 All right. We're good to go. Excellent. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. I apologize for being a few minutes late. We're just settling in. We need to take a roll call because we're holding this meeting of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission virtually. Good morning, Commissioner Bryant. Good morning. I'm here. Good morning, Commissioner Hill. Good morning. I'm here. Good morning, Commissioner Skinner. Good morning. And good morning, Commissioner Maynard. Good morning. I'm here. Excellent. Well, happy Valentine's to everyone. It is a beautiful Valentine's Day on February 14th, 2023. Public meeting number 435 of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission. We've got some good work to get going. So I turn to Executive Director Wells. Thank you. Good morning. So for this morning's administrative update, I just wanted to make a staff announcement that we are starting to round out the sports wagering division. So, uh, Stroke Carpenter has been placed in the position of sports wagering operations manager and Crystal Bocheman has been put in the position of sports wagering business manager. So, Bruce, I know you're very grateful to have the help and very happy to have these two response on the team. So just wanted to make that announcement publicly that they will be working with Bruce on all aspects of the sports wagering division. So that's it for the update. Go ahead to the next item manager. Well, I need to just pause and congratulate Sterl and Crystal. This is, these are two new positions and they're exciting positions. Sterl, I know that you've worked with Bruce all along and what an asset you are. And of course Crystal has really been the right hand and more for me. It is a great promotion for Crystal and I know that the Gaming Commission is and the Commonwealth are benefiting with this promotion and Crystal knows how much I am going to miss working very, very closely with her. That transition is occurring in real time. We'll try not to bug Crystal too much, but Karen and I and Crystal are ironing out those details. So, Bruce, you got the best. Thank you. I'll believe it when you totally give her up over to here. Well, I'm totally giving her up but she's of course the professional that she is and this is helping a bit, helping out, but we want to, we want to hand her over and so that you can have her to your entirety, Bruce, but it's all very, very good for the commission and congratulations Sterl and Crystal. Yeah, I got two of the best. Yeah. Excellent. Okay, so we're turning now then to IEB and I see Horseman Council, Heather Hall, good morning. Good morning chair. Good morning commissioners and happy Valentine's Day to everybody. So we are here in follow up to our conversation last Thursday. And the IEB has conducted a review of sports wagering non-compliance incident that occurred at Cambridge Park Casino. And that on, I guess in terms of the incident of non-compliance generally on February 3 2023 PPC compliance manager Lisa McKenney, notified sports wagering director Bruce Van that PPC mistakenly offered wagering on unauthorized events. The error was actually reported to PPC management internally by a PPC sportsbook writer and just in terms of those who are still new to this as am I, the writer is actually the teller who works at the cashier's counter. So with respect to more detail on this particular incident on February 2 a regular season Merrimack College men's basketball game versus the Long Island University Sharks was offered for wagering. And upon learning of the error PPC notified its sports wagering event system provider can be and the IEB learned the following kind of key facts with respect to the incident. So the timeframe for wagering was approximately seven hours from 11am to about 6.20pm. And the total stakes wagered in follow up to I know Commissioner O'Brien's question on Thursday was approximately $6,848. The total winnings were approximately $4,270. And the number of bets placed were 33 and those were 33 bets across 27 tickets or coupons as they're also referred to. And one of those tickets had a seven digit sorry seven distinct wagers on it. So that particular ticket involved more wagers than the others. In terms of the location of the bets there were four bets placed at the cashier's counter desk and the remaining were placed at kiosks. And as for the reported reason for the error PPC manager sportsbook manager Ryan Blake and I just want to note that I think I might have misreferred to him as black. So his name is Ryan Blake reported to the IEB gaming agents that the error occurred because can be mistakenly assigned the participant school state for Merrimack College as Florida instead of Massachusetts. So that allowed Merrimack College to bypass offering compliance filters which were configured to block all regular season matches involving mass teams based on their assigned participant school state. Can be reported that once they were notified they corrected the error in approximately 10 minutes can be also after fixing the error further reviewed what had happened. And they confirmed that only Merrimack College was affected and that all other mass teams in can be system were properly assigned as a Massachusetts school. And that no other games in mass involving a mass team were offered including a Merrimack game actually that was offered for the next day can be also reported that it reviewed all of the bets for suspicious activity and did not find any. And with respect to remedial or mitigating information PPC has reported that can be did conduct a separate audit to confirm that all other mass schools were properly coded in the system and they were. In addition can be added a second layer of protection by essentially creating a blacklist or an additional filter for the NCAA beds and mass that are not part of tournaments involving four or more teams. That filter is independent of the state location field listed in the system and that will serve to block all local mass collegiate teams from being available in the regular season without needing to rely on the participant school state as the sole filter. Can be also relayed that a line manager is going to follow up with the staff person who was responsible for the error as well as the entire team with regard to guidelines for the process for coding the participant states. In addition PPC PSI and can be provided MGC staff and being Bruce bands team with a listing of all mass institutions to which the prohibition should apply. Director ban has reported that the list was reviewed by MGC staff and verified as complete and I also want to thank stroll carpenter I know he's worked on this as well. And I also want to note to that in conversations and communications with North Brown soul from PPC as I think all of you know he's PPC vice president general manager. They have provided the list of the prohibited mass teams to all of their sports but personnel PPC instructed their staff, including the writers and sports with managers to ensure that best they are taking are authorized. So this is another added layer of protection and they also relate to staff that they could be disciplined if they allow a wager on an unauthorized event. PPC has also instituted a daily check to confirm that no prohibited mass collegiate team leaders are offered in can be system and that the manager who checks the daily list they are actually required to sign off testing to having reviewed it and confirm that no collegiate teams are for prohibited majors are offered. And I think one final note that is I think important is PPC has recognized and rewarded the team writer who initially identified and reported this non compliance issue. And they relayed that this the goal is to create a culture of commitment to compliance as the top priority and to encourage their staff to probably report non compliance. So that is the update with respect to the PPC Merrimack College matter. I'm happy to go into the other matter as well or we can certainly take questions however the Commission would like to do it. Heather. I think that I understand that you may be providing us at some point today insights on other jurisdictions. And I think that we can take some of those reactions to similar types of situations. We can do that chair. Yes, I do have some information on that. We are, you know, continuing to review that matter but I definitely can give a preliminary insight that we have gleaned from our review of various reported non compliance. So happy to do that whenever you would like. I think that's this report, then I would suggest she goes to the next report and then reports on other jurisdictions if that makes sense. Okay, Michelle Ryan are you leaning in. I am I had a question just Heather the rest station you just gave and you talked about the remedial measures the PPC took. I'm glad to hear they're lauding the teller who flagged it. But then you made another comment about their, they're being informed that there could be repercussions if you allow a bet that's not supposed to be placed so my question is, can a teller override the measures the systemic measures that were just described it because it would seem to me I was not at the assumption once those were put in place there wouldn't be able to be a manual override to allow somebody to make a bet but am I wrong on that. That's a great question commissioner and I can't speak to the specifics of that but my understanding is that the teller would be required to notify a manager. And I'll certainly you know defer to Bruce and sterile the supplement with respect to that answer but that was my understanding is that you know they're required to notify that as it goes up the chain by the manager and let them know that there's an issue. And I also just want to reiterate that I also was happy to hear that they recognize that individual who did report it because I do think that helps foster a culture of reporting issues so that you know the compliance is is key there. The follow up on Commissioner Brian's point. Oh, Bruce you're muted. I'm muted. No Bruce was talking but he was muted. I'm sorry Bruce thank you so much. If it's in the system they can't really override it they cannot sell the ticket would be okay that's what I thought. Okay, just wanted to make clear. Okay, thank you. So follow up question for you Bruce. Is it typical that the, that the, the, the teller if you will or the, the writer would actually have the burden of that compliance. It's not that I think it's incumbent on any writer to have that but to know all the schools I think is a difficult thing for any employee at that, you know, stage, especially if they're really busy. Right. You know with long lines, but that was a real heads up move on the one that did recognize the school. Chair, chair if I can jump in for a moment I did just hear from north who confirms that a writer cannot force a wager that is unavailable in the system. You can't force it I think of the idea, can they fix something if they see a problem right if they can't over, they can't override it, but they can override it. I don't, I don't know in North may, may clarify, I don't know that the, yeah, I can't speak with certainty what would, what happens. Yeah, and my concern is I'm guessing what the answer is to that my, my concern is, and I may have miss her and Commissioner Brian, did you hear Heather and Heather did you say that they're anticipating consequences for sort of line level employees like the writer if they allow it to go forward. I'm understanding from talking to north and I'll certainly allow you know him to supplement that but I think the goal was to say, listen, everybody needs to know what these which wagers are are allowed and need to be on the lookout for it and with that I will definitely turn to north because I don't want to over speak on on their, their current process. North, how are you good morning. Good morning, Madam Chair. So, so quickly then the writer cannot force a wager into the system that that is unavailable. They also, I believe Commissioner O'Brien, your question was whether they could fix a wager like if they noticed that there's one in there that should not be in there. They do not have the ability to make a wager unavailable, we would still need to coordinate with our with with can be to make that happen, however, can be spent super responsive. You know, if I found out that we had a wages available like that and then there would probably are one that was available that should not be there certainly would be things that that we would do to prohibit those wagers from being placed. With regards to the discipline piece here I think it's more just a reminder to team members that we all have responsibilities to not knowingly violate regulations that are put in front of us. So this is this is a matter of saying all the team members have been provided with the full listing of Massachusetts institutions in which they are not to accept wagers. We do understand that people make mistakes throughout the course of their day, and it's always our desire to make sure that they have all the tools that they need in order to remain in compliance. But it's really more of a reminder of hey listen, we, we all have a role to play here and making sure that we remain in compliance. And, you know, we, when we have a team member who raises their hand and bring something to our attention, we want to reward recognize them so there is no intent here to, to lead with the stick of punishment. This is more an opportunity for us to just make sure that people understand their obligations. And if I could just follow up north I think my, my cons, I want my understanding is that really where you want the compliance is you want it at the can be level. That's correct. I