 Thanks, Steve. No problem. All right, and we're good to go. Okay, excellent. So good afternoon commissioners. We're holding now our second public meeting of the day on, on different topics. We'll get started, but I need to do a check in with you because we're hosting this through a virtual platform. So we'll do a roll call. Mr. O'Brien. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. I'm here. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Excellent. Commissioner Hill. Good afternoon. I am here. Commissioner Skinner. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. I'm here. Excellent. And commissioner Maynard. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. I'm here. Okay. So today is Monday, December 12th. We're convening this public meeting number four 10. I'm going to turn it right over to the licensing team. I know Kara is on the line. Or on in the meeting. And the matter was prepared by Dave McKay. And I, I know he's. Prepared to explain the request to you. So I'll turn it right over. Right over to licensing. Hi, Kara. Hi, Dave. Good afternoon, Madam chair and commissioners. We have three. Gaming service employee exemption requests from. On core Boston harbor. And as director Lilios indicated. Licensing supervisor Dave McKay has prepared the materials for you. So I'm going to hand it over to him. Thank you, Kara. Good afternoon, Madam chair and commissioners. Hope everyone's doing well. So on core Boston harbor has requested that the commission allow three new exemptions. This request is being made under the statutory provision enacted in 2017 that authorizes the commission to exempt. Certain job positions from the 23 K registered commissioners. These documents are in your packet starting at page three. The first position I'm going to discuss is the lead kitchen stewards Porter. In summary, this position will be responsible for monitoring and maintaining cleanliness, sanitation, maintenance, maintenance, maintenance, maintenance, maintenance, maintenance, maintenance, maintenance, maintenance, maintenance, maintenance, maintenance, maintenance, maintenance, maintenance, maintenance, maintenance, maintenance, maintenance, maintenance, maintenance, maintenance, maintenance, maintenance, maintenance, maintenance, maintenance, maintenance, maintenance, maintenance, maintenance, maintenance, maintenance, maintenance, maintenance, maintenance, maintenance, maintenance, maintenance, maintenance, maintenance, In summary, this position will be responsible for cleaning vehicles according to company standards or client specifications. This may include but is not limited to performing detail inspections, thoroughly washing the vehicle, buffing, waxing, vacuuming, steaming, and keeping records of the condition of the vehicle. For all positions, Encore has responded in the negative to all criteria identified on the gaming licensee certification. The submission from Encore also indicates that the position would have no supervisory responsibilities, and I just wanted to note that I worked with Cara Henson, the assistant director of recruiting and employment from Encore, Boston, Harvard to obtain the necessary information to develop this request, and at this time I'd be happy to try and answer any questions that you may have. But in summary, these are the requests before you that the division of licensing is asking you to vote on. Questions for Dave? Dave, there's the full-time position for the car detailer and then a part-time. Correct. Yep. They have two distinct position numbers. So we would need to move on all three positions. Any questions? Yes. Commissioner Skinner. No questions. I'm prepared to make a motion if you are already. Everybody have a chance to review the materials. It's, of course, comprehensive. We've come to get very comfortable with the thoroughness of the licensing department that doesn't mean lack of interest, but just an excellent presentation. Commissioner Skinner. I move that the commission exempt the Leaves Kitchen-Stewards Porter, car detailer, and car detailer SE part-time positions at Encore Boston Harbor from the commission's registration requirements in accordance with 205CMR 134.031B for the reasons discussed today and described in the commissioner's packet. Second. Thank you. Any further questions or edits? Thank you, Dave. Thank you, Kara, for the presentation and the materials. Commissioner O'Brien. Hi. Commissioner Hill, you've disappeared. There you are. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. Hi. And I vote yes. Five, zero. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Have a good rest of your day. You too. Thank you. Okay. So we're about to move on to our next item, which is returning to the issue of promotional play. In that we are considering the computation of the adjusted growth sports wagering receipts, which is under general laws chapter 23 and this issue is treated differently by law across the nation from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Subject matter, as many of us understand, is one of great debate as lawmakers consider its implications on public revenues, operators business models, and responsible gaming policies and public health. And as I noted in the past, the options are numerous, varying over a broad spectrum. Today, we're going to learn first generally what emotional play is. Next, we will turn to counsel to learn about the relevant law in this state in Massachusetts. And finally, the team anticipates presenting on policy implications. So I turn now. First to, I'm not sure if Derek or sterile or hot or taking the lead on this. So I turn to you folks. Good afternoon, chair and commissioners. I'm going to share my screen today. We have Derek Glennon, myself, and Kay and Caitlin presenting promotional play. And I'm going to start sharing my screen for the presentation. Can everybody see that? Yes, sir. Yep, we're all set. Okay. So what is promotional play or free play? Promotional play is a way a casino or online operator can invite a known player to return or a new player to sign up or create an account. It takes one of many forms of credits toward playing a slot machine, a table game or a sports wager. In order to use it, a player must wager it. And if one, it turns into the real money from cashing it out. Or it is placed into their account if online. Why is it used by operators? So an operator uses promotions to ensure customers are aware of the operator's existence in a competitive marketplace, as well as to achieve the following. Increase brand awareness. Provide proper information. Increase customer traffic and build sales and profit. Promotions also help operators in introducing products easily in the ever so competitive market. As you may know, some of the recent offers found in the sports wagering realm use promo code win and receive a $1,000 bonus. Bet five, get 200. And recently $1,500 bonus for the World Cup. I'm sure we've all seen Kevin Hart on television complimenting all of the money that he receives. States that allow and don't allow promotional bets to be deducted from a taxable win. So what we have here is all the states as of February in 2022. So the states with commercial sports wagering was 26. And the number of states that allowed the promotional funds to be untaxed was 9 or 34%. As you can see the gaming revenue and adjusted gaming revenue and the differences on all three columns. So in July in 2021, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Virginia stood out as few that allowed licensees to adjust their revenue by deducting unlimited free play free play and promotional bets from their taxable base. This has since changed in Colorado and Virginia. Here we have a chart of the seven states that gives us the wide array of of options that are used through the country. So in Arizona, they they set up a tax base similar to ours where retail is lower than online, although small, eight and 10%. They are allowed to deduct up to 20% of their revenue for the promotion such as free bet in the first two years. So that in discussions with Arizona gets teared down in years three and four and five. So Colorado has a straight 10%. They were the first to allow a total deduction of the free play. But now through legislation which you will see in the next slide, they are setting up a tiered system. So Michigan is 8.4% for both operators. They can deduct all of the free play that they want from the licensees hand. They have something even different, more different is that in excess of $8 million or $12 million for the online books, they can reach a certain specification for their deductions. So New York has the highest rate at 51%. They don't allow any deductions of their promo play. Pennsylvania is 36 and they can also deduct all their promo play. And Virginia is at 15 and they started with a full deduction and passed law in July to stop all deductions from from taking place. So you see how they each one of them has done something different or they have a different system. So what happened in Colorado. So Colorado collected 6.6 million in its first full year of legal sports betting. That's an equivalent of 4% tax rate. If you noticed in our chart previously, the tax rate on Colorado is sports wagering was 10%. So you would ask why is it 4% here. Well, that was from the promotional free play deduction off of their tax rate. For comparison, New York generated over generated 216 million in tax revenue in just four months. So one