 Thank you. All right. Good to go. Okay. Good morning. This is the convening of Massachusetts Gaming Commission. We're holding this public meeting virtually. I will take our roll call. Good morning, Commissioner Bryant. Good morning. I'm here. Good morning, Commissioner Hill. Good morning. I'm here. Good morning, Commissioner Skinner. Good morning. Good morning, Commissioner Maynard. Good morning. All right. We'll get started. It is our public meeting number 452 and we just completed an agenda-setting meeting that was really productive. We thank the team for that. We're going to now turn... We don't have minutes, Commissioner Hill, today. I know we will look forward to some in the next meeting, but we're going to turn to Executive Director Wells. Do you have any updates for today? Nothing for this meeting yet. We can go ahead. Okay. Thank you so much. So, we really are focused on some internal work initially. Two commissioner updates, and I'm going to turn right to Commissioner Skinner on the budget review. I know you've worked closely with the finance team and your roll-ish treasurer. Oh, yes. Okay. Well, so Chief Lennon doesn't need an introduction, but I do want to say that he and the finance team have long proven themselves as responsible fiscal stewards of the commission's operating dollars, and you'll see that responsibility play out not only in the commissioner's budget that we're reviewing today, but the overall commission's budget. So, with that, I will turn it over to Chief Lennon and John Scully. Thank you. And we'd love to take credit for this, but Grace has done the majority of the work, as well as pulled together the memo. And Grace, if you want to just kick off on the memo, walk through the discussions, and we have met with all the commissioners on this, giving you a brief overview just to remind you last year was the first time we did this in public. This used to be done with the Chief Administrative Officer and then would work with the commissioners, but this is a good process for the commissioners to all talk about things together that's in their budget. And what you'll see is the majority of what's in here is just carried forward from last year with a few items that we moved around or made some small adjustments to, but I will like Grace kick this off because she did do the lion's share of this work, and I would like her to be able to take the credit for it. Thank you there. Good job. And it was definitely a team effort, and please feel free to jump in at any point, if any clarifications or corrections. So I'll just run through this memo, kind of making any of the major highlights, and I'll pause after each section just in case any commissioners have any comments or would like to make any changes. As Derek mentioned, all the commissioners did have a chance to review this ahead of time, but I know it was a couple of weeks ago now at this point. So just to review, since we brought on sports wagering, there is a slightly different allocation of funds when it comes to salaries, mainly salaries for this budget. So gaming will carry 65%. Sports wagering will carry 28.5% and racing will carry 6.5%. And that is again mainly for salaries. So then on the salaries, the salaries in this budget includes the five commissioners, salaries, the executive assistant salary, which is new from last year, and the CAO to the chair salary, which is mine. Moving on to parking and meeting space. So you're all aware, all five commissioners have parking here at 101 Federal Street. Parking for next year is going up slightly, which you will see noted. Same as in the years past, we have funding reserved for off-site meeting space. So this money could be used for space rentals, AV needs, catering, or anything related to hosting meetings, public meetings or hearings at off-site locations across the Commonwealth. I know there's been some interest in doing this and we have done this in the past as well. So we're reserving some funds as well. In addition, we've added a new line item for commissioner, sponsor, team building events. So this would be any time the commissioners wanted to host a training or a team building or anything with the team. All right. Continuing down to general consulting. In the past, there's been a line item for transcription services. Legal now has their own transcription service for meeting minutes. So we have reallocated those funds for general consulting purposes in case anything comes up over the year that you all would like to hire an outside consultant for. So down to travel and conferences. So I know there was a lot of interest in traveling in last school year that might have been pulled back a little bit with the onset of sports wagering and how many meetings you all had at the end of last year. And I know a lot of you have expressed interest in traveling more in FY 24. So the travel expenses for next year have been level funded from last year. And this number was put together by an estimate of about $3,000 per conference. And that would include conference fees and registrations, hotel travel and reimbursements. Assuming each commissioner goes on about three conferences a year, that would allow for about $8,500 per commissioner for the travel budget for the year. Are there any questions, comments on that? Yeah, I do think that we as a body of five just need to talk about that number in terms of I asked this last year and I'm assuming because the number is static, the answer to this first question is yes. But whether I know cost of travel has gone up. And so whether 3,000 per is still reasonable or whether there should be kind of in New England, outside New England, is there a delta there? Because it seems to me like airfare hotel might add more to that than just an across the board 3,000 per commissioner. That's a but I guess that's a question for you guys who know the numbers better than we do. And then the second is really whether we're doing this. The conversation we had last year, my presumption was that number came out as a times five. And so we all kind of had this default of 20% of that total number. Seems like there might have been not unanimity on that. So I do throw that out as something I think we need to talk about also. So I think on the front of the overall budget, I'm a commissioner if you could just elaborate what you mean. So if I'm not mistaken, is this 3,000 per commissioner per comments? That was the same number for the calculation last year, right? And I know we had some conversation about how cost of travel was at that point going up. And we didn't know if that was going to be a reasonable number as a placeholder. I would I'm assuming because it's still there that you guys feel like based on last year, that's still a reasonable placeholder. But my question is also 3,000 per commissioner per conference, there's different ways to do it. The only one I've been to really is I drove up to Portland, right? So there was no airfare like two nights, whatever, which to me is very different than going to one that's airfare, extended hotel, etc. And is there going to be it would seem to me that if you're going to a bunch that don't have any sort of airfare or hotel, is that different than going to ones that have airfare and hotel? You know what I mean? Like, because 3,000 for those where there's airfare and hotel seems low to me. But I could be completely off on that. So that was my sort of numbers question on the 3,000. And what was the 20% that was my question? Oh, there's five of us. And so this is based on three, three per year, blah, blah, blah. And so times five got us to the number at the top. And so I had assumed that the that was sort of of that amount. Everyone was going to take their tranche of 20% of that. I don't know that that was everyone's perception, but that was my perception when we talked about it last year. Yeah, to the first question. And john and john's here as well, and grace has reviewed the numbers. So 3,000 is still holding good for per trip. That's actually on the high side, especially if you're going for a typical two to three day trip. Now, if you're going international, that's a whole nother, whole nother issue where that's going to be a little more expensive, but for domestic, the 3000 is is holding. And, you know, like, like we said last year, this is just for an estimate to put in there. Obviously, there's in state or local travel, that's a lot cheaper. So we just put this aside. And as I've said in the past, if we exceed this, which we are only at about 50%, we're under 50% spent right now through the this period in the fiscal year. But if we exceed it, that's an area where we could go back and find additional money. Because at 3000 a trip, that's not big when you're talking about a $35 million budget. So it's this is purely for budgeting purposes. But the second the second piece is more of a policy discussion, which we would leave up to the mission, but 3000 is holding well this year, which we're pleased to see. Yeah, okay. And so the 20% is what you were saying, Grace is 8500. Correct. That would be 8500. Okay. Derek, if I can just add, when you say we're at 50%, we're at 50% because we had to do sports, so sports of wagering, and a lot of us decided not to go forward with things we probably should have gone to. So I think it's a little misleading, not by you just the number itself at 50%, because that number, I think would have been a lot higher had we not been doing sports wagering this year. Is that an accurate statement? Yes, that's a very accurate statement. I think you will see that a lot of travel dropped off between the months of September and February and into March, based on the calendars being full with sports wagering agenda items. I think that it's very important as a regulatory body. And I've said this many times that you get out and stay up to date on what other jurisdictions are doing, what the trend is. It's the same thing I used to see in insurance, banking, and telecommunications, which are all very heavily regulated industries. So I think it's very important, especially for the commission, who's set in the policy, to be out attending these. So you are correct that 50% at this point is, I think, very indicative of the sports wagering that was on our agenda for this year. I can say, as one commissioner, that I would like to have probably attended a couple of these conferences and I think would have educated me in helping me be a better regulator, as we were doing sports wagering. But I chose not to do that. And I feel a little bit that maybe I made a mistake not going to one or two of those. But moving forward, I may think very differently. So do you feel like that number is too low, Commissioner Hill? I mean, no, I think we're right where we need to be and we can reassess if we need to in the future. But I just want to make clear why the 50% is 50%. Mr. Maynard, Mr. Skinner, want to weigh in? Mr. Skinner, what are your thoughts? No, I think Derek had it right. We have a budget, a travel budget. And if that needs to be adjusted later in the fiscal year, we can always come back to have that discussion. I said at the beginning of this discussion, I highlighted the fiscal responsibility of the finance team. But as commissioners, we are all fiscally responsible. And I do trust that we are all working within the budget when we're making decisions to travel and when we're getting those requests approved by our appointing authorities. The requests are that the funds are available. That's what I want to make sure that we're not depending on the appointing officials, anything around our travel plans. Because we do have to submit, but I understand correctly, Derek, you send verification that funds are available. And that's what they're certifying to. And then to the extent we accept, for instance, if we're speaking and we accept some things waived, we do then have to make disclosures to our appointing officials to be allowed under the ethics rules to accept that. So there's there are different processes to commission our scanner with respect to our appointing officials. But I think that this certification is really about funds available. And I think what I'm understanding is that we are looking at the bottom line number of of how much for travel? 