mean, having a start. Yes, Madam Chair so I mean obviously having a system that's correct is the first line of defense and the most important one but we, we at the property level also play a role here making sure that we remain in compliance the same way we wouldn't knowingly pay a jackpot to a person. The public department of revenue registry said that they, you know, were to have a portion of their jackpot intercepted if I had a team member who knowingly violated that policy, then there would, you know, be a discussion and investigation what happened at the property level. So as I said, you know, it's really more about just making sure that we all understand what our obligations are. Thank you. Yes, Commissioner Hill. So North, this is a process question for the future, because we're all learning about this as we go. So had the sports writer, not identified the issue. And this had only been done in the kiosk. Would it have been found quick. What would have happened, like how would you have found that the mistake if it's done through the kiosk, instead of through the sports writer. So I think ultimately, I would say that the process that I put in place before was that our managers were to look for wagers that they know that we should not accept on a daily basis. One would hope that over the course of time that somebody would look at that school and pick them out. I think our process at this point is a bit more is a bit more prescribed in terms of checking all institutions every day. So it could it could be something that could drag on if it's not caught early. Again, we're super thankful that this team member did notice something and did say something so that we could make a quick correction. Thank you, Madam Chair. Questions for Heather. Again, Commissioner Maynard, Michelle Bryan. I think that I'm chair I have a question but it's more theoretical. I. I'll direct it to whoever wants to answer it. I don't think this is going to be the case at least in men's basketball, as I don't think that any team in the Commonwealth is going to make the NCAA tournament this year. In Massachusetts, but if so, you know, what is the process in place to turn on the wagering and turn off the wagering because just to be quite honest, my worry would be that the switch for a lack of a better word would be turned on and then, you know, there would be some time where it wasn't turned off properly. So, you know, I'm trying to think about how to mitigate instances where a legal wager can be placed. But there has to be some sort of mechanism in place to turn on and off the ability to do that and I don't know how much of that is human driven or how much of it is data driven computer. So an example would be mission meaner, the beam pop those four messages it's universities and colleges were eligible to be bet on because it was a tournament for more institutions messages institutions. Now, so you wanted. So they got into the system. Right. When do they get to switch them off and switch them on right who is watching to make sure that they come out of the system. So that was my question was a good example. And actually, actually, madam chair you've got about three or four more coming up very quickly, because you, the basketball which we call championship week. You're going to have a big East tournament in which there'll be some Massachusetts you have the ACC tournament coming up. Mission of main as soon as those are over, they probably won't qualify for the NCAA. You'd have to shut them off immediately. So we actually have a few of those coming up in the next few weeks. I think that all these are controlled by the, the IT companies like can be Dan and bar stool. I'm not sure whether they're done manually or via computer system that doesn't. I can check on that to get you the information. Thank you. I think you asked a key question though in terms of how much is automated versus me and it sounds like to me, whether it's combo right. Could, could well be. And I do think that they were focusing on the regular season games and I will certainly defer to, you know, Bruce and his team on further details on how that actually works. I switched places because there was tree work going on behind me. I think that's the main changes of the film today. Okay. Other questions for Bruce or Heather on this. Let's turn to the other item then Heather at this point, please. With respect to encore. Yes, chair. Thank you. And with respect to the issue that occurred at encore. It was a little bit different, but, but somewhat similar. So, we have learned that on February 2nd, even senior vice president and general counsel Jackie crumb, we all know, notified director band that even mistakenly offered wagering on an unauthorized event. So, more particularly, this was a Boston college, women's basketball game versus Notre Dame. That was offered for money line wagering, which I think you all know is essentially a bet that it's based on the outcome of the game only that game took place on February 2nd at 7pm. And that was a regular season game with respect to kind of the key facts that we've learned wagering was allowed for approximately five hours from about 1245pm on February 2nd to about 535pm on that same day. There was one bet that was placed with respect to this particular incident. And it was actually part of a parlay wager where the VC women's basketball game was one of five money line selections on the ticket. And these, I should say, EPH actually, once they learned of it, they made sure that the VC leg of that parlay was voided prior to settlement of the ticket. And as for the stakes wager, that was $70 for the full parlay. And then with respect to the winnings, it was about $23 after the VC leg of the parlay was removed. And that particular bet took place at a kiosk. And so with respect to the reported reasons for the error, EPH director of sports corporations Mark Marino reported that a staff person employed by GAN, which is a vendor to EPH mistakenly omitted the NCAA women's basketball from the leaders list. And so although GAN, you know, they place automatic blocks on any mass school team on a list that was provided to them by Winded, which obviously also works with EPH as their vendor and affiliate. The blocks are designed to stop any games from a prohibited school from loading into the system. But GAN, however, did not apply that block to the women's college basketball. So upon learning of the issue, I think I might have mentioned this, EPH did freeze the ticket so that it couldn't be redeemed in the form that it was in. And then given that the game hadn't taken place yet, EPH did cancel that VC leg of the parlay. So the remaining legs of the parlay were active. And ultimately the patron did cash that ticket out with the remaining legs. So with respect to remedial and mitigating information, Mr. Marino did report that EPH and WinVet are working to ensure that the prohibited events are blocked from being posted. WinVet will conduct daily, twice daily audits in both the morning and the evening of the mass collegiate sports offerings to confirm that no mass regular season collegiate game to commissioner, the point that was made earlier by commissioner Maynard. So with respect to the regular season wagering offerings. In addition, GAN is providing system access to WinVet so that WinVet can review the offerings and sign off on final approval for all the wagering offerings. And further, Attorney Crum has reported that EPH plans to actually assign a dedicated person who will be responsible for auditing the wagering offerings to ensure that unauthorized wagers are not offered in the system. And EPH is also coordinating with Director Bann's team to ensure that its list of mass collegiate teams is fully accurate. And I know Sterl has been involved in working with them on that as well. So that's our summary and happy to answer any questions that anyone has. I'm sure there's questions for Heather. No questions about this. All right, then I think if this might be a good time then for you Heather to bring us. Actually probably remind us a bit because we have had some reporting on what other jurisdictions have done in cases like this. When we formed our assessment of the applicants for the online sports wagering operating licenses. So you could remind us on what other jurisdictions have done. And then we'll turn to Caitlin who will update us on the process that we have for these types of matters. Certainly Chair. And so, you know, I know we had talked about this on Thursday and and I will say that, you know, we have undertaken a review of the non-compliance matters that have been reported to us previously. And we do have a sampling of those that relate to unauthorized events. One of the things I think I'll highlight is I think two things. One is that we can't tell specifically whether the fines that were done by other jurisdictions were after a first offense or second offense. And I think the ones that I will talk about today are the ones that are as closely related to this particular type of unauthorized wagering as possible. So for example, there are some where there were inappropriate prop bets, but we tried to focus on those that were specifically related to unauthorized collegiate team wagers. And so I would say that, you know, the fines and other jurisdictions did, there was, there was a range. They were kind of around the range of 5,000 going up to 50,000. But again, it's, it's difficult to tell whether, well, A, the specific facts of each particular incident and B, whether there was a, you know, was a first offense or some kind of a subsequent offense. Now, against that backdrop, most of the fines that we have seen that are very close in line with this are in the $5,000 to $10,000 range. And I'll give you some examples. There was a fine out of Iowa that where the operator accepted prohibited wagers on three different Olympic events. There were 25 wagers placed, 23 that were settled. And that particular fine just by way of summary was for $5,000. There was another out of Indiana where an operator offered wagering on an Australian football game. And there was, I think, a settlement in that particular instance, and that was for $5,000. There were, let's see, there was one, another one in Indiana. It was improper wagering on Division II and Division III collegiate events. And there was another component that related to the self-exclusion list in this particular fine. So I just want to note that that particular fine was for $4,000. And we don't know if it was for what kind of point in the noncompliance it occurred. In other words, first offense or subsequent offense. We had another one, I think it was out of Mississippi for impermissible collegiate football wagers accepted due to an employee error. There was no action on that particular one. There was another one out of New Jersey where wagering was allowed on two prohibited NCAA basketball games, and that was a $5,000 fine. There are some others that were higher. There was an unauthorized Olympic events available on two kiosks, and that was a $50,000 fine. Now, again, it's not clear whether that was, again, subsequent or first offense or somewhere in between. There were some that let's me just see about the others that were higher here. There was one out of Indiana. It was two counts. There were 11 unapproved MMA events and an unapproved e-sporting event. That was $13,000. And then let's see here. There was another one that was wagers accepted on collegiate sports that took place in D.C. On a team based in D.C., and that was self-reported. There were two incidents, and that was a $50,000 fine. So I will say that's kind of a sampling of what we have gleaned from the information that we've been able to gather up until this point. But generally, they seem to be in the range of, I would say, around 5,000 to 10,000. And happy to kind of dig a little deeper and supplement if the commission would like. But that's for where we are at this point. That would be our summary of what we've found. Questions for Heather in terms of just those facts right now. Anything that you missed that you want clarification on? Okay, that's really helpful. We'll turn to Caitlin now for the understanding the processes and our options there. Good morning commissioners. So should the commission decide to issue a civil administrative penalty or contemplate issue issuing a civil administrative penalty. For these issues, there are three methods by which the commission could move forward. The first is that it could decide to hold a full adjudicatory hearing in the first instance. This would be allowed pursuant to statute and regulation. And if you chose that option, you would obviously have the full adjudicatory hearing that everyone is familiar with the operators in question would be part of that hearing. So it could be open to the public or close to the public. And at the end of the presentation of evidence, the commission could decide what kind of penalty it wanted to assess be that monetary civil administrative penalty, or, you know, the condition or vacation suspension or suspension of an operator's license, obviously not that we're necessarily in that territory right now but those are some of the different outcomes that could result from an adjudicatory hearing. The second option would be to use the notice and opportunity for adjudicatory hearing function that is set out in chapter 23 and section 16. So this is a little different. This is all specifically set out by statute what would happen here is that the commission would have a discussion in a public meeting like this. You know, about the facts have a discussion about whether the requirements that are set out in section 16 of the statute were met issue civil administrative penalty. And if those