operator said this is just equal to more than 100% net tax rate. Colorado's detailed changes to promo deductions. So what they did is they found that they were they weren't getting their taxes, they were only getting a 4% return. So instead they went back to legislation and now from January 1st 2023 through June, they can only deduct up to 2.5% of their free bets. And then of course, it goes tearing down to 2.25 from July 2024 to June 2025, then 2% and then finally in July 1st of 2026, they will only allow 1.75. Thank you, Sarah. Thank you. I'm going to have a turn to a and K and after after a case presentation, we'll just pause for a minute and take the slides down just right now so that we can see everybody. I don't think they have any slides and we'll just pause after a case presentation. Thank you. Good afternoon, Annie and lawn. Thank you so much. Thank you here. Any will go for us. So as the chair stated at the beginning of this meeting, the question in front of the commission is whether to include promotional play within a sports wagering operators gross sports wagering receipts. So turning first to what is defined within 23 and what is not. So section 23 and defines a sports wagering operators adjusted gross sports wagering receipts as the total gross receipts from sports wagering minus two things. The first is the total of all winnings paid to all participants. And the second is all excise taxes paid pursuant to federal law. And it also includes this carve out saying that the total of all winnings paid to participants shall not include the cash equivalent of any merchandise or thing of value awarded as a prize. So that's the definition of what is the adjusted gross sports wagering receipts. But interestingly, there is no definition to what is the gross sports wagering receipts. 23 and is silent on this. And so you contrast that with 23 K the gaming act, which actually does have a definition of gross gaming revenue. And so in the gaming side. Section two defines gross revenue or gross gaming revenue. As the total of all sums are actually received by a gaming licensee provided further that the issuance to or wagering by patrons of a gaming establishment of any promotional gaming credit shall not be available for the purposes of determining gross revenue. So what happened between 23 and the sports wagering act and 23 K the gaming act. Why does one have a definition of gross gaming revenue but the other doesn't have a definition of gross sports wagering revenue. And so we looked at the legislative history here. And so the legislative history shows that the legislature contemplated excluding promotional play from gross sports wagering receipts but ultimately did not adopt that specific language. And so what I mean is that the house, when it submitted its final version of the sports wagering act, it defined adjusted gross wagering receipts as an operator's total gross receipts from sports wagering, excluding sports wagers made with promotional gaming credits. By contrast, the final version of the sports wagering act submitted by the Senate didn't exclude promotional play from the definition of adjusted sports, adjusted gross sports wager receipts, the Senate instead defined it as the total gross receipts from sports wagering, less only the total of all winnings paid to participants. And then upon conference, they, they have reconciled the definition of adjusted gross sports wagering receipts to what is available in section three of 23 and today so the house put it forward they contemplated excluding promotional gaming credits from adjusted gross sports wage and receipts. The Senate did it and the end result is what we have today which is gross gaming gross sports wage and receipts minus those two exemptions, which promotional gaming promotional play credit is not one of those exemptions. And so based on all of this, the comparison of 23k to 23 and as well as the legislative history. We believe that the better but not exclusive reading of the statue is that promotional play is included within a sports where you're an operators gross sports where you're in receipts. So commissioners before we continue on with our presentation which I understand would bring us into a policy discussion. That's complex. I thought we would pause to to consider the, the legal authority. It's presented to us in 23 and to make policy discussions. Do I have any comments or any questions for a and K regarding its short presentation. So, measures, we can continue with the policy discussion if we believe that that's going to be relevant for our consideration in the end or because we're curious, or because we do affirmatively adopt a decision around the interpretation of the statute that would allow us to make a decision, or do we just want to go forward to hear the presentation that our teams worked on. I need some feedback. I would like to. No, no, go ahead. For me my questions are more. Not in the legal framework but so much the policy considerations in terms of what guard rails, we would want to put up about promotional play which is, we haven't had the opportunity to have those conversations that's where my head is at this point not so much sort of the framework that was presented to us by okay. So are you saying that, are you saying guard rails that we would put up around promotional play and not the implications on the tax rate commissioner Brian. Correct. I don't need any further information on the tax aspect. I just wanted to have more of a discussion on policy questions about whether we're going to be further regulating promotional play, just in terms of what could be offered in Massachusetts. That's where I'm coming from. So I'm not sure if that's what is being presented today Derek and sterile would you say that your focus is on, should we have any kind of impact on the, on the, the implication that's before us which is whether or not we can. I guess it really was. I want to frame it whether or not the adjusted growth sports wagering receipts includes promotional play. Do we want further guidance from a and can that are you saying you're settled for that mission right. Yeah I'm satisfied. I'm satisfied with that I don't need to further information on that. Which means that promotional play would not be deducted. Correct. So that's Commissioner Brian's position. Commissioner Hill. I was going to suggest that we hear from the staff and what they have to present to us, because I want as much information as I can get because I'm still learning about the entirety of this subject matter. Commissioner Maynard Commissioner Skinner on the legal framework first just as we get I'm sort of taking a little bit of a temperature here, but but I we will absolutely honor that Commissioner Hill. Yes. If one person wants to hear absolutely Commissioner Skinner do you have thoughts on the legal analysis call we have. I think I'm going to move on to Paul Vitch and Miss Lee here. No, no questions I think it's pretty clear. I appreciate the presentation. So yeah, like Commissioner Brian I'm prepared to move into the policy discussion, but also would like to hear from staff in terms of what their recommendation might be. So I want to make sure I'm clear policy discussions from Commissioner Brian I'm not sure if the team is fully prepared, because I want to make sure I did ask Director Vanderland and to join today but I'm not sure if he was really part of the policy discussions. So we can do that. Right, this would be sort of the jumping off point I would envision us having to circle back on this. Okay, thank you. Commissioner Skinner are you thinking policy tax policy are you thinking the policy that Commissioner Brian thinking the policy that Commissioner Brian thinking. Okay, thank you and then Commissioner Maynard. I appreciate in case. Presentation. I think that it's comprehensive. We obviously are in receipt of some letters from from some potential licensees that express a very different view. And so to that point, I think Commissioner Hill has a point and that I would be interested to hear what the staff has to say. So we'll continue as I promised to Mr Hill that will go through with the understanding that there's a legal framework, and I did hear Miss Lee say it's not exclusive. So we want to keep that in mind. And then we'll go through now the presentation does that make sense commissioners. Okay. So we'll continue sterl and Derek. If you want to put your presentation back up that's great. Thank you. Thank you. So if the commission decided they wanted to look at any options other than not taxing it there are two other options so you have the obviously the first one that it's not deducted for tax purposes and you know the the newspaper articles and that maximizes tax revenue. You'll hear from the operators that minimize minimizes profit for operators. And as was pointed out it's not consistent with how 23 K handled it, nor is it consistent with corporate tax application of promotions. The do the option of excluded from gross profits for wagering receipts, and it's fully deducted. You hear the opposite right it maximizes operator profits, there's a potential to create a perverse incentive to minimize taxes and I'll show that in one of the demonstrations later. There is a closer treatment to how 23 K treats it as well as how corporate tracks corporate tax structure works. Then you have the examples what that's still brought up where other states are doing it trying to create a balancing