42.5. 42.5 total. 42.5. 42,500 dollars for a total travel budget for all five commissioners. Is that for out of state? Or is that for? That is all travel line items combined. So that would be out of state travel, conference fees, and things like inter in state mileage. And that's what we spent this year. That's what we budgeted this year. I know I'm having such trouble hearing, guys. I am so sorry. It's both the acoustics behind me, the band and then my microphone. I thought for some reason, Grace, I'm seeing I might not be reading this correctly. 81,370. I see that I believe is for Dr. Klass E for administrative expenses. Travel is part of that. Yes. So Grace broke this out nicely in the memo. B01, E30, E41, and E2 are all of our combined travel lines. Because you have out of pocket reimbursements, which could be mileage, whether it's in state or out of state. If you are making your own hotel reservations and paying those, and you'll ask for reimbursement, and then when you're on a trip and you pay for any food, that will come out of pocket reimbursements as well. And then when we align and pay for the hotels or the conference fees and the flight, that comes out of either the credit card line, the registration line, or the travel agent line. So it depends on what arrangements we can work with and cannot work with. Some conference sites will actually let us build them. Some say no way. You pay us up front with a credit card. Sometimes a travel agent will pay for it if it's only one person traveling and asked for reimbursement. And if we have multiple people traveling, they said they can't lay out that cash, so then we have to pay for it up front through the credit card. So that's why it's split between all those different object classes and object codes, because it can hit against any single one of those. And we look at all of those as interchangeable to that 42,500 number. So when Derek sends over a certification to an appointing official verifying that the funds are available, you're looking for whatever is available in the 42,500 as opposed to any, and I think your point is 20% allocation. I think we want to be clear on that. And if everyone's comfortable, that is, I think, Derek, how you look at the funds if they're available. Correct. That is how I look at it. And that's generally how I do it across each division as well. I'll take a look at what's remaining, take a look at the taff of what the estimates are, and get back to a division head or a budget manager within that division and say, hey, either you need to move some money around, or yeah, it looks good. Go ahead and travel. And as the next one comes up, you'll have to keep an eye on it. So I'll tell you my personal view. I have no problem with Derek doing that. I think it would be a good courtesy to all of us as individual commissioners to kind of maybe plan our traveling, especially if I'm hearing Commissioner Hill that you didn't, that the money's reflected our balance now may not reflect what will happen next year is think about how the allocations are going because a couple of us spend more upfront. It might mean less for another commissioner. And that's all. So some kind of a thinking. I don't know if we need to normalize that. But I do think if there's going to be a pattern where people want to get to conferences and Derek, you're quite right. It's important for learning. There's also if you're if people are asked to speak, there are associated costs to that that speaking engagements don't, you know, don't cover all costs. And we want to be able to make sure that, you know, if the game commission is asked to be represented, that we have that. And so I guess that there just should be some kind of a, we can't talk among ourselves about this. So there should just be some kind of coordination, perhaps, for general awareness. Does that seem reasonable, everyone? I think it does. I, you know, that's exactly the way, you know, these conversations should be had, you know, one, when I decide to travel for one, you know, my first question is what other commissioners are going, right? And then I sort of make my decision whether or not to attend a conference based around that. I think that, as you stated, it's a simple professional courtesy. You know, if funds are not depleted, but if, you know, one commissioner, for instance, is sort of utilizing more from the pot in that particular line item. You know, I think that, you know, if there's another expense that needs to be covered, I think it's just as simple as a discussion. And I think we can get there without sort of this allocation of the 20% per commissioner. You know, I just, the way that this budget has been managed thus far, I don't see a reason to depart from that. And I understand that the way the budget has been managed before is, you know, we have the ceiling, you know, at the time the budget is voted on. But if there are funds that need to be allocated to any line, not just travel, we have the ability to do that. And I just, you know, I just want to make sure that we are not losing sight of that. Well, so if I could be clear also, the reason, the representation that in the past it's been done as sort of one pot, et cetera, I have always gone forward under the assumption that each commissioners portion of that is 20% of the total. And that if there was anything that was going to go over that person's 20%, there would be, we would come back and have a conversation to avoid a circumstance where you're putting staff in a position where there might not be, or they might not be able to certify to an appointing authority, there is the respect of money at the account. So part of the reason I started with that is I thought that was the fundamental agreement among the four of us that were here last year. I don't think it was. So I just want to, I don't think it needs to be a formal vote. But I do think that there should be some sort of clear trigger point for staff where if a request is going to go over that 20% for any one of the five of us, it does say you got to go back and have a conversation amongst the five to move the monies around. My question in that regard, in addition to how does everyone else feel is particularly given the fact that several of the commissioners according to the memo and then even Commissioner Hill's statement today intend to do more travel next year? Should we be preemptively budgeting a little bit more than 425 if, you know, we already have some commissioners indicating I want to go out and do sports wagering and I want to do more travel than last year. So I do think there should be a thing if any one of us is going in and putting in a request that would go over 20% of this allocation, it has to come back to a conversation amongst the five of us. And then the other question is knowing we have more travel anticipated this year, is that 425 too low? Commissioner Skinner? So I don't want this to be a discussion between Commissioner O'Brien and I. You know, I think I've been clear both in these public meetings and individual discussions that I've had with staff. I don't think that we should be allocating a dollar amount to Commissioner travel. I don't think it's necessary. I don't think that any other division operates that way. And I don't see a reason for the commissioner to be maintaining and maintaining its budget in that in that way. I just, you know, it's not lost on me that I've traveled, you know, and I, you know, it kind of just feels like, you know, this is, you know, a sort of an approach to me personally. And I have to put that out there. You know, I, again, I think that we are all professionals. We are all public employees. We all, you know, understand what a budget is. And so, you know, to think that either one of us, you know, is not willing to step back and take a look at what is available in the account and go from there and make adjustments accordingly. I just, I think it's presumptive. And I just, I think it's a lot of to do about nothing. I think it's a lot of a do about nothing. I just, and that's where I sit. I just, you know, I understand that every commissioner intends to travel. That's fine. And I encourage that as, as, as commissioner just said, commissioner Hill just said, everyone should travel, you know, as long as there is a legitimate business purpose for it. So, you know, to have this, this cap on commissioner travel, I think, I just think it's unnecessary, especially when we are all independent. And I raised this issue earlier. We are, you know, seeking out our approval to travel by our appointing authority out of state that is. And, you know, again, with the understanding that what finance is signing off on is the availability of funds, you know, as long as there are funds available, as long as funds can be made available. And the appointing authority is approving that travel. And that's according to statute. I don't think it's the case for any one of the five of us to intervene in that. If it's a matter of, if it's a matter of increasing the budget line, I think we need to have that discussion now. But no other commission budget, no other division budget operates in this way. And I'm at a loss, honestly, to understand why there is a feeling that the commission, the commissioners need to operate in this manner. Commissioner, do you want to weigh in? Commissioner Maynard, are you off the microphone? No, I'm happy to. You know, I wasn't here during this last conversation. I'll say that's a that's a benefit, maybe. I have a benefit of not being here during this last conversation, but I was here during most of the fiscal year, came August 1st. Yeah, I've traveled in state to the properties, right? But but I've not been to a conference and to Commissioner Hill's point, a lot of it had to do with sports wagering. It also had to do with my transition as a commissioner, right? It takes me a little bit more homework to come up to my colleagues. And I respect that. Hope they respect it too. But you know, I think if I'm being asked, I see we are we're public servants. And I think that, you know, we do owe a duty to the Commonwealth, both to be informed, be informed regulators, and to get as much knowledge