conditions were met, the commission could decide what penalty it wanted to issue. And it would then issue a notice to the operator of the penalty and the opportunity for in a full administrative hearing. So that's the second option. I will just just be very clear. The penalty amount is sort of decided before a full adjudicatory hearing in that instance. The third option is to have the IEB conduct an investigation and issue a recommendation. And that is pursuant to 205CMR 232. In that instance, the commission would ask the IEB to essentially come back with a recommendation based on its investigation that recommendation for a penalty would be sent both to the commission and to the operator. The operator would then have the ability to request an adjudicatory hearing, at which point the adjudicatory hearing process would move forward. The operator could also choose to waive the adjudicatory hearing. If the operator chose to waive the adjudicatory hearing, the issue would then come back to the commission for a vote on whether to accept or reject the penalty amount. If it was accepted, you're done. If it was rejected, it would go to an adjudicatory hearing. So the common theme here, a lot of a lot of opportunities for an adjudicatory hearing. But also note that, you know, this is the first time this is this kind of issue is coming forward to the commission. And so it's perfectly appropriate that we're having this discussion about what method the commission wants to utilize in this instance. It would also be possible for the commission to put together an internal policy on how it wants to deal with these kind of reports in the future. So for instance, what steps are taken when a notification is received, how is investigation status reported to the commission, and how will the commission determine which method to use in assessing potential civil administrative penalties. So that's something that commission could consider moving forward. Happy to take any questions. Questions for Caitlin. I'm Caitlin. I pretty much think I know what the answer is, but can you tell us what happens with 23 K when there's an instance of penalties that need to be with 23 K. And I might have Todd jump in here too, because I've done less of this but with 23 K believe there are two options the commission can have an adjudicatory hearing. There isn't the process of basically I think that just isn't the process of notice and then opportunity for hearing in 23 K that is allowed in 23 and so the commission could either have an adjudicatory hearing or the ID can make a make a suggestion for or a proposed penalty. I don't know if we can move forward in that method, but Todd please jump in if there's anything actually could we have director Lillio step in because I think it's really in her, her process to explain and enforcement Council hall not to, not to go by you and also Grossman but I know it's going to be straightforward for the reddit to address for so Caitlin's exactly right under 23 K the commission does have the ability to take a matter in the first instance and an adjudicatory hearing, and the other option that in the past in one instance. The other option, which has a couple of sub sets sub options to it is that the IB can complete its investigation and can issue the notice of non compliance to the licensee the licensee can decide right then to challenge that and request an adjudicatory hearing before the full commission, which time the commission would mark it up have the hearing and make up a determination. One of the licensee receives the IB's notice and suggested action that can be a period of discussion where the licensee can point out mitigating information additional information. There's no discussion on an agreed upon fine amount or an agreed upon resolution. And in that instance, if there is an agreed upon action, the licensee waves any right to an adjudicatory hearing and the action takes hold. So your question. Madam chair, I have one follow up question. Could I just ask one. One follow up her sort of is my understanding that when there is a violation that non compliance notice that goes out, not go out. That can't go out automatically. It has to be a first violation of the notice can you explain that and then there's a trigger. So under 23 K. It's clear that before a fine can issue now remember there are non compliance matters that the IB deals with at both the gaming agent level, and at the chief enforcement council level that do not necessarily result in a monetary civil administrative penalty. But if you end up with a civil administrative penalty 23 K is stricter about requiring the first violation to have some kind of written notice and then only subsequent violations can be defined for in reality, you know the first notice can come from the gaming agents division. And of course, we have a graduated approach to the adverse action process and the discipline process, because we've been very clear. And the commission has been very clear that the policy behind the discipline action is to foster compliance and to achieve compliance. And so the way that we have done that is through a graduated, a graduated approach. And again that graduated approach can come from sort of more informal writings from the gaming agents division putting the licensee on notice. In some instances that first notice does come from the chief enforcement council's office. There is a more latitude in 23 and to issue a fine for serious violations that go to the heart of integrity without the first written notice. So it's clear to me that in these instances that Heather talked about today. They're a monetary fine would be authorized would be lawful whereas under 23 K, it wouldn't be unless they first got written notice. Thank you that's really helpful it's that that additional written notice for assessments that of a fine so thank you so much. Thank you Loretta that was very, very helpful actually my follow up question would be in most cases. It's worked upon between the licensees and your organization before it comes to us with the exception of that one. It is a mandatory hearing that you talked about at the beginning of your of your explanation is that an accurate statement. It isn't you know I do want to highlight in the gaming realm, given the amount of activity and you know the gears and operation there have been relatively few fines. I, you know would expect that because there is that kind of relationship with our gaming licensees that we know they are working hard towards compliance and we take that into consideration, and all of the finds that the IEB has issued have been in agreed upon amounts, and the license the gaming licensees have waved their right to any hearing in those matters. And I'm sure that answers all my questions thank you. Yeah, and Commissioner Hill I want to remind you of the of our recently adopted regulation that Caitlyn just went over that clarified that in all instances the commission does have the authority to deal with these nimbly and immediately. So, which is a little bit different than 23k. So, Commissioner O'Brien, Commissioner Skinner, Commissioner Maynard, any questions. Any questions I've maybe some comments to add to what Loretta said, and Loretta you can correct me if I'm wrong, but you know there is a distinction between 23 and 23k and there's also distinction between the industries in terms of 23k is is a is, you know, regulating and understanding industry, and the Commonwealth to some extent benefited from years of trial and error and enforcement and other jurisdictions before we launched so we had a conversation about why we wanted to retain as a commission, more flexibility under 23 and to act in a way that doesn't exist under 23k that I do think is necessary for us to have in terms of making sure that this industry that's launching in the Commonwealth knows, you know what we prioritize, and logistically the realities of IE visibility to act in every instance if we wanted to act quickly you're going to have a number of licensees in 23k as opposed to the three in 23k so I sort of see that distinction and top of what Loretta just described in terms of the difference in the process. I echo that, Commissioner Bryan, I do see the two industries as actually they're gaming but they are very different and so much has to do with exactly what was expressed, you know so much around technology and speed and so they are different processes but we have good options that Caitlin outlined. Commissioner Skinner, do you have a follow up? I do, I have a process question for Caitlin on those three options she made out for us. Should the Commission determine that it would like to see a recommendation from the IEB as to how to move forward relative to the civil administrative penalty if any in these matters. How does it how does a how does Commission disagreement or you know a single commissioners disagreement get addressed during that process? With the penalty the recommended amount. Yes. Okay, so the process would be you know at this meeting at a later time the Commission would decide that it wants to essentially ask the IEB to make that recommendation. The recommendation then goes out. They make the recommendation it comes out to the Commission and the operator at the same time and if the operator basically either asks for a new judiciary hearing to which they're entitled then it will come to the Commission in a judiciary hearing and the recommendation kind of doesn't matter. The Commission will make its own decision. If the let's say that the operator waves the opportunity for hearing, the matter comes back before the Commission for discussion and whether to approve the recommendation or to reject the recommendation. So it's at that point that a Commissioner who might disagree with the recommendation has the opportunity to talk about it with the Commission whether or not they want to accept the recommendation and it would be sort of a very standard Commission decision making process at that point. Does that is that helpful. It does just to clarify though it's after the operator is notified of the recommendation that the you know that any disagreement gets raised. That's correct. Yes, thank you for the questions. So today, this is my suggestion on process commissioners. We, we, I don't believe we have to vote, but we can come to a consensus about next steps. So I was imagining that we would mark this, these two non compliance issues for future date or disposition. Today we can decide whether we want to exercise one of the two options for us to handle it directly, or we could decide. IEB to go back, do some further work, make a recommendation then come back to us and still retain that that this sort of original right to dispensing the decision. Or we could decide to have IEB manage it according to the option that Caitlyn outlined ultimately it comes in front of us for either to approve or somehow amend the IEB's decision. So I am looking for knots on preference here. And I may choose in the order of exercising my own discretion as to who I asked first because I do, I would like to know have input from everyone. This is an important first decision making point on these matters. I think we recognized that we would probably have almost immediately issues with respect to non compliance, given this industry and that's actually one reasons why we work through that discipline regulation and review the statute. So, I'm going to turn to turning to Commissioner Maynard, what do you think. Madam chair, I think that I would sitting here thinking actually, you know, we're early on in this process of regulating sports wagering. I would say that I want the Commission to have as much input as possible at this period and at this juncture. Recognizing that potentially we take a different approach in the future, but I just would really like to to be able to make some decisions on this and not defer it outside of what I think 23 and gave the commission. And so I would, I would like to be a little more hands on, especially early on in this process. I'll turn to the follow up as to which of the two will just do generally Commission versus IEB now and then we'll think about the two options as to the Commission. Next. Okay, I'll turn then to Commissioner Skinner. Thank you, Chair. Like Commissioner Maynard I do like the idea of gathering as much information as possible before the Commission as a body makes a determination relative to any administrative penalty warranted here if any. What I've heard so far. I don't think that there is a reason to deviate from the way the Commission handles these matters under 23 K. I would like the benefit of IEB continuing its work to ascertain a little bit more of the facts relative to the cases in those other jurisdictions where penalties were assessed for similar violations and make a recommendation to the commission based on their fact finding. I don't want to find facts here. And, and, and, you know, I don't know if there's a hybrid sort of option where IEB is determining the facts and then the commission is setting forth any penalties that that might be involved I mean as I, as I see the options and I could be wrong. It's, it's all or nothing so if the commission retains the authority to review this matter. In the first instance, IEB is completely out of the out of the process. So Commissioner Skinner, could I actually jump in just for a clarifier on that? Yeah, because I don't believe that we're that the option of our under the regulation of holding an adjudicatory hearing let's do that one first rather than public meeting means that the IEB is out altogether. In fact, I'll have Caitlin and Todd jump in but my understanding from my experience would be that we would have the IEB report and, and it could be it's full some report if it