act where you balance the operator profits with tax receipts and by doing the partial deduction or a dollar amount it eliminates the potential perverse incentive to minimize taxes, because you can give out as much pre plays you want but you're only going to be allowed to deduct a certain amount of it from your handle. As anyone over the definition of adjusted gross sports wagering receipts. It's the total of all gross total gross receipts from sports wagering less winnings paid to participants less excise taxes. Required by federal law and then no item of cash or merchant cash equivalent or merchandise is included in there. Promotional gaming credit was defined in the statute and it's just a sports wagering credit or other item issued to an operator by an operator to a patron, and they have to place up that can't just be issued it has to be bet and received. In order for it to be included in this and this is an area where you're talking about. If you wanted to, if you chose not to tax gross sports wage and not to include it as part of the tax base or not allowed to be deducted as part of the tax base. This is an area where you could regulate it you could require it to be approved by by the sports wagering division. And that's how you could kind of minimize those areas but you can that can be a later date. You can get into those topics we did discuss it as a team we just didn't prepare that because we're preparing more for the taxation side of it. Under. So these are the formulas that you would use for each of the three scenarios and I put the highlights in place because adjusted gross sports wagering receipts is gross sports wagering receipts minus the payouts to players minus the federal taxes. If you did it where it's not deducted, it stays the same right player funded bets plus for promotional funded bets would be how you define gross sports wagering receipts. Under adjust gross sports wagering receipts and be player funded bets plus promotional funder bets minus payouts to players minus the federal excise tax. If you did it where it's totally deducted, you would define gross sports wagering receipts as player funded bets plus promotional funded bets minus promotional funded bets so it basically is just player funded bets. So we have player funded bet minus payouts minus the federal excise tax. If you did it as an equation where it's partially you see we just keep defining gross sports wagering receipts, it'd be player funded bets plus promotional funded bets, minus a percent of the handle that was shown to be actual promotional bets that were accepted. When you get the formula for adjusted gross sports wagering is player funded bets plus promotional funded bets minus the percent of handle minus payouts to players minus the federal excise tax. And to put that into an example. Say we have, and this is not our jurisdiction, this is not what we're anticipating we just did this for mathematical purposes. So total bets of $1 billion players are funding 960 million of that promotional is funding another 40 million of it or 4% of handle. A hold is what the casinos are keeping from all of that 1 billion is 60. After they pay out to players is 60 million or 6% of handle. And if we get into a partial deduction scenario we'll be doing a 2.5% partial deduction of the handle, and we're doing this at a tax rate of 20% because we're looking at the mobile market. This is where the majority of the promo is given out in the mobile market so we just kept it for simplicity on the mobile market. So under I'll go through the definitions at the top. We're calling the player bets revenue because that's cash actually spent. We're calling the promo bet coupons of promotions, which is what you would see in any other market. We're calling the handle the total amount of bets player funded bets plus promotionally funded bets payouts are what the operators are paying back on those bets and the hold is what the handle minus the payouts is. So in the first scenario whether it's not deducted from taxes, you have a taxable base of 60 million. And the taxes would be 12 million. So as you can see the play the difference between scenario to will show you that the difference is the player revenue of 960, the player bets of 960 million which is actual money received minus the payouts, what are the player wins of 940 million, and the actual base the actual revenue that the casino received of 20 million taxes on that would be 4 million. So you're seeing a big difference there because you're taxing the free bets versus just the revenue that came in. And then under the under the partial deduction. This is what some of the other jurisdictions are trying to strike a balance with and we don't know if it's successful yet or not. The same scenario 960 million and player bets 40 million and promo bets total handle of 1 billion payouts to the player 940 hold is 60 million but the taxable base is 35 million because you're only writing off 2.5% of the 4% you're only, you know, you're only writing off a portion of it so there's still 15 million and additional money that you're taxing that is not real revenue, because the difference between what the casino paid out the 940, and the revenue they brought in 960 is still 20 million but you're taxing a piece of that promo not the full amount so that's Yeah, can I just clarify because this is a really good chart. So if you look at the bottom line under the current law as we understand it from a and K. It would be 12,000 12 million 12 million, excuse me. No 12 million 12 million sorry I can't that's a comma 12 million in taxes. And when you say you will be the next scenario would assume that the gaming commission adopts a regulation that would allow for a full deduction correct. Correct, if we adopted that that would be the regular you're suggesting the regulator as opposed to the lawmakers of the legislature right. If there's room for interpretation, which I think the legal analysis that there is room for, then that would be the second one. And so we would then be making the decision if it were full deduction. Either way we have to define it because under gap either either area for gross revenue and we went over this once before either area for gross revenue would be determined based on the accounting system whether they treat promo as a contra account or whether they recognize it right away at the beginning a contra revenue account or whether they recognize it at the time of sale as a write off. Right so what you're saying is depending on the company's accounting mechanism they would treat it differently and that's something that you in your capacity as the collector would determine. No, we would want to we would want to make sure in the regulation it's clear one way or the other, how it's defined. So it doesn't matter how they treat it in their accounting system. So in this case, case though the, you can see that that deduction would be the ultimate revenues going to the Commonwealth to be reduced by 8 million. Correct. Okay. The first one is a percentage or some kind of a percentage because we've seen other state legislatures decide at the beginning to to make it a portion of the promo. And now we're seeing a sterile pointed out Colorado is that has gone back to the legislature to fix their issue because they're seeing that their revenues have declined in a way that they didn't anticipate. But the legislature has gone back and is now doing some kind of a step percentage down, but in this case what you're showing is that this measure would would bring it back up. Bring it up a piece, it would bring it up some and you can play with that 2.5 the one point you know it just keeps, it keeps changing. And we do have a dynamic model if you'd like to walk through it. Yeah, that would be great. Absolutely. I've been waiting for this there. So thank you. Absolutely. So sterile if you pull that down I can share my screen. Thank you. Can everyone see that. Yes, can everybody read it okay or do you want it larger if you can make it larger. I think I'll defer to everyone else because now that you see less on the screen but maybe the letters are bigger. I can bring it all back to right there so it's almost. Okay, almost all on the screen there. Thanks. No problem. So the area I want to talk about here is not the impact of promotional return on on investment but how do you get to a point where where you actually get into negative taxes. And if your hold is 6%. If you give out anything more than 6% of your handle in revenue so see we're at 4% now say go to 6%. Look at this scenario where promo is is fully deducted. You receive no tax money. If you go to 7%. This is where you start getting in the negative taxes. You get into 8%. Now, here's what you'll also see in the newspaper articles. 