as we can, but to also be really, really good stewards. And I agree with Commissioner Skinner, I don't think there's anybody else commission that's not a good steward. I go, you know, I'm a big budget person, right? I personally budget myself, you know, I believe if you don't set a goal, you're never going to hit it. I would stick with that 20% number. That's just me. That way I know where I am and where I'm not. And I don't want to put staff in a difficult position of having to, to try to make decisions that the commission has decided or made aside. And, you know, I'm, I am trying, I'm going to get to my first conference next fiscal year, because I was asked to speak at Nickel G's and I'm happy to attend and very grateful for the invitation. But I, I would keep a 20%. Commissioner O'Brien, I asked the same question you asked to Derek. And, and he reassured me that this can be brought back up if the cap starts hitting, right? Like, so if it's not enough, when we start to see that we can bring it back. And so that makes me, that converts me. So I wouldn't raise the cap today. I would be open to it. If we get to a point, say, next early spring, and we see that the caps aren't working, but that's kind of where I am. Oh, yeah. So just to make a point of it too is the position I'm taking today is the same position that I took a year ago. And it is not personal to any particular commissioner. It is my concept of being responsible with the dollars on the budget. And I'm also being mindful of the fact that to get those out of state approval from our appointing authorities, there has to be confirmation that money is available. There may be a circumstance, if we don't say 2020, where staff has to make a judgment call, should I go over to this, which may mean there's not enough for everybody else, at what point do they have to say we have to stop and go back? I think it should be when you hit that marker. Otherwise, if we're not going to do that, it's got to be some other marker shy of 20 per. Okay, when we have encumbered 80% of that, this has to come back to the five of us, because I don't want to put staff in a circumstance of saying I can't do both and delaying someone's travel because you can't go until you get the approval. So my solution would be simply equitable. 20% cap talk about it. You may not need to, or we may say we need to increase the entire thing. If that's not going to be the case, my recommendation is there's some recommendation that we hit 75, 80% of whatever that is. And then we have to come back and talk about raising that allocation to make sure that staff is not put in that circumstance. I hope the problem with that is that no other line item, it works that way. No other budget within the commission works that way. Respectfully, Commissioner Skinner, no other part of this requires our staff to make an attribution on the budget that then triggers to an outside agency. That's what I'm trying to avoid is any circumstance where there's anything on staff connected with our travel that makes them make decisions about allocating what's left in the budget. So to me, it's either 20% per or we agree to some other threshold amount that at that point, it comes back and we feel like we five are going to say, you know what is going from 40 to 5 to 60 because there's just a lot we need to get to this year. And I don't want to put staff in the circumstance of having to either choose between a commissioner because there isn't enough to approve both and get out to appointing authorities in time for a trip. So as a practical matter, it's either 20% per or some other trigger. So I think that this would be a good time, Madam Chair, if you would indulge to hear from staff, to hear from our CFO, because I don't think that's the policy choice. One minute. I'm sorry. This is a really important conversation. I want to turn to Commissioner Hill. He's next. Commissioner Hill. So here's what I'm juggling with and I heard this at the beginning of the conversation and I think it was you, Madam Chair, who commented on us. I agree that there should be a threshold. Once we hit a threshold, we're getting close to it. We need to come back. We need to reassess. And I'm saying that and then I'm going to say what your comment was. We absolutely, when we get to a certain point of spending, should come back if we're getting to a point as a commission. I mean, that's just to me common sense. However, Madam Chair, what you said earlier made me think about something. So let's say that we all agree that we get $3,000, whatever the number is. Madam Chair, and I'm going to go to Commissioner Maynard, using your two examples, you have been invited to something that is not necessarily a conference you would have went to, but you were invited to speak at a round table or something. Well, that kind of throws a little problem into the $3,000 that you would have been allocated for because now you're going and doing something and spending more than you would have because of an invite, not a conference that you would have attended normally. So that's what I'm juggling. And I appreciate that and I pointed out because I recently was, it was a real very, very kind and thoughtful invitation. And I went and I did pick up the expenses myself because of our budgeting issue. And I know that that's on me and my husband, and he's very patient and, you know, the shoes, but to care of that obligation, but not everybody can do that. I guess I'm just saying speaking engagements are not necessarily covered in total. With that said, Commissioner Hill, we should take in consideration, but I also have to say that I'll weigh in now. I've worked in state government an awful long time, and I take the issue of being a fiduciary to state dollars very seriously. And so I would not suggest that we expand the budget right now. When it comes to speaking engagements, you know, perhaps we should think about that being a different line item. But for travel and conferences, I would not suggest that we expand. I think $8,500 per commissioner is a lot. It's a lot of money. And there are times where a conference, I remember the first time I came here, my colleague, Professor Cameron said, don't attend that one, it's too flashy. You know, you'll be able to do better, spend less for something. And I appreciated that and probably she knew my sensibilities. You know, she was giving me some guidance and it turned out we really didn't end up traveling at all. Commissioner O'Brien and I with respect to COVID, but, you know, we attend things virtually, but my sensibilities are to be very brutal. I would not recommend today extending, expanding even if there's this notion of higher costs, given that even with the 50%, you know, left, I would say that's a high number. And I think about all the other state employees across the Commonwealth who also would benefit by traveling. I know that we are regulators, but there's opportunities for virtual training, there's opportunities for round tables. I would say stick to that. And I like the idea of all of us. I really recommend Commissioner Maynard are suggesting that, you know, he sticks to a budget because you do it personally. I extend that out to myself. So my, my thinking is whether or not we formalize it not, it was consistent with what I said last year to Commissioner Maynard, that in my mind, I would only think about the 20% share. But if I had approached and needed to go over, I would feel comfortable coming back to my fellow commissioners and say, look, I'm, I'm in this situation. And I think where there may be funding available funds available, we probably would say that I'll make really good sense for the Commonwealth. Well, let's, let's fund this Delta. But I'm, I'm going with my long standing instinct on these are critically important state dollars. And I'm going to be frugal. That's my recommendation to stick with the, the number it is, and whether it's formalized or not, that we all think about that allocation. And Commissioner Skinner, I do, do hear you. And I will say, I just think as a steward of state funds, I think about that. I also do believe commissioners get O'Brien year, you've raised a really good point, you know, for staff in terms of how they're, they are going to legitimately be able to project. Because at some point, what if all five decide to go to the full 8500? You know, when does staff, when can bear sign off to our funding officials? You know, you have to make a lot of assumptions at a certain point maybe. And I don't know if that makes sense. So maybe it just makes sense for us to have that practical number and understand that certain circumstances, commissioners may exceed it and we'll just revisit it. And we're all good colleagues to each other. And, and, and, you know, we, we say, Commissioner Hill, you know, we want you to go to that you know, horse racing conference that you haven't gotten to. And it does put you over that 8500, but we'll, you know, revisit, you know, I just think we have that flexibility. So that's just my thoughts. Commissioner Skinner. Thank you. So I think there, this, this discussion is based on a lot of assumptions and misunderstandings. I think that, you know, Chair, you talked about covering the cost of your travel to a conference based on a budgeting issue. I don't know if I don't know what you are referring to. So that was just, you know, it wasn't a budgeting issue. That was me and my decision. I, but I realized at that point, conference costs, if you're speaking, doesn't always get, or if you're asked to speak, it doesn't always, there's no necessarily a way to reimburse. Okay, so that's all there wasn't any misunderstanding. Thank you for that clarification. But it's not my understanding that there is a budgeting issue within the commission, not for travel or for any other line. Secondly, I'm not advocating to increase the travel line budget beyond what it is today. The recommendation from our finance team was 425 to level funded from last year. I'm okay with that. But what I'm not okay with is some of the assumptions that have been made, and this reference to staff being put in a situation where they're going to have to make judgment calls, you know, around which commission or travel to certify. And so to the extent that, you know, a decision is being made with that in mind, I would like to hear from CFO Lennon so that, you know, we can all be on the same page as to what the finance process entails, not just with respect to travel, when we're up against hitting the budget, right, but any other line. And, you know, if we're talking about a 20% allocation, I think we need to expand that beyond just the travel line. We've got a consulting dollar amount that has been added, you know, for morale boosting events and the like. You know, fall five commissioners want to host something for staff, we're up against that same issue. So this should not be limited to a discussion around travel and advocating dollars per commissioner. You know, it should be across the board, it should be, you know, widespread. Travel shouldn't be isolated. So with that, I'm going to ask that Derek weigh in in terms of what the process is that finance undertakes when a given line item