needs to continue to do some work. It would come to us. We'd be able to ask IEB questions and adjudicatory hearing. We would also be able to hear the operator and ask questions. We would hear both sides of the story, we would be hearing it, and then ultimately making a decision. We could ask my experiences that IEB could deliver a recommendation in its report, or we could ask IEB to withhold making a recommendation and not, and not given amount but it would not be that we would be proceeding without the benefit of IEB. We would be able to proceed with that. We'd also have the benefit of being able to ask the operators questions directly ourselves. Mike, is that too high of a level summary and is it close to accurate, Caitlin? Yes, if the commission shows an adjudicatory hearing in the first instance, the commission could call in the IEB as one of the parties to present evidence and commission could ask the IEB questions, much in the course of the normal adjudicatory hearing that you're used to. And then in turn, the other interested party as well. Correct, of course, yep. And now in terms of the question. Yes, chair and Caitlin, what information would the commission have available to it in advance of that adjudicatory hearing? I might have missed that part. If there were an adjudicatory hearing, we would go through the standard adjudicatory hearing process. So we'd have a pre-hearing conference with the operator and the IEB, at which point schedule would be set for submitting evidence for the record for a witness list. Basically following the adjudicatory hearing rules under 205CMR 101 in under Chapter 30A there. And so that would all be set. The commissioners would get the exhibits in advance, but you would hear the evidence take testimony during an adjudicatory hearing. Okay. And would one of those exhibits be an IEB report? It absolutely could be. Okay, all right. It's my experience that the IEB's report would always be introduced unless for some reason we said we don't want it. I can't imagine we wouldn't want to hear it. I see Commissioner Ryan nodding her head as well. But does that require an affirmative request by the commission? Because for IEB to be involved, does the commission have to affirmatively, excuse me, affirmatively invite them to be involved in that process? I'm going to turn to Commissioner O'Brien, Caitlin, if that's okay, go right ahead. Commissioner O'Brien, this is a really important, this process, understanding these processes are really important. Commissioner O'Brien. My experience has been that the commission can direct the IEB to conduct an investigation and define the scope and not ask, they can ask for recommendation. We can also say we don't want a recommendation. We want you to go out. These are the factors we want you to investigate. We want to come back with a report. We're going to do an adjudicatory hearing and then we're going to decide what the infractions are and what the penalties are, if any. Traditionally, if they've gone on their own and gotten something through 23K and gone forward, it comes to us with a recommendation already in place. So you can ask for it. I think in this circumstance and to sort of jump the queue, I know we're going in reverse longevity order. So I'm jumping over Commissioner Hill when I say this but given the new industry, given the fact that this is new, I would like us to be more involved. But I sort of agree somewhat with what Commissioner Skinner was saying and sort of an open ended request to IEB to just come forward with something in the adjudicatory settings so that we can make our determination as a body in terms of the tone we want to set going forward. In this case, we already have some reports from IEB. We work very closely with our legal team. They would be able to, they would ask us which exhibits we want and who we want to have as witnesses. And when I said I couldn't imagine that we would not want our IEB, that's our greatest investigative resource to provide us with the facts. Unless we had no IEB, we would still have some investigation done if it was a different team, but we're lucky that we have all these resources right here within our organization. Yeah, so so I'll wrap up my thoughts notwithstanding that clarification. I still would like to see in these two instances and I know we have a third one that's headed our way soon, a recommendation from IEB. We've had, you know, the three of these now in a week and a half time. I don't know what the volume is going to be, but certainly as we were reviewing operator applications. We learned that these are relatively routine and I'm not sure who used the word routine, but they're relatively routine matters. And I don't know if it's a good, an efficient use of the commissioners to review each and every one of these instances, these incidents at an adjudicatory hearing in the first instance. I just wanted to follow up. I agree we want to be really, I want, we want to be really aware of resources and efficiencies. The opposite also applies. Our IEB is quite stretched. I also want to point out what Caitlin said and our regulation encourages this at some point. Once we start to understand the lay of the land, we'll understand what is ordinary and what is expected and then we could have a policy set up to decide, you know, which, which items should go to IEB in the first instance. And I would say that my inclination is to preserve always the commission's opportunity in any policy would be to always reserve the right for first instance, but you're absolutely right. Commissioner Skinner create efficiencies we've wanted to think about that from policy perspective. I also would add that this is an opportunity for us to set the stage somewhat and lead our IEB with our sensibilities as the commission. So I don't downplay that. I also understand that you're saying this seems for you to be more, you know, ordinary course right now. You know, I think that, you know, this is something that I'm pleased to see all of the, the two operators have self reported and taking it very seriously. And they are instituting very significant measures because they recognize it is a violation of statutory law. So, I like the response. So, from my perspective, we could you're absolutely right for administrative purposes send it to IEB. But there's, we can achieve that policy and that is something, you know, a bit of homework. Commissioner Skinner we were going to have to do to get that policy underway so. But I think that's absolutely the ultimate solution for to make sure we don't find ourselves. Right. You don't want to see that either. Yeah, I don't. And I, and at the same time I do appreciate your position chair and that of commissioners Maynard and O'Brien. I just, I would like to, I would, you know, approach it in the, in the reverse. I would get the understanding of sort of the lay of the land from IEB during their identification of these kinds of issues they're reporting to the commission, and then determine whether or not there is an extenuating situation that warrants, you know, an adjudicatory hearing conducted by the commission in the first instance. And remember there's an adjudicatory hearing, and there's a public meeting option where notice goes out, you know, afterwards, and then for IEB, ultimately it comes before us in any case with always the right to an adjudicatory hearing. As the Caitlyn says adjudicatory hearing this process and that's to be clear why adjudicatory hearing is important is because these issues are important for licensure, and they reflect upon the operators interest so now turn to the commission. I'm sorry, chair, one final thought on the public meeting option, you know, I would, I would hardly ever opt for that. I just, I think that, you know, having this information be provided to the operators for the very first time in the, in the public realm, or being able to speak to them anyway in the public realm is, is a little unbalanced. Okay, so thank you. And we'll turn to that issue. Again, because I know the Commissioner may or hasn't been able to speak about that Commissioner help and then we'll go back to Commissioner Brian for her final thoughts. Thank you Madam Chair. Always find these conversations to be very helpful to hear everybody's views on this. So my initial thought, when we first started this conversation is, and I hope that we can get back to it at some point in the future, is to have the IEB do their recommendation and do the work of finding and things of that sort. However, during the conversation I think I heard the word IEB is stretched right now. And that, and that is an understatement. I think as a commission we can be helpful to them at this point at the beginning of this new industry. But with the information, have it come before us we make the decisions with IEB and an adjudicatory hearing, but I do hope in the future when we do have a lay of the land and the operators get a sense of where the commission is in regards to these types of violations that they will make in the future, that when the IEB does their reporting and investigations and come up with a plan for for some type of a fine structure that it is left to them but at this point, I agree with my fellow commissioners that because of the newness of this industry that I want to be as involved as I can be with the help of the information that I can get through IEB adjudicatory hearing. Okay. Fine and simple. Okay, Commissioner O'Brien. Yeah, I'm sorry, could we turn to Director Lillian who's unmuted or something. Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you, Commissioner Skinner. Director Lillian. Sure, just, you know, great conversation interested of course obviously to hear how the commission wants to proceed and thank you for Commissioner Hill for acknowledging the IEB's workload, but I did want to just reassure the commission that whatever you want to rely on the IEB for, we do have the resources for important matters like this. So I just wanted to clarify on that point that if you chose to go with option three, we have the capacity to do that. Thank you. You can ask any question clarifying or otherwise. In terms of Director Lillian's in terms of IEB in their involvement in either process that that the commission decides to take whether it's hearing the adjudicatory, you know, conducting the adjudicatory hearing or taking a from IEB instead. There's really is there is there any difference in the level of commitment and resources that IEB would have to expend. It's the same documentation that's that's culminating out of your review, correct. Any discipline matter is a matter of the most importance to the commission and to the IEB so we are going to dedicate resources to it and make sure that we are thorough and fair. That's what I think is important for everybody's benefit. Certainly, an adjudicatory hearing adds a different kind of layer to this, where the IEB is expected to have a role. I agree with Commissioner O'Brien that the it's expected that the commission would rely upon the IEB for factual review and to present some kind of report and to make available the internal experts on the sports wagering division and in the IEB to be available as witnesses at any adjudicatory hearing. So, you know, in terms of resources we are prepared to do whatever needs to be done to resolve these matters fairly and in a way that addresses the commission's concerns and is fair to the licensee. Well said, Commissioner Skinner. I am, yep. Okay, I'll turn to Commissioner O'Brien then. I don't really have much to add aside from what I said already really which is that as Commissioner Hill said in the long run, when we have decided as a commission, sort of the scope, the scale of pines that sort of thing the prioritization of this commission in terms of enforcement, that it would fall for the most part in the first instance to IEB, but I do think at this point, this commission has an obligation to take a more active role in terms of setting what we want to prioritize, what is the range of fines that we want to put out. I know there was some level of discussion early on under 23K with the composition of the commission at that time that gave guidance to IEB in terms of the fines and that sort of thing. I do think it's relevant here. And while I'm always interested in hearing what other jurisdictions have to say. I also feel like we as a body prioritize as we choose to prioritize and so while it's information I'd like to have is not dispositive to me in terms of moving forward and setting the tone on this so just sort of reiterating what I had said earlier, Madam Chair. Thank you. Okay, Commissioner Maynard. Thank you, Madam Chair. I know you're going to pose a harder question, but if I can just make a point. And it's Commissioner O'Brien usually gets to go first and it's a hard position. Commissioner O'Brien I just learned because I don't think I said everything I wanted to say which I think exactly I think you and I are on the same on the same wavelength, Commissioner O'Brien, and I think the work that Loretta and her team does is so important. And I definitely will use it as I've been using it. I read it last night, right. What I believe and for a lack of a better phrase is that the commission this early on and as I said earlier in its infancy needs to set the goalposts. And I think you're totally right, Commissioner O'Brien it's because we may look at it differently than other jurisdictions we may see things differently. Once we set the goalposts, I totally believe this could go to a 23K type of matter. But we have to start setting parameters and it was actually something you asked Commissioner Skinner during the questions that really stuck in my head which was we will only get to weigh in at the very end if an