 Good to go. Good morning. This is the convening of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission. We are holding a public meeting today and we're doing so virtually. So we will take a roll call. Good morning, Commissioner O'Brien. 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 and happy birthday, Madam Chair. Thank you very much. It's been a busy, busy early morning. So thank you. That's very nice to be on this planet today. So thank you. We have really a big meeting today. It is public meeting number 469. And before we get started, I want to first thank the legislature and Governor Healy for signing the law that allows simulcasting, paramutual wagering and racing to continue today. And we wish all the athletes, that includes the horses, good luck today. As races continue here in Massachusetts. So that all happened seamlessly. And want to thank Commissioner Hill for all your work and Grace Robinson for her work. And of course, Dr. Leibbrand for her work on managing that process. So thank you. The other thing I want to acknowledge is today is the one year anniversary of sports wagering becoming law. It's been a very busy year. And I want to, on behalf of all the commissioners, I know we continue to extend our gratitude to all the team for all of their hard work to stand up sports wagering in a timely fashion that also preserved the integrity of the gaming community and gaming industry here in Massachusetts. And we thank everyone's efforts to always keep in mind the importance of consumer protections and responsible gaming really at the forefront of our minds. So thank you for that. And I think those are all the announcements except it's also the anniversary of Commissioner Maynard's appointment. A lot happened last year on this date. And Director Lillios and I were reminiscing on it. So it was a busy year and now we continue to do important work for our applicant before us today. So we'll turn to the matter of hand. I'm calling to order. As I said, public meeting number 469. And you'll see that the agenda is a continuation. We have met twice already on this matter. And it has to do with the application mess. So at Greyhound application, we refer to either as MGA or of course, Rainham Park. And as noted on our agenda, we met on June 12th and June 20th. And I'm going to turn it over now to our interim executive director, Todd Grossman, but in this case in his capacity as our general counsel to remind us of the legal framework and then continue on commissioners. Are you all set? Is there anything you want to add this morning? All set. All right. Thank you, Todd. Good morning. Thank you. Good morning, Madam chair commissioners and to the applicant members of our team and all who are joining. The commission, of course, as the chair has already noted is scheduled to continue its evaluation today of the application of the Massasoi Greyhound Association Incorporated's application for a category two sports wagering license. You'll recall, of course, that a category two sports wagering license as it pertains to the present applicant is a license issued by the commission that permits the operation of sports wagering in person on the premises where the licensee is authorized by law to conduct simulcast wagering on horse or Greyhound racing and through not more than one individually branded mobile application or other digital platform approved by the commission. Additionally, as it applies to this application, chapter 23 and provides that the commission shall issue a category two license to a Greyhound meeting licensee that conducted simulcast wagering as of December 31st, 2020 as authorized by law that meets the requirements of chapter 23 and the rules and regulations of the commission. And as was noted, the commission commenced its evaluation of the application on June 12th of this year and continued that evaluation on June 20th. It reached a general consensus as to the evaluation of many, but not all of the factors outlined in the regulations. The remaining areas to be addressed pertain first to the preliminary suitability of the applicant and its qualifiers, including overall and financial suitability. And next at the request of the commission, MGA has also provided supplemental information pertaining to its willingness to foster racial, ethnic and gender diversity, equity and inclusion. Accordingly, today there are several items on the agenda for your consideration. First, on July 27th, which was this past Thursday evening, MGA submitted two written requests for withdrawal of a qualifier. The first request is for the withdrawal of Christopher J. Carney as a qualifier to MGA. And the second, which is a related request, pertains to the withdrawal of the Christopher J. Carney sub-chapter S trust as a qualifier to MGA as well. Both requests for withdrawal have been provided to the commission. So the commission's first order of business this morning may be to decide the order in which it would like to address these requests for withdrawal. This is a procedural question at this point and not related to the substance of the request, but at this juncture only the order in which they will be heard and addressed by the commission relative to the continuation of the review of the application that is before you. Prior to making that decision, I would propose that the commission hear both from the IEB and counsel to MGA and Mr. Carney regarding their positions as to the ideal order in which the withdrawal request should be addressed. At that juncture, the commission can determine how best to proceed today. As always, of course, the legal department is here to address any legal questions that may arise as part of that discussion. If the commission is so inclined and after that first issue is discussed, the second item on the agenda concerns presentations and analysis relative to the commission's review and evaluation of MGA's application for the category two sports wagering license. And specifically the commission may choose to move forward with hearing information concerning its preliminary suitability and preliminary financial suitability, one of the areas that were left off last time. And then the third item on the agenda concerns the commission's review and evaluation of MGA's application in accordance with section 218 of our regulations, which includes but is not limited to consideration of the familiar evaluation factors. The commission may address any of the factors listed in today's agenda, including but not limited to reviewing supplemental materials that were provided by MGA concerning again its willingness