is getting close to the budget. So to address that issue there, so there are a few items we meet with each division on a monthly basis. And Grace has been going on behalf of the commissioners. Crystal used to go and we review where everything is as far as spending in a budget is just that right it's an estimate. And then as you become get into actuals you have things that shape your decision making. Now where it's a little different with the commissioners is there's a there's a division head of each division where you're all appointed either by one or three officials. So you have different different heads there right in different different appointing authority. So we look at a budget as it's an estimate for the year as long as you're not exceeding your total divisions budget. We let you move stuff around. Now if you look at the commissioners budget this year and we did review some of it we haven't spent hardly any of the money to go out to public meetings. So there's another 30,000 sitting there that's available. We haven't spent the interpreters so there's 10,000 there on top of the 20,000 that is sitting available for travel. So if there were an issue we would say to the budget manager of another division hey you've got some free money here what are your plans for meetings off-site or what are your plans for a consultant and if the travel is a bigger priority let's move some money around internally in your budget to meet that. If you were fully maxed out we would say hey we have money available I would go to Karen and I'd say hey Karen there's this priority that's come up we have money available in an underspend spending in another division is it okay to move money around internally there? So we're tracking this monthly we try not to come back to you for an increase in assessment we try to say here's the priority of the day let's take down another priority something that is less prioritized or is underspending and move the money there otherwise we'd be coming back to you every quarter with an increase to the budget versus just managing those internally. So that's how we handle it with every other division I can can see that there's a little difference here or a large difference with the commissioners so however you determine to prioritize that what I would suggest is you let someone maybe it's Grace like Crystal was doing before or Janice was doing before that kind of work with all of you internally to say hey here's some pressures that are coming up do we need to take this back to a meeting or can we just adjust internally since we think there's some underspending here and that's that will avoid a lot of these issues of bringing it back every time there is something that's hitting a certain threshold when you've got underspending in 20 other areas that's just my suggestion but whatever you choose to do if you want to set a threshold if you want to set a amount per person we can work on that I mean each division sets their own sets their own standards and the decision ultimately comes from the division head of those divisions but with the commissioners it's all a little different so I hope that wasn't too much of a circular answer but we are willing to implement whatever you say but there I think there is a mechanism for you to manage that internally without it having to come back to a commission meeting each time and that would be to utilize Grace. Thanks Derek and the last the last point I want to make is you know there's an assumption that Commissioner O'Brien you mentioned this chair you mentioned this is that you're you feel the same way today as you felt last year you know we didn't talk about this in depth last year in terms of assigning an allocation per commissioner the same thing that we are doing today in terms of arriving at a budget there was a recommendation by our finance team and that recommendation yes was based on three trips per year at three thousand dollars give or take per trip but it wasn't set in stone there was no consensus that what we were going to impose as a policy going forward was that each commissioner was limited to three trips per year so I just I want to make that clear you may have been under that impression Commissioner O'Brien but I certainly was not. No as I said that was my understanding of the math like you I went back and watched the meeting again that was in fact my understanding and I feel the same way today and I do feel that this is uniquely singular expense unlike team building and anything else it's in the commissioner's budget and we are a unique division Did I freeze? Did Commissioner O'Brien freeze or did I freeze? It froze. It was me? No I think it was Commissioner O'Brien because I was plated with fated breath. Am I speaking now or am I still frozen? No you're good. I'm speaking now. So for me and Derek I have an understanding and appreciate everything that you're saying because of the interplay of having to give a certification to an outside agency and to not impede anyone's travel and so we're all on the same page I do feel like when it comes to this there should be a trigger point of coming back and saying commissioners we want to flag this for you and if it's grace tracking that's fine with me you might want to revisit this you might want to move it over from this you haven't used consultants the way you did during sports wagering etc and then we all come together and say fine but you know I haven't changed where I came on it last year but if it's not a 20% per I do think there should be a triggering point of that conversation of where you're going to move the money around from to make sure that any attestation that needs to go out that money is there is not put on staff to make a judgment call about moving money from our part because we are the five directors of this group unlike every other division you're talking about one individual's vested with that authority and I didn't freeze again I'm done. No okay. Commissioner Maynard. I just want to say that I was not here but I agree with the direction that Commissioner O'Brien just laid out and I think that you know for me I can't move on the fact that there should be a number assigned the number should be equitable. A couple of us do have multiple appointing authorities so alerting them not as easy as having one and so that's always in my mind and I think that's how I come down on this is that I think that we should have a limit and to be completely frank if I go over that number I do not think it's fair to take from another commissioner without having a conversation with the full commission about it and that's I'm perfectly okay with that that having that conversation if I get to a point where I need to go to something where I would need those funds reallocated especially having all three appointing authorities right where where there may have to be some explanation of all. Okay I think it probably makes sense that we have a vote on our our budget not sure we finalized it with a vote last year and it's really important for the team to understand the commission's decision so that they will have guidance going forward clear guidance and not have to make independent judgments or assessments on that um so I don't know if we have other questions about you know we'll just park the travel discussion for now um call that question for now um were there other items in our budget that you wish to discuss before we were to decide to adopt this this budget. I think Grace has to get through the rest of the memo. Yes I know. On my end the last few items here under additional items are are really more just housekeeping level funding for printing supplies and all the furnishings the freight and benefit cost has percentage has increased and just to note that in FY 23 there was a large item for consulting from EY which will not be in this year's budget so there was a decrease in the total budget and that kind of rounds out all the items for discussion on the budget. In terms of process Derek this budget does go before the operators correct as part of the overall budget. Correct we are meeting with the operators on the 15th to review recommendations and then we will bring those recommendations from the operators back to the commission on the first so this will be one of the pieces with every other division that's that's discussed with the operators. Okay. Of which we have grown substantially this year used to be a meeting of just three operators so now we have quite a few sitting at the table this year. Any other or Commissioner Hill. Madam Chair I'm waiting patiently to make a motion. Okay. Any further discussion for before this emotion. Okay. Mr. Hill. Madam Chair I move that the commission approve the FY 24 commissioners budget as included in the commissioners packet and discussed here today. Okay. Did I hear a second. Yes. I do need some clarification because I don't want this to not be clear. Does this mean that we are adopting 20 percent breakdown or not. So I mean my I had posited that or a threshold of 75 percent where they would come back and have conversations about reallocating what was left in the budget. I'm comfortable with either of those. As am I. I'm not sure we need to vote on it. I think the staff I absolutely must vote on this Commissioner Hill because this is where I think you know I learned I learned just through working with Karen that there was ambiguity on what the commission wanted. I think commission is going to you I think you alluded to that ambiguity so I think probably to help our staff understand we should probably be clear that with respect to the budget laid out. I'm not sure I don't want to speak for it because I want to I want to hear from the commissioners as to I'm not sure about the 75 percent that you just said Commissioner Bryant. So they lost me on that. I need to have some clarification as to the travel so that some madam chair our CFO is clear for certification purposes. So I think process wise I would like to withdraw my motion at this time because I believe we should probably vote on that separately and then once we have that vote we would then make a motion for the full budget. That's how I would like to move forward. So at this time I'd like to withdraw my motion. Okay that's allowed right. Do you need a second or I got a nod from Todd so we're good and I asked this only because then there were many questions raised and not saying I have necessarily I'd express my opinion that I just think the threshold is helpful for guidance for us as commissioners and then understood colleagues but I but I don't know if I understood Commissioner O'Brien's alternative and I think I understand Commissioner Skinner's you know idea that just one global budget. Well let me go ahead on the two options that Commissioner O'Brien just put forward I support the latter and that being the 75 percent and could we go over that please. So just so we're clear so my yeah my preference is the 20 percent for but I say this you know and everyone else can comment in addition to Commissioner Skinner if that's not workable then hitting a threshold be at 75 percent or something where we have to have other conversations to come back and say this is where we are and we're going to need to