operator comes to us. The operator may decide it's not worth coming to us right it's not worth the additional days off of work to come back into a commission meeting or what have you. And so that really stuck in my head and so for those reasons I think I'm falling exactly where Commissioner O'Brien, Commissioner Hill, I think Commissioner Skinner falling which is, I just, I want to set the goalposts with with with my fellow commissioners early on. And then see how it's working and I know that's going to create a little bit more work on the front end, both for the commissioners and for the IB who has to show up and engage in this process, but I think early or later on it's going to be very beneficial to the entire organization. And so I would say that we have to be a very active participant madam chair and, however, whether it's a meeting option or whether it's, it's, you know, the hearing option I want to be as active as a participant to set the goalposts. Thank you. Can I ask a clarifying process questions then Caitlin, just so that I reminded. If we were to, and I'm hearing that there's a growing consensus perhaps of the Commission of exercising discretion, at least in these early stages, but if we were to have IB at any time do this. Processes IB works with the operator, they may come up an agreement, they all, or disagreement but ultimately there's a decision made by IB, the operator accepts it. But even if they accept it, they still have to come before us correct. Yes. And now to Commissioner Skinner's point that I forget the word that you used unbalanced. At that time, it will be in a public meeting where the IB and would be presenting its decision, whether it's agreed upon or not right. That's only if it's an agreement. It's agreed upon and the operator waves the opportunity for in due to tutorial hearing, then it would come back to the Commission, presumably the IB would report on what happens to find amounts the waiver, and then the commission would have the opportunity to vote on whether it accepts that amount. Or, or just chooses not to accept that amount and then you would move forward within a due to tutorial hearing. Okay, so at that juncture Commissioner Skinner. If it turned out that the IB and the operator were on one end of the, the scale of assessments and commission whether it's this body or future body is really quite divided in terms of, of how that the choice and the agreement. That would be done in the public meeting. I just wanted to point that out so where it would be but it would be at the end, more at the end than at the, the, the public meeting option that is an option for us, but ultimately the statute did contemplate twice that the fines be discussed in public and Commissioner Skinner I am. I like that we have options of. I understand why you had concerns about that option of the public meeting and addressing fines. We also have at certain points with with certain factual situations there might be an appropriate executive session but that's more limited right under certain, as we always do. Otherwise, I be ultimately would always come to us in a public meeting. At the end, just different than 23 K. Okay, so we can mark this up now. I know at one point a judiciary hearings were considered this idea that it would be very labor intense and and and cause delays. I think we've figured out that with our suitability hearings that they, and our other judicatory hearings that we've gotten more nimble, and we know how to proceed with them. So, but there are some notice matters. Okay, and so if you wanted, if we were to option if we were to go with the judicatory hearing. What would we have for timelines there. We would need to give notice a reasonable notice so. And of course we need the commissioner schedule to be open so Todd within two weeks. That sound reasonable. I mean that would mean that everything worked out perfectly. Yeah, that would be a perfect. I go a couple of months, I mean depending how things go and how much investigation is going on and all that so it depends on the situation. Apologies sorry that is that is assuming the investigation is complete and the IB doesn't need any more time. Right. And, and, and we would be able to have a hearing and, you know, to be clear IB. We would have to do all the negotiation that process but then they have to do all the negotiation back and forth we would be getting it done in, in, in a, in a meeting in a, in a hearing so we can mark this up for a judicatory hearing after notice commissioners, we could mark this up in a public meeting and, and in as for additional information. I'm hearing commissioner Skinner saying that that's probably really her last favorite option. So, where are we in terms of the actual process. Commissioner Hill you made it very clear and a judicatory hearing and you're staying with that recommendation or that option. I'm seeing nodding heads. Okay, what about in terms of what we need from IB. We have two reports and I think they're kind of back. These are factual circumstances. Do we need anything further from IB at this juncture. Michelle Bryan is there something you would want in addition to what we have. I don't think so. No. Commissioner Skinner. Yeah, I said this earlier I'd be looking for IB to provide the information relative to the violations from those other jurisdictions Heather walked us through a couple of examples, but it would be helpful to have something in writing from IB that captures some of the more, more some of the similar violations that we're dealing with now. Thank you. And I just know process wise. So because now we're talking about a specific judicatory hearing. And so what the commission might consider requesting is sort of a more general memo about fines and this type of instance that could be used in a variety of situations as opposed to a situation specific because I'm just I'm thinking of the rules of evidence while they don't technically apply to in a judicatory hearing you want to be a little bit careful about that kind of information coming in. That's not specific to the to the situation at hand. Is there is there an issue Caitlyn with that information coming in at all or is is the, is it okay to have that information come in with just advanced notice to, to the operator. You're muted. Caitlin. Thank you apologies. I would absolutely be given to the operator as part of the investigatory here judicatory hearing and I'm sure that's fine. I'm just thinking that, you know, it's sort of akin to a newspaper article that wouldn't come in at trial. You, the evidence that would come in in a judicatory hearing would relate to the specific violation, and it generally wouldn't include information about other situations and fines given in other situations. But the commission could ask for that information separately just as part of its general business. And just have that that separately it may also be given as an exhibit but I'm hesitant to sort of have that be a practice where information about, you know, fines from other jurisdictions is coming in at a judicatory hearing. Yeah, and I deferred it you legal folks, you know, to determine how the information gets to commissioners but that is something that I would be interested in digging. We can, we can work on that. Okay, so in terms of giving direction to the organization. Is it fair for me to say we have consensus, acknowledging commissioner skinners, very fair observations about the IB and how we do rely on them, and also acknowledging the others. Recognizing that this may be a good time for the commissioners to just know so much at the stage. Am I hearing that there's leaning toward the option that Caitlin outline at the beginning the adjudicatory hearing, we would get that underway. It seems to me, you could have the two that they're relatively straightforward in terms of facts. We hear from the, the operators directly and we follow up with our questions for them in terms of various matters and then how we decide to assess. And any non compliance will be determined based on the facts before us at during that hearing. Does that all make sense that we're leaning toward the adjudicatory hearing. I just need I'm going to do a taking a temperature commissioner Brian. Yes, that makes sense to me. Mr. Hello. That makes sense to me as well. I'm just acknowledging your other position. How are you feeling about this in terms of anything that I'm missing? Noting your first choice was to go straight to IB. Yeah, I'm fine with with moving forward in the fashion you suggest, Madam chair. Okay, and then we'll start to gather a policy, you know, over over time. Commissioner Maynard, how are you feeling? I'm feeling good. I want to ask one clarifying question. Madam chair. In. In this situation, would a recommendation come? Maybe this is for Caitlin from IB or not before we started hearing. Commissioner, as we can, we have an option. Do we want a recommendation or do we want to allow us to shoot on it without that commissioner Brian? I think for me, the, the, I mean, I think as Caitlin pointed out, the information that we'd get in our normal business in terms of ranges of what's out there is informative, but I'm not looking for a specific recommendation from IB. Commissioner Hill? I'm here, Madam chair. Okay, Commissioner Maynard. Commissioner Skinner, I know again, your first position, but you should state on the record what you want. I would love to get a recommendation from IB. Okay, and Commissioner Maynard. With that clarifying question answered, I think I would be more in the realm of commissioner Brian and Commissioner Hill, which is I'm okay with seeing a range. I would say anything that was provided in that vein, I would like to know why it's provided, right, which would be a little more information. You know, I mean, just naturally, what I'm sitting here thinking is, you know, if we were to go forward in a totally different manner, and the IB leveled some fine, I would like to know why they were going to level that fine and how they calculated it. So I think a range is fine, but I do want to reserve the final decision. And I would support the hearing to answer your initial question. It sounds like I mean, so just the question is interesting in terms of you, Commissioner Maynard asking whether we would get a recommendation from IB. I think this speaks to the, or your question speaks to the hybrid option that I was referencing earlier. I mean, could the question ask for a recommendation. I guess what, how would how would that recommendation utilize should I be provide the information again, deferring back to Caitlin and legal as to how the commission gets that information in terms of, you know, the specifics around the other jurisdictions. In what form would we receive that information. And if, if, if we're receiving that information at a minimum, I don't think it would hurt to also get a recommendation from IB on the amount of the penalties with the understanding that it would merely be informative. No, I do need to just pause for a second part of our decision making will be one. Should there be an assessment. That's right, but but if there's a recommendation on that so I want to know what I'm sorry. I was, I was saying that if IB is, if there's a recommendation from IB not to assess a penalty, I find I would find that information valuable again, not, not, you know, deeming that information or that recommendation as final, but it would be good to know. So, I want to point out so there's a whether or not there will be would be a finding that there should be an assessment and then what it is having having done the beneficiary of a hearing enormously complex so one might have thought it would have been a necessity to have IB give a recommendation, having no recommendation allowed the commissioners to have very wholesome discussion and to come to their own conclusion and to own it. I would say that I inherited that I when I came to this commission I inherited that decision that there would be no recommendation. So in my mind I'm, I'm very comfortable with that. I'm also very comfortable with the idea that at some point, these matters of certain qualities would go to the IB. I see that that's the distinction. If we're going to own it. I'd like to be able to ask both parties. I mean both with your sets of witnesses, IB and the operator, both some questions and be able to make a decision on the facts before me. If there's a recommendation coming. I, I just want to point out that that might be more limiting for our discussion than we might be anticipating right now. Commissioner Brian you had the benefit of that as well but you've seen more probably than I have with your extra year service so I don't know how you feel when you think about that. You know, I mean so part of the reason I'm not looking for a recommendation in this instance from IB is in no small measure the hearing that you're talking about and I also inherited the decision when I came in that decision to request IB to do the investigation without a referral recommendation preceded my parents on the commission, but I agree with you what my concern and part of the reason I even want to go through the adjudicatory process and something like this now is for the five of us to set the tone and the parameters and the range. My hesitation with asking IB to come up with that right now is that an expectation is then set that we're then working against as opposed to we get information about what's in the ether and other jurisdictions, and then we as a five come together and make the decision. So, I actually don't like the idea of IB giving us a recommendation at this point for that reason. I do go back and there was a range of opinions back in 2019 when we did that hearing in terms of fines in particular in total