920 in revenue right and actual money, and you're giving out 940 and payouts so you're losing 20 million. And that is not a sustainable business model over the long run unless you're expecting huge returns on investment. So, so the next step is well, what do we look at that return on investment. I couldn't get into this so much for the casino market but if you look at general marketing, anywhere from a five to 10 time multiplier five to 10 time multiplier and your promotion is what you're expecting five being good 10 being out of this world. So, I figured let's be conservative and put a four time multiplier on here. Just in once again this is theoretical modeling this doesn't take into consideration market saturation it doesn't take into consideration. All those things that you know so this is just purely theoretical marketing and this is return on investment for operators for operators correct. So, for every dollar of promo Pat, you're going to assume that they get a four time multiplier so for 4% promo add 160 million in player bets so all of a sudden that 960 in year one goes to 1.12 million. Now if you take a look at these scenarios the $4 million pack tax base goes up to 5.9. The 2.5% partial reduction goes up to 8.12 and year one. If you continue that once again, not considering saturation or when you hit the point where you can't grow the market anymore. So now you're up to 1.2. All of a sudden your four time multiplier on that promo bet turns into 185. Right. So now you're up to 1.305 in player bets 46.4 in promo bets, and you've got a total, you know, you've got a handle of 1.3 billion taxes under this scenario go to almost 7 million. And under this it goes to 9.5 million. Year three, considering once again a four time or investment, you're up to a total handle of 1.5 billion taxes under no deduction and under full deduction or 8 million taxes under partial or 11 million. So now you're continuing just along. All of a sudden you're finally at the 12 million or just above the 12 million that you're above that you're at in the other scenario. So it would take four years to grow the market assuming that you're not fully saturated already to get to that and to continue growing the market. And that is the incentive to the operas that's why they give it out right that's that's the whole reason that they're going to give it out. And if we hadn't done the any deductions what would have been the Commonwealth's revenues. On these here. I can let me see if I can. Because it's like what was the bottom line just now Derek on that. So we can do that. Because I think maybe it was, maybe that was for year four and five. I'm not cumulative so. Other things they won't do this amount of promo if they'd be in tax on it because if you look, an effective tax rate of 20% turns into an effective tax rate of 46%. Under these scenarios because this is the actual revenue that they're bringing in this minus this divided by the taxes that they're paying. New York has 51%. Yes, New York has 51%. And that's what that's their base, which is why, if you set this to a 51% tax rate you'd see how high why some of the operators are saying it's over 100% if they're offering a lot of revenue because they're actually being taxed on more money than they're bringing in. So that New York isn't changing it though. No, they're not changing it. And that's that's so I just wanted to show you the discussion that the operators are bringing right when you see what they're saying about growing the market. They're doing their modeling. Our modeling here doesn't take into consideration saturation that doesn't take into consideration what their multiplier is. If it's a 5678 if it's a three, they might be thinking against it because it's you know you're not even putting into consideration here the cost of the marketing. This is just straight marketing promotional dollars given out. Yeah. Derek on this model while he has this up questions because I think it was the first time you're seeing it. Yeah, and you can change it over here and I'm more I'm more than willing to do this is another presentation to I just wanted to give you the overall picture of it and the reason I had had these other columns blacked out the taxable base and the taxes because they likely won't be giving out that much if they're being taxed at that high of a rate. Promotions may go down. Which is fine too, right because once again, that gets into that whole responsible gaming discussion and everything around around those perspectives but I'm just modeling out for you the same things that they're doing behind the scenes to show you why they would be asking to have it deducted. Very helpful questions for Derek because this is, you haven't seen this. I wanted to digest but well presented measures I can't see you also if you're leaning in just say something. Okay, Brian you're muted. Oh, thank you. Derek, do you want to take it down and then you can bring it right back up. Yes, she can see. Commissioner Brian, were you leaning in. No, I'm not. Okay. Okay, so other viewing need to return to the PowerPoint or we all set for right now. I would like to return to the PowerPoint because there's one last slide that I think that's right. Thank you. Thanks to her. You're welcome. So the one other thing you, you want to keep in mind as you're thinking about a full write off or not. Is the fact that they can carry over their losses. So if you get into one of those situations where they're giving out six or 7%. They've already and they we've only get a 6% hold and you decide to allow for full write off like some other jurisdictions. They're going to carry over those negative amounts from month to month to month and you may not see a positive tax amount for, I don't know, six, seven, eight months until the negative revenue hits its, hits its point where investors are saying, you know what we want to see some positive gains now. And that's all been talked about newspaper paper articles as well. So this is this is just one other thing to think about as you're making these decisions that this law does allow for the negative carry over, and it was meant probably to allow for a loss in an operator takes, not considering promotional saturation. Okay. So questions on the policy discussion around the tax implications, and how we would define adjusted gross sports wagering receipts. In other words, would we decide to make a little play, affirmatively deductible. That's really what was before I think the team for today, as well as is not available executive director wells isn't available today. But that was I believe instructions for her team. In terms of the implications of promo play generally, I do think that that's another discussion, Commissioner Brian, but we did ask I was able to ask Mark Vandalin and if he and I see he came but Mark I don't want to put you on the spot. Director Vandalin and but just generally I know promo play has come up in with respect to the sports wagering white paper we've looked at it and perhaps the advertising and marketing context. It's been referenced today highly do you want to add anything with respect to your observations. Yes, good afternoon, Madam Chair and commissioners. Yeah, I mean there's there's so much to that we could cover in terms of the responsible gaming and there were certainly pieces that were highlighted in the couple of the 1120 22 risky wager series in the New York Times. That specifically addressed pro promo play. And some of it deals with kind of how it's targeted towards some of the most at risk populations and. And while it's not necessarily on the table in Massachusetts specifically we're talking about younger adults who may be of legal gambling age or maybe not even have legal gambling age but but young enough where they may be more vulnerable to accepting free promo play without full disclosure or clear understanding of what promo play is and whether that was, you know, because the terms and conditions weren't clear, or because they aren't reading them closely but either way. It's a, it's a group that I would consider at very high risk. And that was was really clearly laid out specifically in the New York Times article on how colleges and sports betting companies are Caesarizing campus life. You know, there. There is more research that deals with what the effects of promo play are and specifically on on persons who have gambling problems or at risk of gambling problems and there was one specific study and I don't want to overstep into into a different area but I would be glad to share with you. What that found as well. Sure. I think the commissioners we want to hear from rectal abandonment. Yes, I'm seeing nodding the pets please mark. Sure. So, this morning I was working with with Bonnie to try to do just a quick literature review on on promo play. And not surprisingly, we didn't, it was a quick review we didn't come out with much but there were a handful of articles and one specifically was from a researcher named Hing at all. It was published in the Journal of gambling studies in 2017. And sorry, let me. So the results of this study indicate that there are several structural features of sports way during or sports betting inducements specifically free play that poorly aligned with harm minimization or inform player choice strategies. And specifically, there were 12 of them but the four that we felt were most relevant were that wagering inducements are likely to maintain or exacerbate harmful betting amongst problem gamblers that terms and conditions of sports wagering inducements. And do not usually enable informed player choice and I think this is what I was speaking of that if the terms and conditions are vague or not present at all. That can lead to to further further gambling harm, especially among those who would be considered at risk. And they, the consumers were unlikely to see RG messaging accompanying any type of sports wagering inducement offer. And that, much like the New York Times series found that minors are or those younger adults are most likely routinely exposed to advertisements of sports wagering inducements. That was just a quick summary of and and I