now. So we could make it a very broad base. But I also don't think we want to just have a meeting out there that's not fruitful. So but we are going to have the MGM quarterly reports. And that would be fine out there. Like my only, you know, we, we hadn't used city hall for this kind of purpose in the past seems to have worked in the past and I was following suit with that. I don't have to defend history. But I think my fellow commissioners before me and those who were thinking about these issues deeply probably considered all these factors, including costs. So there we go. So thank you all for indulging me. No, how do we want to leave it? We would move forward in hopes that we can lower the cost and then moving forward. If we don't have something that doesn't look right, we could maybe go to a city location to save some money. But for this meeting, we move forward in hopes that we can save some money. Can we just ask Todd to take a look and see if there's any problems with us going to any entity municipal or otherwise and asking for free services? I, you know, I am careful about that. And I would want to have, before I make that call, I said I agreed to do it and having a little bit of remorse. And I'm hearing I don't have to do it anyway, because I would want to have some guidance from an ethics point of view, if that's appropriate for us as commissioners to see. So yeah, I would have thought that we'd be looking for the price that any other group would be getting going in there, right? That's right. Right. Agreed. Yes. Right. Yeah. And then in terms of IT services, so, you know, do they have space available? Would it be for use that's private, not public? I mean, private in that we wouldn't be having open to the public, but it would be a public entity that would be hosting a public meeting related to its business. So that's the the ethics question. Okay. And so, but we are holding on that now, but this session and going forward to see if Mills can find some savings. Is that where we are? Just want quite a clarification. And Commissioner Skinner, are you okay with that? Okay, Commissioner Maynard, are you okay with that? Okay, he's I'm assuming that he's all right. He can get back to me if he has a challenge on that. All right. So we're talking on November 2nd, which will be in Springfield. Todd, are there particular administrative updates that you want that's associated with being out in Springfield for any reason? I had to admit I haven't thought that far ahead, but it will certainly. Okay. Thanks. We'll have minutes. Commissioner Maynard is off. There you are. We'll have minutes. Commissioner Maynard, are you going to be all set that if I just hold, try to get savings for mass mutual this time around? We'll explore the right way to explore space elsewhere for government space. I'm perfectly fine with that, Madam Chair. Yes. All right. So we're good on that. And then you'll figure out minutes and get back to Trudy and me so we can include them and the actual dates and the agenda. We will have to just note on what you asked earlier. We do have to be an executive session to take up executive session minutes. So that's a piece of this too. Would you want that then on November 2nd, or do you want to do October 16th, or do you want to roll it over into mid-November? Let me get the date. Let me see where we are on finalizing them. But we do have to do that. Thank you for reminding me that we require an executive session to do the executive session. Yep. Excellent. Thank you. Okay. So legislative update. Commissioner Hill maybe we'll be looking at finalizing that letter. I'm hoping. Okay, no. Regulations. Would it be appropriate for Ying to have hers on the court ordered exclusion? And I'm looking now with Ying and Mark for November 2nd. Do you like that date better than the later November date? I like that date a lot. And that would be my preference. Ying, you get the final say. I deferred to Mark. I think we would be ready by early November, but certainly again, if based off anything else on the agenda, I'll be able to move it as well. Okay. We'll plan on it for now. And that's court order exclusion. And will there be materials? That's kind of a new topic for us. It will be through Reg. Is there any policy piece to mark? It's a statutory. So we would probably accompany a memo that would describe where we're referencing from. Has that come up in the addiction services? Is that we've been working on? Yes, that's what we've been working on. And it's my preference to have it on the 2nd. I have a addiction service and subcommittee meeting the following day. And it would be great to provide an update and then we can move on to the next step of this with that committee too, as long as this regulation is moving through its properties. Thanks for that. All right. So that's on November 3rd? Yes. Okay. Alrighty. Any other regulations, Caitlin? Right now, I don't have any other regulations for the 2nd. That could change based on the meeting next week, but right now I don't. Okay. And Crystal, what's waiting? Sorry to keep you. Okay. For the 2nd, I don't have anything at this point. I do think we might be seeing House rules come based on conversations this week. So certainly we'll let you know if that comes up. I think it wouldn't be for the 2nd, but I don't know. Given Joe is bringing the conversation of quarterly reports and we've had some questions, I'm curious as to how you want to see the next round and timing for the quarterly reports to come from the operators. I know there was some discussion about maybe not having them on every quarterly meeting. I don't think it'd be for