amounts so I don't really want to have the process influenced by the recommendation from IB. And this is in no way to disrespect IB or their expertise but we are also in a new industry and so that's part of the reason where I would like this commission to take someone of a lead in terms of what we think. And then once that's established and IB knows where this commission sits and that may fluctuate over the years, but I think going forward particularly as we launch that's what I would like to see. I gave that background Commissioner Skinner because again, I inherited it and I wasn't the beneficiary I guess Commissioner Browning weren't either of why that decision was made, but it did allow for us to start with a complete clean slate and come to a consensus among the five commissioners and the makeup of each commission will always be different. And so, for the launching of this industry now as Commissioner Browning's right now it kind of sets that tone. A policy may also down the line will will will further set that tone and my sense is as the commission evolves. There will be changes as we see the industry and see how it operates. But I think this is kind of our leadership role is how I feel. And this happens to be the first matters that are before us right these are the first ones that come to us. There's some legal reasons for that as well that if I may be heard it may be helpful as you continue to process this but in the other areas that IB does give recommendations. That is based in statute or in regulation you know when we give a recommendation on a qualifier the statute says that on a gaming license the statute calls for that. When we do assess a fine that when we do assess a fine in the gaming realm. We give the notice of the intent to assess the fine but part of that process is that we invite the licensee to present mitigating information and that process. The process is then protected from on a further review by the mere fact that we have invited that further information at that stage. It would be I think if you do go to an adjudicatory hearing which is you know what I'm what I'm understanding. Not only is there not a call for an IEB recommendation in the statute or the current regulations, but certainly to get any kind of recommendation before you've had the hearing would not be something that the IEB would would even be able to do because you know the whole purpose of having the hearing is to hear both sides of the evidence and the IEB would not have performed that function in this scenario that you're talking about going to the hearing in the first instance. So I think the IEB is very limited in its ability to provide a recommendation. You know what going into a hearing. Well, I suppose. Well, maybe not. Caitlin. Just try to try to think about commissioner Skinner's interest at the conclusion of the adjudicatory hearing. All the evidence is now before us. I'm going to ask the IEB for a recommendation if it wanted it after everything's been her. I'm trying to think of the most complex matter where all of a sudden we like that recommendation. I think the IEB has noted that is not directly in the statute or the regulation, but I suppose if the commission had heard all the evidence decided it did want to issue a penalty. And then it wanted further input from the IEB on the amount of the penalty. Perhaps it could ask for that after the fact after everything else is done. And I think that would be great to sort of look into that a little bit more, but it's potentially a possibility. Okay, thank you. Like a sentencing recommendation kind of thing that, you know, and you know, I don't have that background, but I was thinking of my colleagues who do have that. So commissioners, can we turn to just now directing legal to work with the parties IEB and the operators and I think to line up to dates in the near near future, not two months out closer to two weeks. And I know Todd is thinking what, but you know the realm of reason will mess in terms of our schedules to get these these matters underway. In a nimble fashion, our fellow fellow regulators across the country have been able to act properly on these matters and I'd like to be able to replicate that. You know, understand that we have our own statutory requirements. Is that enough direction for now commissioners? Is there anything further that we need to give? Karen, what do you think? Is there anything that we're missing? Okay, Caitlin and Todd, all set. I think we're all set. Trudy, of course, is our takes care of all the commissioner schedules. So please be in touch with Trudy about our schedules. And there she is. Good morning still Trudy. Thank you so much. All right. Anything else? All right. Really important discussion and it had to go long because it's our first day at first time at this and so it's really helpful to get through the process a bit. Before we now go to item number four, commissioner Skinner did reference that there has been a third and a third no compliance issue that's come to the gaming commission's attention. I don't want that to garner attention and somehow suggest that we're not addressed, you know, not being transparent. I just hadn't done an update from you. Director band so I wonder if you want to give us an update on that and that will be something that we'll be looking at. Yes, we're sure. We've been notified by the third licensee MGM that there was an incident of betting on a Massachusetts basketball game, which happened to be Harvard. Yale game, the Harvard Brown game. We were notified this weekend of that and it's currently being investigated. Okay. And that was also sorry. I have that attorney Kramer is going to be working with director band on preparing a similar summary that that we provided with respect to the two matter we were discussing today. You know, I expected that will be, you know, relatively soon and certainly open to hearing the commission's feedback on when they would like to have that summary. I wanted to let you know that that were basically approaching it in the same way as we approach the other two. Okay, excellent. And just as a reminder, it was stopped reported. Yes. Okay, thank you. Any questions commissioners on that. All right, we'll look on. Get the update on that. As we have here and proceed. Karen, second director Wells, we're moving on to item number four commissioners is quarter of 12. I'm thinking that these matters might be relatively straightforward that we never know. So I'd like to continue on unless we need a five minute break commissioners. Okay, let's continue and but wave your hand if you need that. Okay. Here we go. So I'll start with item for a the determination of Massachusetts boundaries. This is more well marked up for a vote that was a cautionary measure there is no vote that needs to be taken today on this matters more of an update for the was the commission. As you're aware, to find a 204 205 CMR 243.01. All bets are to be placed in the commonwealth and we that's also pursuant to the wire act as well. So the location vendors and our operators and requested the definition of Massachusetts boundaries as such our legal team has worked both internally and with our outside counsel and an expert on tribal law to gather information on this issue. Generally, the state border defines the area where people can bet on their phones or mobile apps, but there are two notable issues I just wanted to make the commission aware. The border for geolocation purposes doesn't send three miles into the water off the Massachusetts shore so outside counsel, we love which had researched that for us. And yes, people in their votes can bet on their phones if they're in the water. So we did get some confirmation of that for legal purposes. We have identified the sovereign tribal land of the mash P and the acquina needs to be geofenced off for purposes of sports wagering and mobile sports wagering and out of respect for the tribes. The chair has reached out to both of them so that the lines of communication are open on this process. And we honor the sovereignty of the tribe in this respect. We are ready to go be in contact of some last minute details on information to the geolocation provider. But I expect we'll be ready to go and no vote as I said is needed today. If there are any issues will come back before the commission or notify any concerns but we expect that this part of the process in launching sports wagering should be all set to go going forward. Are there any questions on that. No questions actually there's a question, but it's just on on process could you indicated that attorney poverty was advising on this matter is there any material you can share with consumers relative to his legal opinion. Todd I don't know if he did anything with risk because he looked into the water area and then we have another tribal expert dealing with the sovereignty of the tribe and we also had some internal research on the Todd if you can answer that question. This is a Supreme Court case that talks about the boundary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the United States versus main it was 1975 matter and, you know, I, we can get into a little bit of the details if that would be helpful but that it basically could be a little bit of the details and Caitlin can refine what I'm about to say here a little bit that the boundary is a geographic boundary that stretches three miles into the water as opposed to a nautical mile a way of contrast so that's where that three mile figure comes from. Could you share that case Todd and any other ego research that you guys haven't have conducted just looking to stay informed on the issues. And that that so that concludes item for a for item for be I'm going to turn that over to Bruce and to sterile is Bruce. Bruce is loose Bruce, I can check. We've got sterile but he'll come right back on. I'm sure, maybe he's going to heat up his coffee like I'm about to. I'll go check next door he is right next door to be here hold on. I'm sure he'll be right back. I'm sure. Yes. This might be a good time for a 10 minute break. I think so too. Let's go back return it noon. This way everybody can take a break and I think we'll be able to wrap up before lunch Bruce is back but we'll take a 10 minute break. Thank you. Thank you. I'll set Dave. I'm back now. There you are Bruce. My phone, my phone ran, you know, it was on the phone. I'm going to grab my cup of coffee. So there we go. Good. Good. It's a win-win. It was, it was more than that. Thank you so much. All right. Just wait commissioner. Hill, you're on. I'm here. I'm here. I'm here. Great. Mr. Skinner. I'm here. Thanks. Thank you. So we were just about to turn to item four B. On our agenda. And I turn now I think Karen now let you do the introduction. You're muted Karen. Turn that over to director band and our manager. And I'm here now. The sports wagering division has received questions regarding whether certain types of wagers may be offered pursuant to. 23 N regulation. And approved sport wagering catalog. Specifically questions have been received related to the offerings for awards given. on Massachusetts collegiate teams that have not yet qualified for a tournament. Wagers on Massachusetts collegiate teams, if the outcome of the event is decided via regular season results only and associated issues related to the scope of permissible wages. We have in your packet a draft fact documents sets out questions that have been received along with proposed answers by the commission's review and input. Once approved, the fact can be posted by the MDC on the website and distributed to operators. While answers are pending, the operators have created offering sports wagers awards given to individual collegiate athletes, future bets in Massachusetts collegiate teams that have not yet qualified for a tournament and wagers on Massachusetts collegiate teams, excuse me, while answers are pending, the operators have ceased offering wagers on awards given to individual collegiate athletes, future bets on Massachusetts collegiate teams that have not yet qualified for a tournament and wagers on Massachusetts collegiate teams if the outcome is decided via regular season results only. Any bets already placed on those teams offerings have been locked to the extent that they exist, right? And I will have Sterl go over the wagers with you. Mr. Carpenter. Thank you, Mr. Ban. So, Caitlin and Todd went over questions that the sports wagering division received. We received questions on the Heisman, on wagers that partake in tournaments and wagers of regular season. Attorney Monahan put together a frequently asked questions from with the statutes and the legal division's interpretation and I'll turn it over to Caitlin since she provided the memo to the commissioners. Thank you. Thanks, Sterl, appreciate it. So, commissioners, what I would propose is to do is just walk through each of these questions so we can pause after each one in the event there are any questions. But just wanted to get your input and thoughts on this before of course anything went live because it does relate to what types of sports and wagers can be offered by the sports wagering operators. So the first question, pretty straightforward. Can a sports wagering operator offer a wager on a college team from Massachusetts that is not involved in a tournament? Pretty straightforward, no on this. The statute is very clear that operators aren't permitted to offer wagers on college teams from Massachusetts that aren't involved in a collegiate tournament. Let me know if you have any questions on that but I think that one is pretty straightforward. Can I just get a clarification? Caitlin, you said aren't, or are not, correct? Are not involved in a tournament, yep. Thank you. So the second question is can