think that the other research that we found sort of supported those specific findings. You know that there's a few other pieces here that actually then pivot back to the, the, the tax rate. And there was an interesting article about Virginia who moved from allowing promo play to taxing it and it's specific effect on funding that went to problem gambling. And I think that as we're considering this. I think it's important to think of what its effect would be in Massachusetts, specifically on funding that goes to to its different sources, including the public health funds. Questions for Mark. Well, I thank you Mark for really doing some quick research. I recognized yesterday as I was looking at the PowerPoint that it's not what gaming hadn't been included but I understand why it really was some as Derek indicated a commitment to look at, and the implications of the ass that were made by the operators so Thank you. I think what Mark highlights is that there are implications that are wide and broad with respect to public protections. Back to Commissioner Brian's original point. Commissioners on other questions for Sturro or Derek, or this Lee or Mr Polish. I have a quick question madam chair. Thank you question him. In other jurisdictions where there's promo play, has there ever been a situation where they've allowed promo play to kick off sports betting and then at some point in the future, they've discontinued allowing promo play. Yes. Can you can you elaborate on that just a little bit for us. Well, maybe first Virginia is eliminating it right so they started with a full deduction and now they're eliminating it. And Colorado, it saw that they weren't receiving the tax rate they were looking for, and they're tearing it down. So they're not totally eliminating it but they're reducing it to a 1.75 percentage. And, and again sterile. They being home. The regulators of Colorado and Virginia. Now, let's just let legislation was passed. But they were reporting on their tax rate so it was sterile sterile are you certain that it's the regulators for making that change or could it be the law, the legislature. Well, I'm sorry, the legislator legislature passed the law, but they specific, especially in Virginia contacted the regulator and asked them specifically why they weren't receiving the tax rate in which they were taxing it. And so the regulator came back and said it's the reduction of promo play. And, and so it's, it's the state changing it the legislature changing it. It was it was both the state legislator translation in Colorado and Virginia. Yeah. Thanks. I ask a question madam chair. Based on your question. Yeah. This could be for sterile or for the legal team. Are there any states where this was left up to the regulators. To make a decision like this or was, was it the legislature? In our case, the general court who made and had the final word on the taxation issues. So I can say generally on your. Sorry, we did not look at other, we did not look at other states. We took our remit to be analysis of the Massachusetts legislation. We can go and do that and wishes, but we were trying to interpret what the legislative intent on chapter 23. Yeah, like, I misspoke in the beginning and Kathy made sure that I stated it both places was legislation passed by the state. But as I stated, the regulators were asked in both spots and both the regulators pointed to promo play as the main reason why and worked with the legislation. Why the revenues were really impacted so significantly right so that's what I thought you were saying. It's my understanding looking on I know that we all got a compilation distributed by a company that provides overviews of sports wagering across the country. So I looked and I looked at a few of our neighboring states and Rhode Island of the, the, the legislature did a deduct advertising or marketing costs, and left it to the discretion of the division but that is the lottery in Rhode Island, which is actually the operator. So it's not really a comparable. I haven't found another. I, I interestingly asked the same question, Commissioner Maynard earlier about whether regulators had stepped in under any kind of a directive by statute. And I haven't found that yet. And that's why I'm asking for the base because I want clarification on that. But, you know, Mr. Povich is quite right. He wasn't asked to do that. And it is crucial for us to look at our own state. Commissioner Hill. Are you lenient? Okay. I think I asked whether the regulator had ever been directed by statute to have a discretion to do this, or whether any, any statute started with the idea that promo play is taxable. In other words, affirmatively said, it's taxable. The structures generally across the country is the structure that we see, not surprising. We look at other jurisdictions for help as we craft. Our regulations, legislature, look across the country for help in crafting their legislation. And it typically, and I haven't seen anywhere where there's a affirmative statement that it is to be taxable. In other words, the implication or the assumption is that it is unless there's an affirmative deduction. I'll tell you, my position is, is this is that as we consider the computation of ejected gross sports wagering receipts and the relevant legislative history which we're really lucky to have in black and white. Relating to the treatment of promotional sports wagering credit. I believe as A&K has said that the better interpretation is to include promotional play within a sports wagering operator's gross sports wagering receipts. Making those credits taxable and not deductible. I've thought about this in the written comments submitted by interested sports wagering operators to Commissioner Maynard's point, look for clear legitimate business arguments. I reasonably assume that the operators who are interested in operating in Massachusetts widely shared their sentiments, those that are before us today with Massachusetts lawmakers. They didn't wait to bring this up to the regulator. I also recognize that our lawmakers know how to treat promo play as a deduction as they did so affirmatively when they expanded gaming to include casino playing. I also believe strongly that they know how to direct this commission to exercise its discretion. We are asked to do a lot of things affirmatively including, you know, most recently, I think at our last meeting, Director Van Linden was addressing two studies that we were asked to do. The house language was clear. When we'll play was to be deducted the Senate thought otherwise. And ultimately the bill that was signed into law by the governor reflected the position that the Senate took. I feel as though our lawmakers intent is clear. They weighed the relevant factors including impact on tax revenues impact on the operators business model and Derek just pointed out how their decision may affect the paramount goal of shifting Massachusetts residents to a regulated sports platform, out of the shadows of illegal betting, and they weighed the effects of promo play on vulnerable populations, particularly those at risk of problem gambling, as Director Van Linden just addressed. I also feel strongly from my perspective that this agency has been asked to regulate gaming. The discretion is wide. I'm very careful that we, from my perspective that I don't overstep. And I am, I think what I am hearing from chief Lennon is that should we decide to interpret it otherwise. Even if we do have the discretion as we heard from a and K. That that it could be interpreted so that we would become a tax setting agency. And I'm just not really sure that that's my name. Actually, I'm quite comfortable saying I don't feel it is my way. And I've stated my, my position with that said, I appreciate Commissioner Brian leading with the implications to a promo play and some of the concerns that we may have. And we also will have the benefit, Commissioner Brian as we think about that of the business implications to the same time. And I agree with what you've said, Madam chair and also when you when you think of it at that vein that looking at how the effective tax rate is adjusted. When you roll this in that to your point, you know, they set what the tax rate was to your point they know how to lobby and advocate for themselves I'm sure they made all these arguments to the legislature and the legislative history would appear to establish that the legislature ultimately when they came out of committee were not persuaded. And so I think that putting it into me does then effectively change the tax rate. And so well we have a lot of destruction, discretion and authority and overseeing these. I don't think it goes to what would effectively mean changing the tax rates that were set by the legislature so I'm, I'm convinced in terms of the legal question that we don't have the authority to be doing that. Commissioner Skinner, are you leaning in? Thank you. I agree with much of what you stated, chair, except I think some of those same things that you rely on to determine that the commission doesn't have the authority can be utilized to support the opposite conclusion. You know, for instance you talked about the industry having the opportunity to lobby the legislature. While I do give great weight to the legislative history that's been presented. I also want to acknowledge that if the legislature or I have to believe that if the legislature did not intend to defer this question to the