where do we want to pull the money from right do we want to say we haven't used consultants do we want to say we haven't done team building etc then we have to come back in at that point or is it a 20 percent per and if any individual goes over you come back in so that's why we're saying the 75 percent would mean not necessarily coming back if someone went over the presumptive 20 percent but if we as a five have now consumed 75 percent or close to it at the budget we have to come back and the five of us have to have a conversation about where are we going to move the money around in this budget. Commissioner. Can I ask a clarifying question? Commissioner O'Brien hypothetically if I spent if I went on a trip that spent 75 percent of the budget now that would be a really good trip but let's let's say I did it would be possible for under this scheme technically I'm not saying realistically fair point to that to then trigger right that's why I'm a little more comfortable with your first position which is right I am I am as well I was throwing that out there because I know commissioner Skinner is not as comfortable with that so it was sort of an alternative I'm I'm more comfortable with the 20 per but the 75 was sort of another way in my mind of making sure that we were having the conversation to reallocate. Commissioner Hill your thoughts on this? No Mike I I'm going back to where I was last year I think 20 percent of the total cost for each one if we get closer go over we come back and have a discussion I'm okay with that. I'm comfortable with that and then honestly I guess I'm just terribly frugal but I'm not as comfortable just assuming our budget has just because we didn't spend down on a certain online item that is fun they're fungible that they come over to travel. I think they're savings for the commonwealth and for the operators. I just don't see those as being as fungible as you know I appreciate Commissioner Lennon. He does sometimes have to do that for the operations of our agency. I feel that some of our expenses are more discretionary and travel is one of those so I don't see the funds as being as flexible but I appreciate that they could be and so we could revisit if you know as we said if things just work out that we really do need to you know increase our travel budget down the road we would come back transparently with the commonwealth and explain why and so that's why I think having 20 percent allocation is advisable at this time. So to vote on that separately is that is that how you're thinking Commissioner Lennon? That's what I would like to do and then we can take a full vote on the a vote on the full budget after that's my way of thinking but of course for everybody else things differently so be it. Commissioner Bryant, any thoughts? That's fine I mean I think Commissioner Skinner if we vote separately it allows her voice to be recorded so that she can make clear her preferences and then a separate vote on sort of the overall broad stroke budget. I think there's probably more unanimity on that so Commissioner Skinner are you okay with that? I am okay with that. Okay excellent. Alrighty Pressure Hill got a motion for us. I actually did not have a motion for this one since it was put forth by a fellow commissioner I thought she was going to do it. Okay I certainly just before I do it Grace and Derek can I confirm that that would be in reference to items B1, E30, E41 and EE2 that we'd be talking about? I don't want to over reference that's correct. Yeah that's correct it's the B01, E30, E41 and EE2 that's exactly correct. Okay can I just clarify that there's a two-pronged process here that when we travel we have to out of state only we do have to show that there's sufficient funds and then for reimbursements I have to sign off on the reimbursements for the commissioners and then the treasuring Commissioner Skinner signs off on my reimbursements that's just a reminder and then we have to go through that uh the ethics analysis should we be accepting any waiver of um of these associated costs and that we go through our appointing officials. Todd is there anything else or Derek on the whole that's a high level view but those that's kind of the steps that are taken? Yes and we review your expenses for your out-of-pocket reimbursements associated with the TAF to make sure that they're not off by more than 20% from what the estimate was. Because we do know that GSA rates it changes change at times we do know that sometimes you cannot get a hotel at the GSA rate especially if it's a if it's a high conference we know that travel costs can change if trips change so we do review that and if those need to be adjusted we send those back to your appointing authority as well before we approve do the final approval and push those through to be reimbursed through payroll. I didn't appreciate that that's really helpful Derek thank you appreciate it very much. Okay anything else on just the process for okay and a big thanks to Trudy who takes good care of us on all of that that could work so thank you all right so Commissioner O'Brien are you ready to start unless Commissioner Skinner you want to make a motion anybody wants to make a motion on it? I'm sure I can make a motion I move that the Commission direct the Budget Office and CFO to come back to the Commission in the event that any individual Commissioner exceeds 20% of the allocated amount for the cumulative total of B01, E30, E41 and EE2 for further discussion by the Commission of Reallocations to address any issues. Second. Any further discussion on this? All right uh Commissioner O'Brien? Hi Commissioner Skinner I couldn't quite hear you. Who's nay? Nay or abstain I couldn't I want to just clarify. I said nay. Okay thank you and uh Commissioner Maynard? Aye. And I vote yes so four one thank you. All right now moving on to the the trigger um the budget and I want to thank Commissioner Skinner for your work on the budget um and uh the discussion that we just had is it was a reflection of a lot of work that you did Commissioner Skinner and I want I want to note that um both your role as commissioner and your role as treasurer so thank you and then to Grace thank you for um the comprehensive memo and Derek and John for your work so in terms of we didn't always do a discussion like this right um Derek and so it really does present a um good good transparency for the public but also a real understanding for us as to how um our expenses are um are taken care of so thank you to the treasurer um all right we'll expect to the budget overall do I have a motion? Madam Chair I move that the commission approved the FY24 commissioner's budget as included in the commissioner's packet and discussed here today and Commissioner Skinner did weigh in at the same time Commissioner Hill? No worries no worries I'll second your motion. Don't second my emotion you should be doing this with all your hard work that you did so go ahead. You know he withdrew his motion Treasurer Skinner would you like to move? Oh boy we spent an hour on the travel discussion it was worth it it's good it's all good. I move that the commission approved the FY24 commissioner's budget as included in the commissioner's packet and discussed here today. Second. Thank you. Any further discussion? Commissioner Bryan? Aye. Commissioner Hill? Aye. Commissioner Skinner? Aye. Commissioner Maynard? Aye. Right vote yes thank you for the excellent work um now I'm great to see you um okay okay let me just get one. We turn now to a second commissioner um matter there are times where because we are five individual commissioners but work and decide as a majority we need to to go over matters and Commissioner Bryan you're kicking the lead on this issue. Yes Madam Chair this came up um a year ago the it's been tabled because we were hoping to have it rolling with something a broader discussion about our respective roles and the compliance working group in particular you know I've been talking about getting a compliance committee of a much smaller group unfortunately with Jacqueline's Departure in Sportsway during that has not advanced. Statutorily under 23k section 3f annually we have to elect a treasurer and a secretary and it is approaching that time of year again um Commissioner Skinner has been treasurer and Commissioner Hill has been secretary so we have to decide the presumptive nominees in terms of going forward for the next term um one thing that has moved in the five years I've been here is the start of the term so I do think that one of the things we should all have an agreement on or um is what's the best time of year to have this turnover because it should be the least disruptive time obviously for staff and also be mindful of when our terms end because we've had a couple circumstances where terms end maybe seats are vacant there's some scrambling to fill some of these seats so my thought was that it's better to have a presumptive progression and succession of who's going to cycle in and out of these rather than be caught scrambling um trying to figure out who's going to go in uh to seats next I'm assuming given the timing of the budget but if Derek is still on you know I'd love to hear his thoughts on whether um July 1 does make sense or whether it should be a little later than that in terms of the terms turning over because if you're changing a treasurer who's been working on the budget I want to make sure we're doing that at a time that's the least disruptive um I throw out July 1 but again um if staff has a different thought on that I'd like to hear it I would like us to stay away from springtime again because of our terms ending in March April I think having a term end March April May is a little um I think the risk of disruption is a little bit greater if we do it there um so Derek I saw you on your video came back I don't know if you had thoughts on the timing of that the timing of it is never ideal especially when you deal with a treasurer and uh and state finances they're not generally like private or regular accounting you know you've got the encumbrance issues you've got fund accounting versus regular debits and credits um so I you know it's a I understand what you're saying keep it away from that April um March timeline when someone's term may be ending because then you're right in the middle of a fiscal year July you're opening up a second fiscal year and closing out one um so you'll still have bills from the prior um period that are coming in through August um July and August so there's really no good time um stay away from the March April would probably be the best that's that's an awful time and um um you know the budget cycle is closed come July so that may be helpful because you don't have to jump head first into a brand new budget cycle as well I'm meeting with the licensees but not it's never a good time right it's a highly specialized function you have to learn about chapter 29 state finance law you have to learn about all our policies and procedures internally so that's that's the one reason I've always said the treasurer I wouldn't recommend turning over every year that may be better to have a longer cycle every year you've got someone new learning learning the ropes