a sports wagering operator offer a wager on a college team from Massachusetts if the outcome of the wager is decided via regular season results only. And just to clarify what this means, can an operator offer a wager on a Massachusetts team winning the Big East which is not a tournament, it's just the team with the best record in the Big East Conference. And the answer to that that we believe is no. For the reasons explained above, you cannot offer a wager on a Massachusetts college team if the outcome of the wagers decided via the regular season results only and not via a collegiate tournament. The exception is actually pretty small for wagers on Massachusetts collegiate teams. They have to be involved in a collegiate tournament which is defined as a tournament with four or more teams. All right. The next question is can a sports wagering operator offer wager on a college team that is not from Massachusetts if the outcome of the wager is decided via regular season results only? So same situation as the last one except the operator is offering a wager on a team from outside of Massachusetts basically winning the Big East. We are winning a whole conference. The answer to that is yes. The prohibition on collegiate sports only applies to Massachusetts teams. So the operators can offer wagers on college teams that aren't located in Massachusetts and that is not a problem. Here's one that is a little interesting. Can a sports wagering operator offer a wager on a college team from Massachusetts for an event that will be decided as part of a tournament where the Massachusetts team has not yet qualified for the tournament? So the example here would be can you offer a wager on a Massachusetts team for a game that will occur as part of the March Madness tournament before the team has qualified for that tournament? And our proposed answer to that is no and the reason for that is that the statute talks about or defines the term sports event or sporting event as a professional sport or athletic event, collegiate sport or athletic event, collegiate tournament, motor race event, electronic sports event or other event authorized by the commission under this chapter provided however that it does not include a collegiate sport or athletic event involving one or more collegiate teams from the Commonwealth unless they are involved in a collegiate tournament. So what we're looking at there is the are involved in they have to be presently involved in not hypothetically involved in in the future. So we believe that until the Massachusetts team actually qualifies for the tournament bets cannot be placed on that team. So I'll pause there for any questions. Okay. Yeah, I'll set commissure so far. Thank you. Oh, thank you. I will also note that there we talked about situations where Massachusetts teams are automatically qualified to participate in a tournament an example being the Beanpot where it's the same four teams every year. And we do believe that in that instance where you always know what the teams are they already in the tournament you could do what's called a future wager on those teams. Madam chair, now I do have a question. Okay, that's commissioner Hill. Thank you. Yes. So with that scenario, I know that BC is going to be in the I think they're part of the ACC, correct me if I'm wrong. Correct. You know they're going to be part of the ACC tournament because everybody qualifies for that tournament. Yeah. So what's the difference between the Beanpot and the ACC? There wouldn't be. If it's a tournament where everyone applies like the ACC tournament that you're just talking about you can do a future wager on that because they are involved in. They are, you know that they are going to be in that tournament. It's just a situation like March Madness where not every team qualifies that you have to wait for the actual qualifying event. And that would be the same with it when the NIT as well. Now you're getting too complicated for me, commission. I'll let you know. Another tournament. Yes, another tournament. So we're we're outlining this Commissioner Hill because basketball currently has everyone qualify. So there were several years back that they didn't write. So at that point, they would be excluded. Football, no one makes that final four until the very end. So football would not have these wagers as basketball does. So yes, you are correct. OK, thank you. I have a clarifying question that Commissioner Hill just. Just sparked in my mind. Caitlin, if so, what you're saying, I just want to make sure I understand this. Let's say today it's pre-selection pre-selection Sunday today. If I went and wanted to do a future on UMass and purse to win the national championship, I couldn't do that. Correct, right. But let's say it's selection Sunday. I don't think it's going to happen this year, but let's say I guess next year, right? And UMass then is announced that they qualify. I can go that day and make the future better. Correct. As long as as long as the operator corrects their inputting, right? So I'm assuming the platform provider will then need to allow that wagering to take place. And that's that's actually goes to my question earlier, but yes, that's what I was going to say. It goes to your question earlier of when the flip is switched. You know, once they are qualified, then it's up to the operator to flip the switch and allow the wagering on that. All right, thank you. Great. All right. Commissioner Hill. Yes, so to Commissioner Maynard's question and just for clarification, because I get calls from friends and family and all that good stuff. So as soon as that selection is made on selection Sunday, if the operator clicks that switch that minute, I can go bet on that game. Yes. Yes. Interesting. OK, thank you. OK, great. And we're not ruling out anything for this year. All right. Excuse me. OK, the next question is, is wagering permitted in a collegiate tournament that occurs in Massachusetts? This is a question you received. And the answer is yes. You may offer wagers and collegiate tournaments that occur in Massachusetts. There is not any statutory or regulatory prohibition on offering wagers based on the location of the tournament. It's based on the location of the team in the tournament. So teams from Massachusetts. It doesn't matter if the tournament is in Massachusetts or not. Next question is, are sports wagering operators permitted to offer wagers on awards given to individual collegiate athletes, such as the Heisman Trophy or the Wooden Award? So our proposed answer to this is no. Operators are not permitted to offer wagers given to individual collegiate athletes. And that's based on a reading of 23N and the statute. I will say this one is perhaps a little bit more open for discussion. But there is a prohibition in the statute on, and I'll read it right here at section 3 of 23N that says, sports wagering shall not include the acceptance of any wager with an outcome dependent on the performance of an individual athlete in a collegiate sport or athletic event, including but not limited to in-game or in-play wagers. So our interpretation of that or my interpretation of that, I should say, is that the Heisman Award would have an outcome dependent on the performance of an individual athlete in a collegiate sport and football, even though it's not based on a specific event or a specific game. There are potentially different ways in which that could be read, but I think that is what I would recommend. But happy to take questions on that. Can I just ask a question in terms of timing? These kinds of bets can be placed very early in the season, anytime is a future bet as well, right? Correct. So that's where the element of performance comes into play more? So with the Heisman and the worded, it's not based. Yes, we can say it's based on their statistics on the football field or the basketball court. But it's many different positions in football. Everything is considered. And there are a multitude of factors besides just who throws the most touchdowns or most yards or scores the most touchdowns. So it's not just if somebody does X, they're going to get it, right? And it is also an award, which you also voted on that you are allowed to place wagers on awards. So it skates the sides of both sports and awards. So this is why it was contemplated. That's why we really wanted to bring this in front of the commission to get guidance on what you feel as well. So let's put it into perspective if this were done fluently this year. Exactly. Right? Yep. And let's say it's October or November and not the month of re-in, it's February. February. What do I read? The bet was likely to win the Heisman, but the wager would be placed if they were backing Doug Flutey, would be placed on a Massachusetts athlete. Well, it's not just a Massachusetts athlete. The statue is any individual. No, no, I'm saying, but in that case, it would be a Massachusetts athlete. But in terms of how the bet would go, just the bet, not the law, sterile, how would the bet would say, who do you think? Yeah, they would say, they offer in the words it's offered, who will win the Heisman Trophy? And then they have a selection and you can go down every single college name on a list and they have an appropriate odd set next to them on winning it. And if it were Doug Flutey's year, Doug Flutey's name would be included. And the question here would be, could it be included in Massachusetts? I don't think it's really the in-state issue. It's not everything we're talking about. It's overall, because the statute says, cannot be based on an athlete's individual statistics. So the reading there by the legal department is they're saying, no, the award is won by his statistics. Now, it's not an individual game. It's an entire season-long statistics that he or she goes to winning this award. So there's just the multitude of angles. But as Caitlin is saying, they see it as it's their statistics and that's not allowing via statute. Perhaps I could thank you that Strel is very, very helpful. I think just to clarify, I am focused on the language there that says, sports wagering doesn't include the acceptance of a wager with an outcome dependent on the performance of an individual athlete. So it's an award for an individual athlete in any collegiate sport. And I think football, again, we're just talking about the Heisman as an example, but a collegiate sport would be football. So I think that's where I believe the prohibition comes in on this. And I agree with that, Caitlin, in my reading. That's an individual act that clearly states you can't do that. Sorry, Matt. No, I'm sorry. I was just going to say I'm going to check carefully here because I don't know if I want to be opposite Commissioner Hill on this. And I'm not saying that I don't agree with the legal advice. But I was glad to hear you say, Caitlin, that this one is a little more open for discussion because it's the only one of the scenarios that gave me pause. And it seems as though your legal is fitting the awards ceremony. And I'm almost embarrassed to say I'm not familiar with. I'm familiar, certainly, with the Heisman Trophy, but I'm not familiar with the Woodard. And I have now an entirely new lens with which to start looking at these college sports and events. But it sounds like you are fitting these awards within the definition of collegiate sport or athletic event. Is that right? Well, collegiate sport or athletic event is certainly a defined term. I'm not saying the award is within it. But what I'm saying is the award the awarding of the trophy is an outcome dependent on the performance of an individual athlete. An individual athlete has to be chosen for the award based on their performance in a sport. And so that's where I'm saying it connects. I don't think it actually matters that it's an award versus a wager that Doug Flutey is going to throw a touchdown on the next play. I think it's the same thing. It's an award based on an individual athlete's specific performance. OK. Let's be clear, an individual of a college game. Yes, Colleen did. Yes. A college game. Can I just back up? I got corrected about whether it was in Massachusetts or not. And I'm not really sure what you were driving at because I think I had it right. But Todd, could you explain to me why you were correcting me? Because I thought I had it right. But I guess not. Yeah, we're talking about two separate areas of the statute. The in-state stuff is the carve-out from the definition of an authorized sporting event, which talks about a collegiate sport or athletic event involving one or more collegiate teams. But this would be all Heisman and wouldn't be just Massachusetts. Yeah, this is every college player. And it's a different section of the. So this is really in the definition of sports wagering as opposed to sports event. Thanks for the clarify. There's that carve-out. And just to be a finer point on what Kailin is saying. So the reason why, to Commissioner Skinner's question, it's an open question. The question is whether the Heisman Trophy, the Wooden Award, the Hoby Baker Award, all these end-of-season awards are really dependent on the performance of an individual athlete in a college sport or athletic event? Do you consider the regular season to be a college sport or athletic event? Or is it just a holistic view of the athlete's performance over the course of a season? And that's really why there's some discretion here. So you can't bet on an individual athlete's performance in a specific game. I think everyone would agree on that. You can't say Bryce Young is going to throw four touchdowns in this particular game. That is impermissible under the statute. But can you wager on whether he'll win the Heisman Trophy at the end of the year based upon an assessment of his