commission, then they would have specifically excluded the deduction of promotional play in their legislation. I'm not daring to speak for the legislature, but you know, I wonder how much of this could have just, you know, simply been spoken to in the legislation. The industry had the opportunity to speak to it to the legislators, and they just didn't deal with it. And again, I hope I have some weight to the fact that the legislature didn't say, no, this cannot be done. So, you know, I know we have a former legislator on our in our in our midst and just hoping he could shed some light on, you know, kind of how that process works and what and how much, you know, we should be relying on the fact that the bill just didn't speak to promo play at all. I will also ask whether it's generally acceptable for members of the legislature to give public comment on agency regulations. And I just, you know, if the answer to that question is yes. I want to note that we did not get public comment from from any legislator on this particular question. Ultimately, I am concerned about the tax implications for the Commonwealth if we were to include promo play as a deduction. But I think there are strong arguments, both for and against here. And I just don't know, I don't know, you know, I don't know how to how to decide at the moment. Well, our commissioner Maynard. I defer to Commissioner Hill. Thank you, Commissioner Maynard, and thank you Commissioner Skinner. The question that you've asked is a one that I could go on for two hours about one that you don't want to be bored listening to. But one that concerns me in this regard. I was a house member that passed this bill. I was two years ago with the language of the deduction. And we were convinced at that time that it would help the businesses or the licensees that were coming before us. The Senate did not adopt the language as the chair, as mentioned. And to be quite frankly, Commissioner Skinner there was a lot of horse trading going on on that last day to get this bill to us or to to the governor's desk. And during those discussions and during those horse trading that the house gave up a lot of what it would have liked to have seen in the bill to get the bill to the governor's desk. And unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on how you look at the legislature, that's how almost every bill is done. Where the house or the Senate will give a little to ensure that the bill gets to the final place in this term in this regard the governor's desk. And there was a saying and I'm paraphrasing that you never want to see how a bill becomes law, like watching the sausage get me. And in this particular case, that was, I would say, the epitome of that phrase, because a lot went into this with the Senate and in the house just to get it to the governor's desk. In my view, I want to be able to help our licensees get up and running. I want to ensure that they do the job they need to do to remain fruitful here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and like you. I want to make sure that it's done in a way that's appropriate where the state is getting its due via funding resources, but at the same time, I don't want to hurt our licensees. And there could be some negatives to the taxation and then that's why we're having this discussion today, like you, I'm listening to both sides before deciding what to do. I've been frustrated since its passage that there are some things that weren't included in the bill, because of the host trading that was taking place on that last night, and let's be frank, four o'clock five o'clock in the morning. I hope that answers your question, and I hope I wasn't negative to my former colleagues. It certainly does answer my question. I appreciate your feedback and your insight there. Very helpful. So I appreciate the full compliment of my fellow commissioners view on this. And this is tough. You know, I can remember a conversation a few weeks ago where I straight up said I don't want to interpret the law. That wasn't given to us. And I was told that, you know, it's regular, you know, we have to sometimes interpret the law as it comes to us. And that's something that I'm thinking about. I also, when we start comparing other jurisdictions, you know, I want to hear the good bad in the ugly, not just the good bad or the ugly and the good. And, and I felt like, you know, I am interested to see what other states said I completely understand counselor povich's point that we have to look at the Constitution of Commonwealth Massachusetts and the laws of the Commonwealth Massachusetts. But this is tough. This is a tough issue. If it is as black and white as the legislative history suggests, then I guess it's pretty easy. At the same time, to Commissioner Hill's point. We do have a request and and to Commissioner O'Brien's point. I'm sure that this request was put in long before the legislation was signed. I don't think that I'm as black and white on this issue chair as your statement was. But I also don't think that I'm prepared to, to make a decision. So, Mr povich, what I'm hearing is that is that we have some requests to understand a little bit more about the legislative intent. Some desire to understand what other jurisdictions do I, I, as I said, I asked for that as well, and have been doing some of my own homework on it because I wanted to have a little bit of background today for it, but it hasn't been exhaustive. And, and, and honestly, I wasn't looking at it for support from my position it just, I only, I only have what I have, and I haven't yet found anything that suggests, as I said where, you know, I think to Commissioner Skinner's point. I haven't seen because I look for it. But again, I'm not an exhaustive search where a statute was written where they start with the idea that promo play would be packed. You know, that it's usually the structure that we see in in in 23 and where it's the adaptive growth sports revenue, wagering revenues or receipts with the applicable deductions. Some are more deductions than others we have just the, the winnings and the as as we learned in our presentation the winnings. And then the federal excise tax and then without including the, the gifts which right away to think an early question is what exactly is promo play. I had to make sure to include what's in the statute. Promo play is defined in that in the statute which is interesting, and probably again evidence that to Commissioner Hill's point that this was done. In the early morning of a point out my birthday. And I was happy to be celebrating my, my birthday quietly while I monitored the Massachusetts legislatures activities. It is not the first time Commissioner Hill that a law has been passed. I mean a bill has been passed at five in the morning. We can both the test to that. And certainly I know you have those all nighters, lots of times when you're a legislator. But in this case, we have the ability to see the language that was in. We had that going, we had that house language long for a long time in front of us. And then it shifted with a Senate had a different proposal. And we all waited to see, as we did with so many aspects of the bill to see what emerged as the final product that the governor signed into law. So, you know, I, I am hearing Mr. Povich that there's a desire to understand more generally what happens across the country. My question was, you know, do any of the legislators say it really is within discretion of the regulator, the naming regulator to maybe alter the tax rate independently. I'm hearing from you that there, there is that possibility I still haven't quite seen where it fits in, in the, in our scheme but I'm, I'm deferring to your legal advice and Ms. Lee's legal advice that's been put forth to us as an alternative to what you say is a better read. I would say that when we say there's a better read we think that's the. I mean Commissioner Hill's commentary about the fact that this was something that was discussed in the House and the Senate and was perhaps traded off in the wee hours that we've all experienced demonstrates to me that, you know, this was, there was actually debate on discussion of this and this is where they came out which reinforces the legislative history that we cited which we cited without Commissioner Hill's context and experience. I think if we were doing this in a way that the Commission were to decide what the policy was, and you were to come to us and said, in either alternative, could you make a legal argument to defend that policy. The answer to that would be yes we could make that legal argument although we do think the better reading is the one that does not include promotional play credits within the gross, the wagering revenue number adjusted by that so it's doesn't so it doesn't adjust. We're happy to do the additional research in other states, but we can tell you what the other states say and do which you've already seen. If the question is, has there been language like ours and has there been a Commission which has come out in a different way than the chair suggests that you do. We could look at that that may not be the easiest thing to find because as you know our legislative history is not the easiest thing to find and frankly, the way that we found it is because you all were monitoring this day to day as it was going on not because we looked in the rear view mirror and was able to find it easily. I'd like to just to be clear on