the 2nd because that's pretty soon, but Joe's item is on there. So it's a question worth asking what you guys want. I think Joe's combined the last quarter and the new quarter because of entry and had to postpone. Yes. Correct. So it's a little prior than he would have gone with Q3, right, Joe? Yeah, absolutely. Because I had it in my timeline a little bit later in November or early December, and we can wait until we get to what's coming. But that was just what came up for me. But otherwise, I don't have items for November 2. We'll hold that. Joe, you want to weigh in? Yeah. We're looking at the meeting on the 19th to do on-court PPC. So we put MGM first just because we were getting the two quarters worth of data. They're going to be all right going forward on the 2nd? Yeah, they should be. Yeah, and we're out there, so it's okay. Good. Okay. Marianne, I'm turning to you. Are you up? Did you want to add something? No. Oh, okay. Joe, see your math modifications. Yeah, right now, that's just a placeholder. We were putting that in there in case anything major came up at the public hearing that the commission felt that they needed to address before finalizing the guidance. So we may or may not need that. We'll see what happens on the 26th. Okay. And then, Mark, the research agenda summary. Yeah, we're working on that right now. We will be ready to share that. Okay. And then, Trudy, we need to make sure we add fiscal year 24 budget update from Chief Lenin. We've rolled over. Is there anything else that we're adding other than union marks regulation to this matter team? Anything that you need to add? Oh, hello, Dr. Lightman. Were you thinking of adding the resource development fund benefits for jockeys and drivers to that one? So, thank you. I sent an email on Commissioner Hill. I'm not sure if you saw it this morning. Okay. Do you think I need that a little bit of extra time to digest? And I thought, Todd, too, we got those numbers. So does that work for you, Dr. Lightman, being in Springfield, is that okay? Yes. It's okay being in Springfield. That doesn't make a difference. Okay. If it turns out that somehow, technically, there's a challenge, we'll work that out. But Dr. Lightman, that would be on the jockeying. Other matters in terms of Steve O'Toole said anything that he has outstanding, Dr. Lightman? We're all set on him now. You're all set on him. But we have just the jockey matter commissioners that we're returning to. So, we should be ready for that by then. Okay. Anything else? All right. Moving on to November 60. Todd, I won't ask you. You'll decide. And commissioners, again, if you want something from Todd's team or update or clarification, anything, I just want to know what they're up to. I'm kind of getting curious about Katrina's team. We haven't heard from Katrina for a long time. She might have a specific development in the IT world that she'd like to share. Of course, she's got the experience on cybersecurity. There's been a lot of transparent conversations around cybersecurity out here. But November 16th might be a chance for Katrina to highlight something in the world that's been developing because of these incidents. So, just, it's not that another date, executive director Grossman. All right. And then we'll have minutes, Commissioner Maynard? Maybe, yes. Sorry, I had an issue getting my mouse to move. We will have minutes. And Judy just actually messaged me. We're going to have some August minutes to try to catch us back up to get to October. And would that be in November 16th or an earlier? I'm getting those minutes to review today. So, I'm getting three sets of minutes to review today. Assuming that the review goes the way they should go, I'm hoping to get them earlier. But they may have to be put on that meeting. But then November, and that's fine. Just keep trying to keep track. Good. Legislative update? We can just keep it on. Okay. Regulations. Anything that we can plan on, Caitlin? Not yet. I think let's see how next week goes and if anything's going to roll into that date. But yeah, we'll have more information then. Okay. And then sports wagering, hard to predict, Crystal, but actually on the 16th, we will have to bring forward that data privacy. Yes. The waiver because it expires the 1117. So, we're asking for that documentation around the first. But I think you'll probably want some time to review it. And then the 16th would probably be the latest we could do that. But So, Caitlin, on that, I know she just turned off her camera there. I'm back. Sorry. Yeah. So, that waiver deadline is right then. So, well, you guys will be coordinating, right? The needle in sports wagering. Absolutely. We have a meeting coming up actually. Okay. All right. And then of course, other than that is whether you'd, I still think we probably would want the quarterly reports a little bit later, and especially given that that might be a substantive item. So, I don't think we'd want them to be on the 16th. That would be a different thing. I'm turning to Joe though on that in terms of your reports. Are you going to start doing some more reports on the 16th? Quarterly reports? Yes. My intention was to put on the Planners Park quarterly report and the on core third quarter report. And that would be on the 16th. On the 16th. So, we would have just those two quarterly reports, and then probably we'd plan on the operators reports later in the year, unless the sports wagering operators, commissioners, Crystal asked are alluded to a policy question for us. In terms of frequency, when we want to hear from the sports wagering operators, I think maybe we thought at the beginning, I