to foster racial, ethnic and gender diversity, equity and inclusion. You'll recall, of course, that I reviewed the applicable standards and legal principles related to the applications for category two sports wagering licenses on June 12th at the outset of this hearing. I'd certainly intend to review them again as we have customarily done prior to your final deliberation in this matter, but would of course be happy to address any of them now or any other at any other point in these proceedings as it would be helpful. With that, Madam Chair and commissioners, I'm happy to take any questions, but otherwise, I'll turn this back over to you to inquire of the IEB and applicants proceed as you would otherwise like to do it. Thank you. Any questions at this juncture for, we'll say General Counsel Grossman in this room today. Commissioners, are you all set? Okay. So we've had the opportunity to receive and review documentation regarding the request for withdrawal from MGA with respect to an individual qualifier. And we've been asked to consider the order of our decision making. So as General Counsel Grossman indicated, we would probably benefit in that decision making by hearing from both MGA and legal, and I assume that would be in concert with IEB. Does that make sense commissioners? Is that how you'd like to proceed? Okay. I think I saw absolutely. All right. Commissioner Skinner, you're in agreement. So is there a, I'm going to turn to Attorney Nozzle. Thank you for your submission. I don't believe that there's a set order given this is a procedural matter, but I want to defer to you. Would you like to respond to IEB and legal? You'll have the opportunity to respond in any case. Or do you wish to go first? Mr. Nozzle. Thanks, chair. I'm happy if we're limiting this, I guess initial discussion to, to the, I guess, order of presentation today, you know, we were under the oppression first and foremost that we're going to proceed as, as the agenda sort of set out. I understand the commission has, as discretion to do that. I'm happy to give some rationale behind sort of the process. As some initial remarks on this. Or, you know, certainly if the commission wants to hear sort of the presentation on the request to withdraw, what happened to do that as well? And if you do that first, you know, with the understanding, I'd like to reserve to respond to any comments or issues that the IEB or legal team raises. So I think the narrow question right now is, as I understand it, is that one of these requests have been made. I believe that IEB would prefer that we not substantively, and I'm not, and director Lillios, you're going to jump in if I mischaracterized it, would say that we might consider the substance of the request after continuation, continuing on preliminary suitability report submitted by IEB. It's my understanding that your preference would be to go forward on the request first before our review of the IEB report. And so if it would be helpful to give us some guidance on just the order of consideration, that would be a starting point. And then we'll decide if we go further into substance and I'm turning to legal now for help. I think that sounds exactly right. Yes. Mr. Nozzle and or his Mr. Mr. Mauricio is available here today too. But if either or would like to address that, I think that would be helpful. And then of course we could turn to the IEB to get their position after that. Sure. I'm happy to, I'm happy to make some, some remarks about the process. And I guess the sequencing of the commission's decision making and chair, just as a matter of housekeeping, I just did want to introduce sort of who's in the room today. Obviously not everybody is on camera at the same time. So we have many folks who have been, you know, before the commission in connection with this application previously, including Mike Mishno, Joe Kukuchi, Dan O'Brien, Bob Brooks, as attorney Grossman indicated, I'm joined today by attorney Maurizio on behalf of Christopher Carney. We have Christopher Carney, we have George Carney. And of course we have Sue Roderick's and Kevin Regan. Thank you. Turning nose for that. Yeah. So in response to your specific question about the sequencing and how the commission ought to proceed here. You know, first, I think we need to look at the, you know, the regulatory framework that we're within. And clearly in connection with the commission's regulation pertaining to a request to withdraw, it allows that to happen at certain stages. In some cases it can be done without commission review and other stages it is required for commission review. So in this particular circumstance, because of where we are in the process, the commission's regulations as part of the deliberation of preliminary suitability require that the commission approve the request for withdrawal at this, again, at this stage and based upon a good cause. I think just from a process perspective, the determination of the ending scope of your review of preliminary suitability is going to be completely determinative on really whether you grant the request to withdraw or you hold them in abeyance, or you decide to rule on them in another way. That will then formulate exactly, you know, what is before you in determining preliminary suitability. So to me, both from an efficiency standpoint from a, just a standpoint of really focusing the commission on the decision that it has to make, the determination of whether or not these two qualifiers, and again, that's the Christopher L. Carney trust and Christopher L. Carney should be part of the application, is to me a gating issue and really one that ought to be decided and review at least prior to the commission's decision or the commission's determination on the preliminary suitability of the applicant. And I'm not sure if you have anything to add. No, not at this time. Thank you. Other than the say, good morning, chair and members of the commission and staff. My name is Michael Maurizio. I'm counsel to Christopher. And good morning and thank you. For your guidance, attorney nozzle. I do need to correct it because I did, I think I may have said a request for the withdrawal. And of course it's two requests, both for the entity, the sub chapter S trust, as well as the individual qualifier. So thank you. Now I'll turn to director Lillias. Good morning. Good morning, chair. Good morning commissioners. I do have some input on this question of process. My comments are kind of robust because it is an important matter. So I will be mindful that we are, you know, talking process here and not substance. And I fully understand that Mr. Christopher Carney and the sub chapter S trust should have an opportunity to present their request to withdraw their applications for this license and agree with attorney nozzles citation about our regulation. 