not if they have a lot of experience with state finances then they just learn our policies but it's a lot for a one-year time period so it sounds like in terms of cycles and timing if we were going to memorialize um that either a July one or July 15 or something would not would fit in sort of staying away from the end of term um the length of terms they I mean we have to elect annually I think statutorily the consumption would be the term is the year separate conversation we can have on whether we want these to flip every year whether we want it to be every two years you still have to have the election every year whether we're saying people you know stay for two years or not um in terms of rotating the four of us through who are sort of up potentially for secretary and treasurer um the two thoughts that I had again I was envisioning this at one point cycling through with you know maybe participation in the compliance committee that sort of thing but that is that in a posture to be discussed today would either be to simply cycle everyone through in a descending order by designating each seat and saying this is how they go through or cycling to out who've been in with the two who have not been doing any either of these and you simply go into the seat that you haven't done the last time that you were in there um if that were to be followed um you commissioner skinner and commissioner hill would cycle out commissioner jordan uh commissioner maynard and I would cycle in I would go into treasurer commissioner maynard would go into secretary um another way that a lot of institutions do it would be the secretary goes into treasurer treasurer would cycle up to something or out that would mean commissioner hill would become treasurer and commissioner maynard would become secretary um and then myself and commissioner skinner would be in the queue to then cycle back through so the things they're really I didn't write anything up because we've I think I'll have to come to a consensus how we think is best to do this to avoid confusion and gaps in fulfilling the vote and the statutory obligation on these two seats is when do we want the terms to kick off um and do we want to have the which sort of choice do we want in terms of presumptive nominees um so that there's no um surprises or confusion in terms of the presumptive movement in terms of how we're going to fulfill these commissioners well we've got to we've got to think about this riveting conversation that's your turn so uh it is an annual do you propose that perhaps it could be two-year terms um you gave it you know various scenarios we're all in this together commissioners let me just share my my I agree with the concept of having people get into these positions um learn about the positions I said this last year and I still feel the same way uh we're overseeing the entire agency we are commissioners of the entire mass gaming commission and I for one loved being uh the secretary I've learned a lot in this position as I think I would learn a lot uh if I was a treasurer uh and certainly the subcommittees that I have been on I've learned more about gaming and sports wagering than I ever thought I would ever learn and it is something that I have truly appreciated I think being able to be in these different positions is beneficial to all of us to be able to learn each division by being put in positions to learn so concept wise madam chair I like I like the notion of being able to take a vote every year and being able to be voted into different positions uh when I was a local officials we did it yearly you voted for a chair you voted for a vice chair you voted for secretary and we all took turns in those different positions to learn the responsibilities of each one so concept wise I like what commissioner bryan is proposing the discussion is going to be how do we get there I heard what Derek said about the two years and one year I feel comfortably saying I think a year term is fine I don't think they need to be two year terms I think we're all smart enough and knowledgeable enough about state government that I would not need you know a whole year to learn about spending in state government that's me personally so concept wise I agree with what commissioner bryan's proposing how we get there certainly is a a discussion that I look forward to uh and I would say that a year is fine um as a term not necessarily two years commissioner um bryan are you leaning in now or can I turn to commissioner skinner commissioner mayor yeah I like commissioner hill the concept makes sense to me I'm okay with that I mean again I'm just I'm going to go back to you know um you know change is good you know and I think this commission has demonstrated that um they they you know value change um just in terms of the policies just just taking going back to the travel policy and the sort of the restrictions and limitations placed on on that so you know I'm fine with that I know um that historically the treasurer's appointee has served as treasurer um that being said I'm just looking at the statutory language um that is certainly not a requirement um so conceptually I'm fine with it you know to use commissioner hill's phrase how we get there is a different different issue I'm I'm glad to see however that I mean I remember this discussion when it first came up last year um I think commissioner bryan I can't remember so I'm not going to attribute it to you but I think someone suggested that if you were a newer commissioner that you could not serve as an officer which I disagreed with then um and I also disagree with that now um I mean it was something that was tossed around I don't remember who you know and who raised that as as um a potential limitation but it certainly got raised so I'm glad we're off of that and that's not something that's being proposed today um so we can talk about how we cycle commissioners in and out of those roles commissioner bryan no I certainly never suggested anyone had to wait and to the contrary very often um the the junior person is put in a secretary in a lot of organizations when I was looking around at sort of you know officer succession um the idea being you get to know sort of the the nitty gritty of the meetings and stuff but no one ever suggested that you needed to be here for some period of time prior to assuming either these um historically there was the same person being secretary and the same person being treasurer when I first got here um I did the same thing commissioner skinner did I look that up I assumed the first time I voted and they were saying it was statutory uh based on their seat it's not and my time in the edgy's office um you know see bells and whistles go off it's never a good idea to have just one person um staying there you know that sort of sends red flags off in terms of best practices so um whether it be one year or two years the better thing is to rotate everybody through um so I don't have a preference for the options I'm happy to hear from everybody commissioner bryan I know hasn't had the chance to talk in terms of what makes the most sense logically and expeditiously um or if someone else has another idea in terms of just how we default to the who's going to be nominated people may have reasons for declining I don't know but that way when you get to an open meeting they're sort of the presumption of this is how this is going to cycle forward what's your leader thank you madam chair as the newest commissioner I'm happy to hear there's not a presumption that the newest commissioner can't perform a function uh that that uh his his or her appointing authorities think that that they can perform or they wouldn't have appointed them in the first place so that's I guess I would take that issue off the table that's the same point I made last not to interrupt you but I made that exact point last year when I got suggested I do want to clarify something that it's not that may be one commissioner's memory that's not exactly my memory um and I just want to be careful if I think there were a couple of people who were interested in a position and there might have been the idea that allowing somebody who had been here longer to allow them to go first I think it was just about that it wasn't about somebody not being eligible um because certainly I I I know that I I know that I did not say that and I know I didn't I would never have endorsed an idea so I don't remember who said it but what I will say is you know when we talked about travel and the allocation of the 20 percent commissioners were certain that that was the consensus last year and it was not so I respect the fact that you're saying that you don't remember um but it definitely was the case where I can't remember who but a uh commissioner suggested that uh a new commissioner could not serve as an officer I remember that very distinctly just as I remember the travel discussion from a year ago very distinctly commissioner maynard please I oftentimes I remember how I feel even if I don't remember exactly what said so I appreciate um appreciate your sentiment um the I think that you know I served in a dual control role uh in payroll in the governor's office I I hear what commissioner brian saying and I agree with her wholeheartedly that there should be turnover um that you know there should be multiple um sets of eyes on any matter um how we decide to do it whether it's to vacate the current positions then allow musical chairs for a lack of a better term or to um or or to have step ups and step outs I I'm I'm pretty open to that and it's not something I'm going to sleep over tonight but but I will say that I do think that there should be turnover that turnover is good um new sets of eyes are good and I waited on purpose till the end because I wanted to hear what um what the treasurer and and um uh what the secretary had to say uh about their respective roles in their their past year working on them so uh as to the timing I I understand there's no real perfect time given that we typically have spring appointment dates for commissioners and and uh July 1st fiscal date but um whatever works best so I I think that I I in short I agree with the sentiment of of commissioner brian so commissioner brian oh I said I didn't know if you had thoughts on it I mean it seems like the July 1 day might make sense in terms of staying away from all of our appointment and end of term I know that's not imminent for anybody four of us but in the future then it stays away from that time of year so then it's really a question of do we want to go um presumptive where secretary goes up to treasurer treasurer cycles out whoever hasn't been secretary can cycle in or do we want to do flipping out in and out where the two that have not done it then cycle it to whichever one they haven't done before I don't have a preference for either one um if people want to think about it and we can go back and and figure on how we want to do this maybe at the next date um I think we have a what about six weeks before we need to you know turn these over madam chair yes just a process question so we vote on these and I believe that is done by mass general law correct yeah it's 23k 3f yes so with that said we can't really