can't remember if it's in the bag that it's quarterly. So, reports come quarterly, whether you want to review them as far as having presentations is not part of the regulations. So, it's just been a question we certainly, you know, I understood we wanted to see the first round. And now you can see that it takes several meetings. So, it's really up to the commission on you'll still get the reports, but do you also want the presentations? Commission. So, I think after, you know, seeing this first round go through, I certainly want to continue getting our reports quarterly, but I think every other quarter, I would like to see a presentation. I don't think we need to do a presentation every quarter, but certainly every other would be sufficient. That would be my thought. So, should we be should we be staggering them so you're not looking at, you know, a number of them coming in at once, even every other to have every other come in every six months? Should we be hearing them every quarter, but just tronching them out so they come back every two quarters? I like that approach because there are a lot of them. And so, to get them in, that makes sense to me. But for sure, I agree that I do want to continue with the presentations in some form or fashion. Are you okay making it not every quarter, Commissioner Skinner? I think I'm okay with that. You know, I would like to be as consistent as possible throughout these. We have the brick and mortar quarterly. Is there, what is the objection to having them quarterly aside from time limitations? The operators are very willing. It's really just, you know, it took three different meetings and, you know, if you guys want to have them a little more frequent, you could do that too, whether you wanted to have a couple meetings around it. But that's it. Simply that. Yeah. If there's no objection, I would like to continue to see them quarterly, at least for now. You know, I think there's room certainly in the future to let up, as we begin to get more familiar with what it is we're seeing and, you know, get to, I guess, be comfortable with what we're being presented in terms of operations, et cetera. I think, but for now, I'd like to have them continue quarterly. Commissioner, what's your position? Really struggling with the mute button today. My position is that it's good to get the information as often as we can. I understand it takes a while. We've never been scared of hard work at this agency. So, I think that, you know, getting the information is good. It's good to hear, especially we're still in the infancy. We're going to be in the infancy for a while. So, I support Commissioner Skinner on that. I'm aligned with Commissioner Skinner as well. You know, we ask for the reports, and then if we read the reports and we have questions, we're going to want to ask the questions anyway. And I agree with what you, Commissioner Maynard, it's new. I would like to message to the operators, it's a chance for them also to tell us what's not working, you know, like some American, whatever that's hard or something that's going on that they didn't anticipate with respect to responsible gaming. This is a chance for us to work together to make sure that we're standing up this industry the best possible way. And so in many ways, they're reporting out to us. But it's not just to ask questions and see, you know, how they're doing, but also to let us know where there's challenges. So, Crystal, that probably isn't the answer for you because I do know it takes the team's time as well. Not our problem at all for us. We just want to make sure we're aligned with what you guys want. And I'll set it up. And like I said, the operators have not, they've been asking, when do we go next? So, I think it's not an issue at all. It's whatever you guys are looking for. I think messaging what we're thinking that this is, you know, again, us really learning about, you know, what's going right, what's going, what's going, you know, we, you've got a little bit of a template, but there can be a page that that says we'd like to bring to your attention this and it's outside the labor process maybe, right? Because that's more formal. Commissioner O'Brien, how do you think you're okay with that? Yep, I'm fine with that. Yeah, Commissioner Hale, you all right? Yeah, okay. So, we'll just have to figure out that and maybe sort out the number of meetings. Crystal, let's circle back and maybe we do a few just meetings only on those reports. So that there's a little bit of a cadence that works for your schedule and your team's schedule and for the commissioner's duty. You're right with that, right? We'll find some time that will work. Okay, all right. So that would be near the end of the year. We've got the, with the PPC and EVH, Chief Delaney, we're going to be all set on those quarterly reports. I have one more item that I would like to add on this as well. Yeah, at the right time. We would like to get our final Community Mitigation Fund guidelines on for that meeting for a final vote. You get that, that will keep us right on schedule with what our goal was. Mary's happy. Good. Guys, always manage your timeline so well. Anything else from the team from November 16? Okay, let's look at our underreview list. I know that that's probably under review. We need to sort of figure out what we're, you know, why it's on the list because it makes sure that it's still live. The compliance committee, Commissioner O'Brien, perhaps you and I should schedule a meeting. Yeah, it's still under review, but staff, Nikisha and, not Nikisha, sorry, Katrina and Derek reminded me that there were some drafts, you