what we'll do and we'll happy to do I'd like to know exactly what you would, what question you would like to be answered from the other states so we don't waste the effort and fees and the like on understanding things that you're not interested in. If it's a question is if it's a question is anyone taking language like that's been presented to you and interpreted so that there was a deduction for promotional play. I get that question we're happy to look at it there's a different question or broader question, the greatest to nail it down so we don't miss fire. And then there's missions, Brian, really need. Other than to say that I don't require anything else for my analysis. So, if you're looking for clarity attorney povich I'm sorry, you wouldn't get it for me in terms of I don't feel like I need anything else to make a conclusion that would be different than what I've already said so I don't know what the other commissioners need who are still on the fence. I don't need anything additional from legal to bring into focus my thoughts on this issue. Madam chair, anything that I need further, I think our staff Derek and sterl would be able to answer for me. So I think I'm all set with our legal counsel at this point, but I do have some further questions for our staff at a later time. Okay, and just so I understand. Today, we did reserve the opportunity for a vote will be tabling that today, Commissioner Hill for further date for the time. I would hope you'd be willing to do that for us today. Thank you. Okay. Mission leader the same. Good questions for Mr. Povich. I think. Mr. Povich made a good point. And it's that we can probably find. If you dig, dig enough in enough state legislators your private legislators, you're going to find both sides of this. And so I don't want to waste any more resources digging around on the question. That's where I am. In terms of figure around the question is that because you are adopting a particular interpretation that Mr. Povich said, or are you still wanting to figure out the policy implications should we decide that we have we're going to go that route. What are you looking for from our information. So I'm just trying to figure out how we can be helpful here and make sure everybody feels heard. Madam chair, I mean, this is a lot of information. And this is, you know, we don't have the benefit and we've said it over and over and over again, of listening to this discussion behind closed doors. This has to be done in the open. And, you know, I'm thinking here in real time, I would like to say that I had already came that I walked in with a preconceived notion of what I was going to do, but I didn't. And, and I think that, you know, I've got to think on this. And, you know, if, if we call the vote, I'll be ready to take a vote today. But I'm also happy to table it as Commissioner Hill has asked. Okay. So we can table it and put it on for future discussion and to be clear. I suspect that some of us have been thinking about this, but I don't think anyone ever comes to this very talented group of commissioners or the post mine, because as I think I've said it, I can. I'm, I'm, even if I think I may have an idea where the policy where discussion may go. I'm always amazed by the richness of the discussion so we all benefit from it. So even though it's hard that we can't discuss, you know, as a group, be, you know, with our, even our lawyer, we can't discuss with a group of our lawyer. I think that's a really important acknowledgement that we have to get our legal advice in this, this forum that I think we are able to have this rich discussion today. It sounds as though we should table the discussion and Commissioner Hill, I do ask if you do go and hear more from our team that you come back and you share it with the, with all of us so that we get the benefit of that, and the benefit of your questions to make sure that we are all truly informed of all the concerns that each of each of us has that makes good sense. And now, and I'm not asking to table this for two weeks, three weeks, we can, I can get my answers within a, you know, a few days, and yeah, so to address this very quickly. We, we should never move on anything unless we feel confident about the information that's presented before us. And then if we can also invite this will give a chance for Director Van Relen to add anything in. And as I pointed out, I think that there are many implications and again, the ones that were presented to us and written comments are they present very legitimate, legitimate issues. There just are some competing and, and many have to be weighed in my thought is that I'm going to give the deference to the lawmakers and at the end of the day. But again, I'll look forward to the conversation that we have in the future. Yes, Commissioner Skinner. I had one one other question if that's okay. I had asked about legislative history and intent early on when I was initially meeting with the finance team around this issue in my capacity as treasurer. Is there any other information that is available that would assist with this question of the legislative intent. Is it really just that one version of the bill included the language. The next one didn't. Is that all we have to go on. Well, if I can, as you know there's no recorded legislative history in Massachusetts it doesn't we don't have like the congressional record or anything else. Sometimes people often resort to what State House news rights as sort of a contemporaneous credible journalistic source. I think actually this commission is way ahead by the fortune and nature of having Commissioner Hill, who can provide some color to the ways the back and forth concerning this, this new statute in the general laws so I don't think we missed anything I'm quite sure we didn't miss anything because it's very hard to find such thing I think the commission staff with monitoring things as they went on was a great asset to us we didn't have that. When we first looked at it because we didn't ask for it but once we got it we, you know, combined it in the privilege memo that you all receive so. I can't think of any place else we could look I'm obviously happy to take suggestions if there is, but in general I think both because there was a back and forth between the branches on the language. And because we have, we have a veteran of the process and Commissioner Hill where pretty good shape compared to where people normally are when they try to divine what's in the general laws. That's helpful. I honestly was not aware that there wasn't some transcript of the debate anywhere in Massachusetts so. Thanks for clarifying. But that's the idea that I would that's you know kind of where I was going with my question is what else, what else in the way of a written transcript type document is there. I don't know Commissioner Hill do you think we're this is any place else we should look. Well, I'm trying to make sure that I don't step my boundaries here and ethically make sure that I'm not stepping over any line that I shouldn't be stepping over what I would like to do. And I, again, I look for legal advice ethically, I would actually like to reach out to a couple of the legislators who wrote the bill. And have them either put something in writing to us what the intent was, or at least have a conversation with them. And I, again, don't know ethically what I'm allowed to do in this regard. I know the conversations that took place. But as you've stated, they're not recorded anywhere, and it was done in private so I don't want to share those conversations in case ethically I'm sharing something that I shouldn't share. I defer that to a conversation between you and your team unless I'm asked to advise on that you look inside team. I do think though the fact that, again, the fact that this was a matter of conversation and it ended up where it ended up is instructive as to some aspects of this as reflected in his least comments. And it didn't just fall on the floor, you know, it was talked about. Councilor Grossman, if you want to advise Commissioner Hill, I know Commissioner, Commissioner Povic. Councilor Povic is looking at it from a different lens than you are in House Council and would give advice on these matters. I'm fairly not aware of any prohibition against asking legislators questions. The one thing to just be aware of here would be to ensure that they know before they answer any questions that you may be sharing what they tell you publicly. And just to make sure that they're willing to to speak on the record. And then it's worth whatever it's worth. I mean, you're getting one or two people's opinions about something. So, I mean just from where I stand that's my concern with that is they went into committee and they hashed it out. And then we have a bill with a lot of discussion about temp licensing, we didn't ask to go back and see what the legislative intent was and to ask people to tell me or make a public statement and my concern is, are there certain people willing to make statements and then they have sway with the people that didn't maybe prevailed in committee now their intent isn't isn't out there so I've been in the position of my career of having to interpret legislative intent never in a position like this or arguably you could have a past participating member go back. I don't particularly feel comfortable with doing it, because I'm not sure we're going to get the fulsome discussion that happened behind