decide to recycle because we're going to have to make votes what do you mean to recycle if we're asking to put forth the proposal you put forth where two people step down two more people get put in we're still voting for that to happen oh yeah yeah yeah it's it's not changing the vote it's more the confusion that's happened in the past when somebody either leaves their term early or we don't get an appointment and we've had that happen is you scramble and go we don't have a secretary we're not going to have a treasurer we have to get somebody in there and we can't talk to each other absent the public meeting right so it's there have been voids so really this conversation came up after that amongst commissioner Cameron and the chair and myself in terms of like there should just be I think a lot of institutions call it the presumptive nominee so that it's sort of like yep everybody knows this is probably who's going to be nominated for these respective seats doesn't mean there might be circumstances maybe somebody knows they're going to be on leave or something and they say you know what it's just not a good year for me to do this you know so then they don't they aren't they're not the person but at least there's no confusion right of saying okay the presumptive nominees are going to be this for the for the respective seats when we get to the next meeting so madam chair and through you to commissioner or brian the term presumptive nominee is something I had not heard before and that answers my question my question is what what is the what is the nomination process look like it's in it's in the public meeting and so you would sit there and say I nominate um you know commissioner maynard to be treasurer someone would second it and then off you would go and sometimes people don't want to do it maybe they have some you know and so there was up but we couldn't talk to each other in advance and so it was always you know maybe one person would say would you mind if I nominate you to do x but they can only talk to each other they can't talk to anybody else and so it just led to a lot of confusion at the public meetings in terms of the nomination process so so to me this was just one of the ways to avoid all of that and even what happened last year with confusion in terms of expectations of who was going to be where because it can only be nominated in a public meeting not by any individual commissioner so and then it actually gets voiced and voted on in the public meeting I think in a couple of your scenarios you had put the secretary going directly into the treasurer role presumptive nominee meaning the presumption would be so a lot of entities will do this they'll you go secretary treasurer you know vice chair chair and the presumption is when the slate comes up if you were secretary the presumption is you would be the nominee for treasurer now that can always be up for you know someone else throws their hat in the ring or someone declines because they have whatever reason but a lot of entities function that way that have boards and commissions where you're just the presumptive person who's going to be nominated but nothing happens unless and until you're actually nominated and voted on in the public meeting so the idea would be uh accession it would be you know yes yes yeah thank you I know it's boring and it's tedious but I've been here for several these vacating and all of us being cut flat footed without without an officer and not being able to talk about it till we get in the meeting so. Commissioner Byron do you have a motion in mind for today? I don't what I thought might be better is if there is a consensus I was going to write something up really short and sweet in terms of process that we could all then vote on and say yep this is just how we're going to default on this in terms of timing of the term and um you know order of succession of nominations presumptive nominations so it's a timing of the vote is it also um term and then the third point or and you'd write it out and bring it forward um at a future meeting right and we could even say the anticipation is the vote would be held you know two weeks prior to um the meeting before July 1st you would vote etc because there wasn't there was a year or two and we you know we're a little late in getting to this procedurally because it wasn't really on the books so if it's something that can be recurring on the calendar that you know the vote's here and the term starts here and it's sort of you know ministerial at that point and that that's particularly important because um invoices need to be paid and they cannot do so they cannot be paid unless the treasurer signs off right exactly so when commissioner Zuniga left we were we had to scramble to get to get a meeting to get commissioner Cameron named so that we could you know they wouldn't be without that function so if there is a presumption that three we were three yeah we had three um oh that was the other thing i did want to bring up is you know so there would be this presumption but there should be a catchall that if for some reason we were a body of less than five um you would just go to you know whoever was not in that seat um last right because we're gonna put something like that in there so that if you're down to three or four the presumptive nominee has now you know timed out or taken another job um that it's just okay then you just go to the next person on the list right we were we were three and commissioner O'Brien you were serving as really an interim secretary because you took over for um right uh commissioner Stevens yeah and we were faced with the invoice issue that just kind of just raised um and so formalizing this process is a great idea um commissioner O'Brien it sounds like you're looking for some more thoughts from yeah there's a preference i guess is there a preference it seems like we all agree in principle the most of it in timing is there a preference for um simply you know naming who cycles in secretary of treasurer then out etc or alternating the two that are in presumptively the two that were out become nominees and if not i can write up both and we can decide when i bring back the policy itself on version day or version b i don't think i like the two moving out two moving in i think i like this going up and out okay yes so i'll draft it that way that's my preference i don't know about anybody else commissioner manik mr scanner i'm okay with that i'm also thinking there's an option where theoretically as long as the the two people who are vacating their seats that they could potentially just switch and go to the other if they really wanted oh i see if they if they wanted to but once the seats were vacant if the if the treasurer wanted to run for secretary i would be okay with a method like that too as long as it's you know as long as it's um vacant the opportunity is given and we have to vote anyways as commissioner hill pointed out but people can stand for whatever or be nominated for whatever office um they've not held i like that approach i just don't want to preclude anyone from uh seeking out a role um it just based on you know the presumptive nominee concept or the two cycling uh out into cycling in yeah so part of part of this is though to the better practice is cycling people out of the one they were in oh the idea is not going staying in the one that you were in the year before um and making sure we all sort of stay fresh in it in terms of cycling through so if you've been in them the presumption would be if you were in for the last two you wouldn't be and you would be in some other function of the commission and commissioner hill and i had this conversation lately too of really looking at what are the other functions to make sure we all get into cmf and everything else that we're all participating in all that but um there's nothing that stops someone obviously from raising their hand as commissioner maynard said you know i want to i want to go back and be secretary again or treasure again um and i think that would be helpful just to get sort of an understanding of where we all stand in terms of desires um you know we kind of had this discussion a little bit last year but it would just it would just be helpful to have everybody on the same page so that we can understand who's interested in what and then go from there i mean then i know commissioner brian you i thought that you were going to be introducing a new office around compliance is that that's i started the conversation with that because that was supposed to be happening jack flin was brought in he was going to help us with compliance we were going to be talking about a smaller compliance committee um jack flin left right his sports wager and took off and so there hasn't been the traction and the solidification of that that was going to be part of this broader conversation this one is coming now because we have to have the election in the next month or so just by the timing of the statutory annual requirement but there is a broader conversation to have too about what other options are out there for us as commissioners in terms of committees and subcommittees and that sort of thing compliance committee and other subcommittees i would say we would really need to turn to legal right on that because there are there are in the open meeting law and yeah and also hr because there are um certain areas in their purview but we'd also want to create the committee that allows for communication to someone not in the direct line of authority of whoever it is that you're talking about right we really um this has never been really fleshed out commissioner brian um with you may be having individual conversations with members of the staff but certainly this has never been fleshed out with with me and i don't know um you know with home uh so to be clear madam chair they they did in advance i had preliminary conversations with jack flin about this and then he was gathering other government entities in terms of how the best practices are and then he left so and then sportsway during hit and so this is not advanced beyond sort of that preliminary conversation on let's get best practices and then have a conversation about it okay so for next steps on the matter that speak for us so i'm going to draft up a policy statement in terms of this just the officers and the presumptive nomination and succession um consistent with the conversation which appears to be cycling through um one-year terms effective july one with the vote at least um at least two weeks prior to that july one date and then we can all take a look at it and make sure it covers what we were thinking of so this can be more ministerial and hopefully avoid um any sort of confusion or for scrambling if we have people leaving mr skinner are you playing in on that uh no i think that sounds appropriate as the next step um but at what point will we learn um of others interests so i think what it is is there is a presumptive nominee and then for that for um so the presumption going forward if we're cycling through would be that commissioner hill would be the presumptive nominee for treasurer commissioner maynard would be the presumptive nominee for secretary and