know, sort of right when I got here that had been, certainly, but they were able to put their fingers on those and recirculate to the small group of us that met. So we're going to dive in. At this stage, if I could be including in those discussions, because I just want to understand what we're thinking. That's the option. So that's just it, is there's a couple different ways you can go with it. And so these were some ideas that have been put out, you know, about five years ago, maybe a little more at this point. So I haven't interviewed the material yet, but I think they're going to start from the other, the working group. Yes, meeting. And so I know that I'm hoping that that's convening Todd and others. I know it's a large stakeholder working committee, because that's really important work that needs to be done to understand and mitigate against risk circles back to work that gets filed with different stakeholders in the spring. So I am, I love that. I've never been on that. I think I was invited once on Rige. I took this place. I think that's a great opportunity for all the stakeholders and within our, meaning all the division committee heads to really think about risks in the organization. And it's a great working group. I know Commissioner Skinner and Commissioner Bryan, you do a great job on that. So thank you. And the compliance committee, I guess maybe either I join the subcommittee or Eileen, you and I privately speak about that would be great. Just so I don't, I keep on asking the same question. And yeah, I don't think I think once we go through the materials and meet one more time, then you and I can maybe chat with something. Okay, that'd be good. Thanks. Thanks so much. All right. And then Commissioner Skinner and Chief Delaney, the post committee agreement. That's still ongoing. Okay. 90 day audit. It's not 90 days yet. It's still ongoing. And Todd, I'm sure you can speak for Bruce on that. That's fine, right? Under review. Yeah, I think those are under review. There's a couple left to do. Okay. Dr. Andrews. Hello, yes. The I'm good. How are you? The economic impact reports are still under review. Okay. There, everybody wants to collaborate on research. Dr. Andrews, lots of opportunity. So I'll get back to you on what I'm learning. I'm sure all the other team members will get back to you and what they've been hearing, but all great stuff. That restriction, I think we don't have Andrew and Bruce, but I know that they're working on it. It didn't come up today. So we'll keep it under review. The diversity audit. Commissioner Skinner, I saw in news clips, I didn't hear it directly from anyone that there seems to have been some resolution on the matter regarding reporting to us on diversity matters out of that was part of the subject matter of the lawsuit, but that was dismissed. Did you see that news story as well? I didn't see that. I heard something different. But that's, I mean, I've been on vacation and that's okay. And you may, and it was honest. Yeah. So I just wanted to point it out because I know there's intersectionality there. Perhaps I see Heather's on maybe Heather, you can find out a little bit more about the status of that lawsuit or Todd. I don't know who's who it falls under, but it was in the news. There was an article that I think it was a settlement or dismissal. I couldn't remember. Yeah. I think it was a settlement that resulted in dismissal of prejudice. But with respect to the actual issue around our reports, and I guess I'd like to understand that piece a little bit. Okay. I don't know if you thought the same way, but no news article. We can't really rely on that, right? So in terms of we would be prepared to communicate about that at a later date. Good. Thank you for that piece. Perfect. Perfect. And so Commissioner Skinner, that there's intersectionality with that issue and then our own diversity audit, how's that going? It is proceeding. I haven't gotten the latest update. I know we presented as part of Todd's executive director report at the last meeting, so there's not much else beyond that. It's on track and we can keep this on under review because I would imagine we'd give more frequent updates to the full commission as things progress. Okay. Great. Thank you. That's really important work. So thank you. Not that all the work is important, but this is just a new area that we're exploring and so important. Our RFI carries out here. I assume that's out in pending, so she can give an update at the next. John Scully gave a thumbs up. There he is. All right. Well, if you want to give an update, just let Trudy and me know. We won't put it on for now. Do you want to, John? The RFI is up. It's posted and questions have been coming in and they're being reviewed right now. That's under the Q&A period. That's correct. Thank you. So we'll wait to put it on the agenda until you're in a little bit of a different place. Okay. So I'll keep it under review. Dr. Leipan, we've added your topic to 11-9. The mission statement work. You guys have done good work. Oh, Dr. Leipan, did you just have something else? No. Okay. So number nine work. Good work under the mission statement work, working group. Yeah. We're almost ready to bring something back to the full commission. Okay. Let's keep it under review until you decide the date. Yeah. We'll probably have a date by the next agenda setting meeting. Okay. Thanks. The recommendation letter, we've got that now. The process starting, Commissioner Hill, if it works for you. So we've got that under the next public meeting. Okay. Internship program. Commissioner Maynard and Commissioner Bryant. We can keep that