performance over the course of the whole year? That's a slightly different issue. And that's why we brought it here before you, because it's not black and white. So commissioners, even if it's not black and white, we have the discretion as to what can be in the cabinet. Right? Is that right, Todd? So I mean, obviously, if we're leaning more conservatively to exclude it altogether, we could do that in our catalog, even if there's some gray area in this interpretation. Yes, I think that's right. And Caitlin, she and I were just talking about making sure that there are no unintended consequences of some of these decisions. And that's important to keep in mind, too. But I don't think, Caitlin, correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not sure if there was one that kind of came from this. Yeah, so the issue here. And again, statute could potentially be a little bit more clear. But to the extent you're grappling with how to define sport or athletic event and whether you consider that to only include events or also the sport as a whole, like the sport is the football in a football game or just football games, if that makes sense. This could have an impact on the prohibition on wagering on high school and youth. Because high school and youth use the same language in the statute. So to the extent the commission decided that the term sport or athletic event only includes events, you'd find yourself with potentially an unintended donut hole in the statute that could be someone could argue that you're supposed to be allowed. You could vote a wager on youth or high school events. And I think we're all pretty clear that that is prohibited by the statute. That's right. That's right. Commissioner O'Brien. So yeah, I mean, I'm glad that you pointed that out because I hadn't even gone that far. My hesitancy with expanding the catalog, I think you get a tour to the language a little bit to get to that concept that, well, I'm just looking holistically not individually, so therefore it's OK. Because my understanding, too, of the intent was to protect the student athletes, the collegiate athletes from any sort of pressure or repercussions. And to me, well, might not be a particular game. I think we're subverting the intent of that ban if we interpret that around it. Commissioner O'Brien, my thought was exactly yours. And so I was thinking if there was a notion that there's somehow allowing for the Heisman voting, given the intent, what I see as a general intent to protect the collegiate athlete, I would say, well, if the leaning of the statute is one way, we still have discretion to rule it out. That's really my thinking. But others may disagree. But I agree entirely with you. And you have been a great voice for the college athlete. Commissioner Skinner, are you unmuted? I am. That's what ties it up nicely for me. I agree with the two of you. I mean, I have to say I was grappling just for the reasons that Todd described. But I also took a look this morning at the advertising regs, which prohibit endorsement of college athletes. And so I think to be consistent with what our objective is there, I think the proposed answer to the question is correct. Commissioner Maynard, how are you feeling? I'm the fly in the ointment, which I am perfectly comfortable being. I look at more or less how the selection process goes. So for example, the Heisman has six sections. There's approximately 870 voters that are voting from different media outlets. And then you have a number of former Heisman who can weigh in on the matter. And so I would look at it more if I'm going to make a wager. I'm looking at how this selection process works, how it's going. There could be external factors, as I think Todd mentioned. I'm a little biased on the Wooden Award, seeing as Oscar Sheepway from the University of Kentucky is the current for me. But again, it's the same situation where you have 1,000 voters. And so I was pretty dogged wanting to allow MVPs and so forth to be voted on. I understand that this is truly a tough one, because it does include individual college athletes. And I am sympathetic to that. But at the same time, it's harder for me to see the harm in someone selecting a favorite player and putting some money on it, given that the way it's selected is so broad. I mean, you're talking almost 1,000 people on each one that make a decision. So I think that I may be alone to center here on this one, but that's OK. That is OK. I will like a follow-up, but I'll turn to Commissioner Hill first. I agree with Commissioner O'Brien and Commissioner Skinner. We need to remain consistent here in regards to our collegiate athletes. So at this point, I would agree also with what legal has put before us. Thank you. And my only follow-up, Commissioner Maynard, is that we did agree with respect to awards like the MVP for the NFL. But those are, again, the adult athletes and professional athletes. And because I think these bets can be placed at any time, I think from my perspective, the intent of this Massachusetts legislation was to alleviate that pressure on athletes. I know it's a fun bet. So for the bettors in Massachusetts, they may not be able to place that bet. But it is the pressure on the athletes very early on that might become quite aware that their performance makes a difference ultimately on with respect to sports wagering. And I think that I'm really comfortable giving, as Commissioner Hill said, to be consistent. Madam Chair, I might also add that we can revisit this at any time. And we should, once we get up and running in six months to a year, some of these things that we have chosen not to adopt at this time, we may have a change of mind in the future. But for today's purposes, I think what has been presented, we should be adopting. Can I add just one other thing is to Caitlin's point about opening this up to high school, I want to be clear and on the record because the selection process, so forth, I would never read this to extend to that. I see that the reading could be made. I don't think that me or any other Commissioner on this body would read that that way. Oh, I'm sorry, which way? We would never read to include high school sports. I mean, in the parade of horrible, yeah, the parade of horrible she offered, that was one of the unintended consequences that I don't think. Yeah, thank you for that, clarifier. And I'm sorry, I missed it at the very beginning. So the one thing I wanted to follow up, then Commissioner Hill saying we could revisit. Is this decision to include it as an FAQ sufficient or do we need to clarify in the catalog? I mean, in the first instance, I think the FAQ would be very helpful and we can send it around to the operator so they're clear, especially, I don't think we need to vote necessarily, but once there's clear approval of the commission, if you choose to amend the catalog, we could absolutely do that just for total clarity in the future. Yeah, that's what I'm looking for for guidance. Director Bannon, do you want that or? For this is clarity, I'm sorry. Include it to, if we were to decide, you know what, for right now. I think for right now, I agree with what Clayt Katelyn's interpretation is on this. I wouldn't include it at this point. Not in the catalog. Okay. There's one last FAQ, if we're done with that piece. Oh, there is one. Yeah, the last one. And this is actually not catalog related, but it's a question that we've gotten multiple times. So we want to make sure that's out there and clear. And so the question is, I currently work for a sports wagering operator. May I wager on sports through any of my employer's platforms, mobile application, window, kiosk, et cetera? And the answer to that is no. And that is per regulation. So employees, subcontractors, directors, owners, officers or qualifiers of an operator, as well as those within the same household, shall not place wagers through the operator or through any other operator tethered to the operator on any event. And so that means that if you work for a category one operator, you work at Encore. You can't place a bet at Encore at a kiosk and you can't place a bet through the tethered category three operators that are tethered to Encore's Cat One license. And so we just wanted to be very clear about that, put that out there so that everyone knows what the deal is on that. Madam Chair, I have a question. Yes, and I need to clarify. Yes, Commissioner Hill. Caitlin, does that mean that employee could go to MGM or PPC? Yes, they could. Yes. And I realized I was confusing the issue by suggesting it's not a net, you don't put a negative in the catalog. So I'm thinking to myself, so thank, nobody pointed that out to me, but you wouldn't put a, you can't vote on Heisman in the catalog. So just our FAQ was suffice. So thank you. I'm thinking this process through Director Ban. We're, it's also like almost like a house rule I was thinking rather than the catalog of allowable events. So thank you. And in terms of this FAQ list, should we assume that this is going to continue to grow because it is probably dynamic, right? Caitlin? I think so, and I can defer to Bruce and Strelnet, but we have seen a lot of questions coming in and what we've done with these questions you could probably tell, we didn't get that exact wording. We took a bunch of questions, we boiled it down to these and we'd like to put these on the website for clarity so that we don't have to answer individual questions one off and also just for consistency, but we can continue to sort of bring questions back to the commission as they come in. That's excellent. And if you could work with Mills too, cause I know I'm sure you have been, but he gets, Tom Mill gets questions. And I know wherever we can add clarity, it will help everybody through these FAQs. Okay. This is excellent. Very, very, very helpful. And I see the nuances developing, Strel. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. Anything further on this? Where's your hills? We've got basketball to concentrate on now, now that football's done. But what about the, what about hockey? Well, as you probably know, the Hill family is a hockey family and has been since the birth of both of my children. So we have figure skating as well as hockey. So we're watching all of it unfold, including basketball. Yeah. Well, I know executive director Wells has got some hot players in her household. So I know commissioner Maynard can appreciate this, but there's been a lot of upsets in the college ranks this past week and two weeks. So it's going to be a very interesting NCAAs for sure. All right. So we're now turning to, I guess, that there are no other questions or comments turning to our executive request or consideration for an executive session. Commissioners, I'll let Todd set the stage and we can decide whether or not we want to move into an executive session. Certainly. Thank you, madam chair. The commission was recently notified by way of written correspondence from the department of labor relations that the gaming agents division division has sought to organize with a union known as SEIU local 888 and in preparation and strategic preparation for collective bargaining discussions with that organization, it would likely be beneficial for the commission to be briefed as to the status of the situation and to have presented before it a couple of decision points as far as moving forward is concerned and we do have outside council working with us on that. And so the executive session provisions of chapter 30a, the administrative procedures act allow for a public body such as the commission to go into executive session to discuss this exact subject matter. And if you are so inclined, we are prepared to review and lay out some of the questions before you. Okay, commissioners, as we consider this, you know that I need to read this language into the record, the commission anticipates that it will meet in executive session in accordance with GL chapter 30a, section 21a3 to discuss strategy with respect to collective bargaining in light of the January 2023 Department of Labor Relations decisions in case WMAS 229563 where discussion of the subject at any open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the commission's bargaining position. Any discussion about this or questions for Todd? And if not, I'll take a motion. Madam Chair, I move that we go into executive session for the reasons stated by General Counsel Grossman and yourself on the record. Second. Thank you. Session, Commissioner Bryan. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. And Commissioner Maynard. Hi. And I vote yes, five, zero. I want to just point out that the public session of the commonwealth of the commission's meeting will not reconvene at the conclusion of this executive session. It will be our lunchtime and we have no other business that I understand from the commission. Okay, so we will not reconvene in this public session. I want to thank everyone who's joined us today, the team, you did a wonderful job on some really new areas for us. So thank you and thank you to the public for joining us. So I think we'll wait for, I don't know if Crystal is still navigating this. Executive Director Orrell. I'm here, I'm here. All right, so we'll have... Trying to push everyone in now to open in one second. Yeah, we'll have to have that technical assistance transferred to someone for the time being, so. Well, our handy dandy Dave Sousa is well able and so is Mel, so we're good there. Okay, everybody's been trained. Thank you so much. All right, everyone, thank you again and we will go to the executive session. Thank you. Rick, we'll move you over in one second there. Okay. Hey, Crystal, I'm not sure if you can still hear me. Rick Gello just joined. Can you move him over too please?