closed doors that resulted in the statute. I'm listening. If they disagree with where they feel this is trending or where we vote, they absolutely have the capacity to come back in and change the statute accordingly. So I'm not comfortable, not that I don't trust you Brad, but I don't feel like that's the appropriate way to handle the interpretation that we're asking of ourselves right now. That's that's where I'm coming from understood. To that point, I'm sorry, Madam chair. You know, when I was in law school, it was in vogue, not to look at legislative history at all to be dispositive, even at a regulatory level so I mean I would go even further and say, I have a problem with trying to figure out what they've traded and not traded and how this came out, you know, and you know, the bill that passed the one that got through conference, the language as it is. Do the regulators have a right to interpret this tax issue or do they not, you know, without looking at the House version, the Senate version and looking at it at its at its language. You know, what, what can we do and what can we not do and the reason I'm wrestling with this in real time, kind of embarrassingly in public is that, right. Obviously the legislation says something. I'm hearing that there are people who have interpreted the legislation to mean a certain thing. Then I'm reading the letters from potential licensee saying that they read it very differently and that they do believe that the regulators have this power. And so I'm trying to figure out you know it's really simple as I said earlier, if we don't have the power to do it, if it's black and white. That makes my decision a lot easier. If there's interpretation again, I've been asked at least twice since I've been on here since August to interpret a statute that I didn't think was very clear. I am by the way, let me be clear on that piece is that I'm happy to make decisions where we have authority to make decisions. But where we're in this gray area and I think this is really in this gray area. You know, I got to think about it some more and, and you know, I'm just trying to figure out, do we have the right to do this or do we not. If we don't. Easy. So I think I think about I'm sorry. All right. Keep promoting me. Thank you. I think one way to think about it is you have power to enact regulations consistent with the statute. You're not allowed to interpret the statute in a way that's sorry enact regulations in a way that is inconsistent with the statute. So the question is when you look at this, and you want to enact the regulation that goes with the definition as it is in statute and that is does not create a deduction for these promotional play bets is that consistent with the statute, such a regulation. I think it is. The question is, if you, if you draft a regulation that creates this deduction for promotional play is that consistent with the statute. I think the commission has brought this question and you would be able to argue that, but that's why we come down to the better view is that to act consistently with the statute. And the definition of history and the trading that we understand was part of that, not just from the language, but from the commentary. The better view is that a loop a state a regulation which is consistent with the definition the statute which only takes out winnings and federal exercise taxes gets you to the most consistent definition. As your lawyer I'm used to being in a position to someone come to me and say, this is what I want to do, can you justify, can you argue it easy defense. So those that's a different question than what the better view is and what's most consistent with the way the statute was written after the negotiation, which apparently occurred between the branches. I hope that's helpful. Is that on it. I'm in complete agreement with, and not surprising. Our outside counsel loves comment and advice, complete agreement with it. You know, we, we need to make sure our regulatory process is, is never, you know, ultra various right can't be outside the law. One of the comments and I was struck by it one of the comments that we got the proposal is to commissioner Skinner's point earlier is to provide a regulation that rewrites the section defining again I have to look at the language to make a mistake the justice what's wagering things what's wagering receipts right or sports wagering receipts that definition and the recommendation is to reinsert the exact language that the Senate took out. So it truly is to rewrite the law from my perspective. And in that, actually that written comment helped me understand both written comments really helped me understand what I think my position is as I said I'm, I'm, I'm, and I've said it, you know, kind of in black and white today, I'm open to other interpretations I'm hearing commissioner Hill and hearing commissioner Skinner and commissioner Maynard, but that comment, the fix, the fix that they're asking for us to write a regulation that would insert the language that actually came out that went to ultimately from joint conference to the governor's desk, and then the governor signed it. So, you know, they didn't come up with a different suggestion for language they didn't say how the regulation would have changed it son. I felt, I was thinking exactly of Mr. Povich's reminder that our job is to make sure the regulatory process and our regulations are consistent with law, and I'll add not not changing the law. Sometimes, and I hear it here is what I'm hearing is that people might be saying that there's an interpretation of a lot issue and I think I might not be struggling with that as much. So it sounds like we're going to, with some added guidance from Mr. Povich will table this to a future meeting missioners. And some questions will be answered. Commissioner Brian. I thought you were really helpful in explaining what you think might be helpful advice for commissioner Hill. I appreciated that advice as well. For the comments or questions. First, I want to just applaud the team sterl and and Derek and and mark for your presentation today, really helpful. Derek it's exactly what I had hoped for because I said I think I need to see how numbers work here and Derek it's so excellent at going through that and really helpful today. So thank you. And so thank you for your, your background and presentation. Any further questions for a and K. Okay, then Miss Lee and Mr. Povich thank you so much. And I guess we'll, we'll revisit this thanks. Thank you. Thank you, Annie thinking lawn, and we'll revisit this issue at a later date and get some clarity and then I think regardless of that decision we do need to start with the regulation that would follow because I understand it really will be helpful one way or another to give clarity around the issue. I think I think our legal team has suggested that. So, with that, I'm just looking at my packet. I don't think we have any other business in for today. We started the morning off with a public hearing right and early. Any commissioner update that you want to share. Okay, Madam Chair I don't have a commissioners I wanted to thank you and through you to the staff for putting this on today. I know I had requested it to get more information. And this was very helpful and very educational. So thank you for putting it together for us. Commissioner how I appreciate that, but honestly this was was slated to come today. We had it all planned but as you could see that the team needed to get quite a bit together including the legal team. So your request was perfectly timely. It's an issue that I think we noted back during our responsible gaming roundtable that we knew we'd have to visit. And I think what we've worked out and I think what we can do now is just get some more clarity as you say it's complicated. Commissioner mayors quite right. This is our first visit to it and we'll, we'll get more comfortable as we go along. Okay, but thank you. Thank you for your graciousness Commissioner Hill with that I moved to adjourn. And Commissioner Hill sorry, I just had one, really like a housekeeping matter that I wanted to note on the public comments that we received on the promotional plague question. There was one that did not make it into today's packet is from fanatics, it's dated November 22 2022. So I know where we're visiting the issue but I just want to make sure that that if it hasn't already been circulated that that letter gets circulated to the other commissioners. So that needs to be coordinated with crystal and mills. So Caitlin do you have that I can so I believe that all the comments that came in on 240 which is the relevant reg were included in the packet when we when the Commission voted on 240 at one of the previous meetings so I'll confirm that it was in there. But I, it should have been and if it wasn't will rectify it. Thank you. They may be coming in a different direction so certainly our team thought that they had included them out today. I'm sure I'm not the only one madam chair I went from 80 emails to about 270 and about two weeks. Yes they are coming fast and furious. Yeah, and good for you for keeping track of them. Commissioner. I wouldn't say that but anything else commissioners, we have I think a motion to adjourn but I'm not sure if we have a second. Second. Thank you. Any further edits or questions. Okay. I'm sure Brian. Hi. Mr. Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. Yes. Thanks everyone.