under review, but we are meeting on the 25th this month and then should be able to report something out after that. Right. And Chief Moldrew is a part of the conversations. He's right there. Thank you. Yeah. Dave, did you have anything to add? No, I did not. Okay. How's that? I really hope it happens, Eileen, because you've been wanting this for a long time. So now since I walked in the door. Yeah. And Commissioner Maynard has the same experience that I was lucky enough to have. So the combination should be should be great. Okay. Okay. Oh. The RFI for the player risk identification and response mark. Yeah. That RFI closes on October 20th. I'd like to keep it under review once we get those responses. I'll kind of organize it in a way that I think that it will be helpful for the commission to decide what our next steps with that is. Okay. Okay. And then on 14, Heather, Caitlyn addressed it for you, but you're all set. We're going to be hearing this on the 16th. That's right. We'll have the, you know, initial next conversation on the 16th. I do have two other items, Chair, if I could just flag them. Is it for under review? I have one for under review, which is an EVH floor plan amendment that will be coming, but I think for the moment we'll keep it under review. I also just wanted to just keep on the commission's radar, the EVH, Realty Income Re-Transaction, the IEV's presentation on the full investigation. We had talked about doing that during the week of the 13th, and if we, I know we passed over the November 16th date already, but if we could do it around the 15th or 16th, then I just would be doing a placeholder for everyone, but I can certainly work with legal and the parties on it. What do you mean? You've got it. Is it the REIT? That's an adjudicatory here. Yes, exactly. And that's more just not necessarily for the public meeting, but just wanted to make sure the commission was, you know, headed on there. And in terms of a whole, are you working, you're working with Trudy, right, on our store? Sure. Yeah. And we can, I can work with Trudy as well. Absolutely. And the goal too. Anything for scheduling commissioners? Trudy's got to be involved in all the team members because it's really hard for Trudy to not double book or to know what's happening if you don't go through the scheduling for her. So commissioners, I know you're going to coordinate with Trudy, but for the team members, just really make sure that you, you go because if Trudy's not included, we do get, we just will get double book because I don't think we can all see each other's. I'm learning more and more that sometimes head of what you see isn't the same as what Trudy see. It's so it's just tricky. So thank you. So coordinate with Trudy. We'll find the best date, but that's for an adjudicatory hearing on the reach. Hi, Chair. That's right. And that, and that, do they have a closing date challenge, Heather? Yes. I don't know the date off the top of my head, but I know we want to get it done during that week. And we had flagged this previously, but I'll certainly look back with Trudy on it. I just wanted to keep it on everyone's radar. Yeah, no. Just in terms of legal working on, because we've got to have the witnesses and everything that, you know, we don't make sure that Trudy's involved. And Chair, I have to correct myself. It's not that it's a closing date. It's more the timing in the regulation. The closing has already occurred after the interim invest. So I just want to make sure I clarified that. So apologies. That's helpful. Yeah. Thank you. That's right. Yeah. I lose track of where we are on these. Thank you. So it's a red, but we have, like we're running out of time under our own reg. Yes. Okay. All right. Let's get it on the calendar and make sure everybody that you need, Heather, can be available. All right. Okay. Sometimes it's motivated by their closing. If this is anything else for under review, the read matter will include these non public meetings in our notes too, so that we can keep track. But this is just an adjudicatory hearing outside of that. Anything else? Okay. Minutes. Commissioner Skinner, I'm not sure if you had a chance to go through them. We've been busy. I have all set to move forward on those. Okay. And if I have no idea if this is right, Commissioner Hill's procedurally, but we had a motion that was seconded and Commissioner O'Brien eyed and you eyed. Yep. And then yeah, still I and Commissioner Hill. Hi. Can you hide? Is that right? Then Commissioner Skinner. Hi. Okay. And then Commissioner Maynard. Hi. And I vote yes. So five, zero on the minute. So that's taken care of for you. Commissioner Maynard. Great work on Judy and Ying. Anything else? Okay. Again, super proud of our team. And oh, I'm just checking because there's a chat. I just did check in on me. I want to make sure I didn't miss. So the 90 day audit, Bruce wasn't available. That's staying under review. And number six, that's staying under review. So I just wanted to make sure that we were clear on that. Otherwise, I think we're also, and again, super proud of the team that's out here working hard, hoping that they've had a little fun too. And to all of those back in Boston, thank you for your good work. I have a motion to adjourn. Second. There was a competition there. Who got the move? Who got the motion? Commissioner O'Brien. Commissioner O'Brien moved. And then who seconded? I seconded. Commissioner Maynard, I'll get you next time. All right. Any discussion on the motion to adjourn? Okay. Commissioner O'Brien. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. Hi. I thought, yes, right here. I'll have a