then that would be marked up for the vote knowing that those are the presumptive nominees and that we were going to talk about it that day um and that if somebody else wants to throw their hat in the ring um and they're they're welcome to do that and just for clarity's sake why is commissioner maynard the presumptive nominee for secretary because he hasn't helped he has not held an officer's position yet okay but commissioner skinner to your point i think you're trying to say that there might be an opportunity for and and it's not just with the commission in front of us now this is a process right so we just um you're saying that them um just because somebody might be rolling off a position or be or or not in a position commissioner oh brian is also not in a position um should some should there be a mechanism to be able to trigger i'm also interested isn't that yeah and that's and that's my point um because i am also interested in the office of secretary um but i understand that you know it is important for each of us to get um the experience and interaction in other roles in offices so i'm i'm okay with what's being proposed but i do i would like there to at least be the the opportunity for commissioners um you know to to raise interest you know commissioner brian i know last year you were interested in treasurer i think you should have the opportunity to say this year i am interested in the treasurer position i don't think we should be excluded from that in whatever you're drafting up yeah no it's not for closing anything it is literally you know doing this so there is a default process um with the catch all again if we're less than five because i have been here when we have scrambled without a secretary or treasurer because we can't do that until we hit a public meeting so if someone leaves unexpectedly and there is not a public meeting scheduled we are without an officer so this would presumptively cycle in somebody presumptively to that position that's the only reason i'm doing this but it doesn't stop anybody from raising their hand when we get to that meeting for the vote to say they're interested could we um maybe have some options yeah in terms of cycling in and out you mean but yeah an option include and have it reflect commissioner skinner's good point that the succession plan may not always work one yeah for somebody because of whatever reason and then two perhaps the commission feels that the succession plan just isn't at that time for the commission and commonwealth and if somebody else is interested and there may be a yielding to the you know yeah okay yeah no these are all that's why i kept using the word presumptive these aren't this vote in this memo is not going to be this is how we're going to do it it's these are the presumptive nominees so we don't have this void and we don't have this confusion and then mark it up for the hearing and have the conversation at the public meeting so again so would so so these presumptive nominees would slide into those roles and then they would no no they are they are the presumptive nominee in terms of yes okay but we had circumstances in the past you know when i was secretary we had a vacancy and treasurer i would have loved to have gone from secretary treasurer but i was never all of a sudden i get to a meeting and it's like oh we're going to do treasurer it's so it's to avoid any sort of expectations other than what's in the public meeting and so i think the best way to do that is there's just a ministerial default presumption of the nomination goes on for the meeting and anybody there's is free to say i don't want to do it or i'd want to do it Mr. O'Brien what i'm really hearing here is really a gentle person's agreement on how this should run and you know i think about every election in the country from you know the lowest to the highest there's always rules of engagement right to get to the election i hear you saying you're you're wanting the fidelity to the statutory requirements of having to take the vote but at the same time having a gentle person's agreement on on where we start the conversation and i i actually i really appreciate that i appreciate that as well but i think i i'm still so you know we'll wait for the memo and for the discussion but what i'm struggling with is it removes any discretion altogether it doesn't remove discretion it creates a presumption that's it doesn't remove discretion but it also stops anyone from having misconceptions based on one commissioner saying something that they are going to be the next officer in that role unless and until there's a public discussion in a vote which has happened in the five years i've been there it's happened a couple times yeah i mean well you know to your point the discretion is is in the vote right like i get that but in terms of the nominees there's there's no discretion essentially not the presumptive correct there would not be in the presumptive and part of that is best practices in terms of it is better to cycle people through than have them stay so in that regard it's also i think aligning with better practices of cycling us in and out of these seats yeah well you have the benefit of that best practice and and and and so i'm i'm wondering if there's material or some information that we could get um you know to help us a little help me along and you know if you point me in the right direction i'll go find it myself um i just want to understand this best practice just a little bit more i'm sure and maybe darin can help me out i'll find my id stuff but traditionally you don't you like to have um sort of separation in terms of authority and you like to not have one person particularly when it comes to things like being the keeper of the record or the treasurer of an organization being the same person year in year out because you want other eyes to come in and be able to look at it and it's not impugning anybody at all it's just i can tell you from my financial investigations background one of the one of the things that would raise an eyebrow is to have the same person in one position of authority um in an institution be signing off on time sheets or signing off on checks or anything like that yeah i know i'd love an educational opportunity so that and that's all what this is you know i'd love to you know come up to speed on best practices thank you darick i didn't know if you you were back on video whether you had anything i was here in case there are any questions um to that to that discussion just because you asked you said if i was still there okay so um do we agree them well uh have grace take note and we'll um put this item on another public meeting sufficiently in advance of kind of a july one um vote the annual vote uh we know we have to do that how and who we're still deciding and we'll look for the guidance of of the memo and that will come through one of our perhaps later may meetings or or early June meetings is that where commissioners yep works for me okay and it can be of course distributed in advance we just can't talk among ourselves until we get here yep so this is definitely an internal discussion but an important one for our own governance and and uh appreciate it thank you um commissioner brian for taking a leave all right i'll set commissioners am i right anything further on that i'm not seeing any no's not seeing any yeses either but i'm ready to move on thanks appreciate it commissioner brian and christia's gonna all right so um we have next and we anticipate a an executive session on public public safety update really um an opportunity for us to be updated on matters that generally um with respect to public safety but it is 109 we've been a little long on that grace do we have members of that we're expected to be part of that presentation who have a sharp um deadline because commissioners am i right that you might want to take a lunch or do you want to go right into the executive session and i'm not sure about people's schedules today so i did just um shooting over to the folks who are presenting in that executive session um but i i would welcome anyone's comments here if you do have any hard stops this after man um and i did check in with Trudy commissioner brian i'm not sure if you have a hard stop today i do i do um i was going to be in town and because i i stayed here to have a later hard stop but about 220 i'm going to have to jump off for totally okay so if we're not gone by 220 you lose me and and we have i know a meeting that we need to do with respect to an adjudicatory function um tana i'll turn to you do you have um if we went into our executive session could we add that at the end at the end of are your is your team ready if we go a little bit later than 130 i'm sorry i'm not being terribly articulate there am i oh i understand your question exactly um yeah i think that should be okay we'll have to reschedule some other things but okay so um commissioners hearing that we've got like an hour or so i think it was good for us to go ahead with it um if we vote for the executive session and go into that i also know we probably need a quick bite we um if we go into executive session are we comfortable eating um making a working lunch yep i'm okay does that make sense um i'm a huge fan of working lunches um and trying to use an after a whole lot but um commissioners hearing others nodded are you okay with that okay with that yeah commissioners hearing you look so nice i thought maybe you were frozen you know i was like okay good so um why don't we decide um as you know in order to go into executive session i do have to read language from the statute and um the commission anticipates that it will meet in executive session in accordance with general laws chapter 38 section 21a board to discuss the deployment of security personnel or devices a strategy for respect there to um currently uh gambling gaming establishments the public session of commission meeting will not reconvene at the conclusion of the executive session we will be able to um unless there's some commissioner business that um has not been addressed we would conclude okay so with that said we would conclude this public session if we um both move into the executive session commissioners do i have a motion madam chair i move that we go into executive session on the matter for the reasons just stated by the chair okay all those uh all those in favor commissioner brian hi commissioner hill hi pressure skinner hi pressure mator all right and uh and i vote i vote yes so five zero um we will now we don't have to adjourn we're going to go into executive session this public meeting is now coming to a conclusion commissioners will have you grab a quick lunch and as quickly as you can get back to the new link that's on our calendar thank you so much and thank you to the entire team uh for for your patience today and your good working oh commissioner skinner all right well i'm sorry what does that mean as quickly as you can are we 130 sure 130 i know we've got a few people in the office is that going to work okay thank you um and we'll we'll eat it's it's 130 going to work to you commissioner brian okay yeah okay all right 130 thank you commissioner skinner and thank you to everybody