213. That this withdrawal question because of the posture of where we are now is a matter for the commission. Our regulation says that once the applicant requests a hearing, it's the commission that decides on any withdrawal requests. And here not only has the applicant requested a hearing, the hearings underway. This is the third day of the hearing. Just like the applicant should have the opportunity to present its requests. The commission as well should have the opportunity to be prepared on these requests. And the IP received these withdrawal requests. After business hours on Thursday, they were forwarded to the commission last Friday morning. At a time when the IP was preparing for the presentation on preliminary suitability. And I expect that the commissioners. We're reviewing the IPs report and the lengthy exhibit materials that were also provided. And we've got an additional documents from the applicant. In support of the withdrawal requests on an ongoing basis. As late as this morning, I believe. And under the regulation, the commission will have to evaluate whether there is good cause to allow those qualifiers to withdraw at this stage in the process. So I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think that's a good question. I think we are, as I said, important requests. I believe they're deserving of a substantive written input from the IP. If the commission would find helpful. The IP to respond in writing, we can do that in a reasonable period of time. If you think that would be helpful to you. In deciding the withdrawal requests. I do have more comments on. The withdrawal request should not be considered in a vacuum. And why they should not be considered, you know, as a, as an initial matter. So if you'll allow me, I'd like to try to shed some light on that. If you think it would be helpful chair. I'm going to turn to. I'm going to turn to the. Council Grossman because I want to make sure that. You know, again, I know that Tony knows who can respond. But are we. Delving into the substantive area more than process. Is this. Really about. The order. I just want to. Check in with you, Todd, on this. Cause I know director Lily O's wants to get it just right as. I just wanted to make sure that. I just wanted to make sure that. I just wanted to make sure that. Related to the process. I think certainly. Attorney Lily O's and Mr. Nozzle are. Kind of aware of the commission's interest at this point. And just. You know, setting forth the process and there will be time, of course. To talk about the substance of it. But. If there's a little bit of overlap. Just for textural purposes. I think that is certainly appropriate. At this juncture. Okay. I'm not hearing any objection from my fellow commissioners. Are you all comfortable? Chair, obviously. I, I, I don't know sort of what. You know, director Lily O's is going to sort of present now. And I'm, I'm, I'm not objecting to it, but certainly. You know, want to reserve my opportunity to respond. And again, I thought we were talking specifically here just about. What's in the commission's interest. Or, you know, in the app of concentrates or, and what, you know, we'll work for the IV as just to the order in which this gets presented. And I've limited my initial comments to that, not getting into anything regarding cause, not getting into anything regarding. You know, any substance of, of the request for withdrawal. So I just, I just want to make sure that we stay within the parameters of the way the commission is setting up this initial discussion. And director Lily O's, did you say that you need to add context for the purpose of us understanding the. The request substantively or to understand order. The ladder. Order. And also a director Lily O's, I know that you are aware of the regulation. I think that councilor Grossman can advise us on. Should the applicant wish to have any kind of going to executive session pursuant to a regulation, you would honor that as well. Correct. Yes, of course. Well, I'm not seeing any objection to director Lily O's system. Sorry to go forward. And I know that you're quite aware of turning noses. If you have any concerns, please, you know, don't hesitate to raise them as we go along. And you're comfortable with that. Correct. Director Lily O's. Yes. Yes, Jerry. Thank you so much. So there have been written withdrawal requests submitted. And so I'm drawing on information in those withdrawal requests. And in terms of process, those requests make it sound like the withdrawal question is entirely separate from the question of the applicants, preliminary suitability. And the withdrawal, Kate, the withdrawal, uh, requests, the written withdrawal requests. Ask you to cut out those. Qualifiers. And then you will be able to, you will be able to cut out those. Qualifiers. And then you would look at the applicant's future suitability. What does the applicant look like? Moving forwardly, prospectively without those qualifiers. But the commission should not consider those qualifiers. Withdrawal requests in a vacuum. Because. The commission should not consider those qualifiers. And so we have a great hound association, this applicant and the other qualifiers in this application. There is talk in the, uh, withdrawal requests about a, uh, a trust that's been referenced already in this, this hearing. Uh, but Mr. Christopher Carney's ties to MGA are not limited to that his ties do run long and deep, uh, to this applicant. The applicant is a closely held family company. Although. Christopher Carney does not have an official job title at MGM. He has been intergrately involved in that company for years. He's held himself out as representing the company at the highest level. He's been involved in the construction through his construction and trucking business of the actual construction. I'm sorry, I don't mean to. This to me goes to the heart of. The request to withdraw, um, which we haven't presented yet. Um, we're. You know, chair, we're just again talking about whether the commission should consider this. Um, before after I understand the IVs position, meaning that they ought to be, uh, considered together. Uh, but now we're, you know, essentially I guess arguing here and what's being presented somehow is that, um, potentially the, the, the request shouldn't be granted. Um, so I'm a little bit concerned that we're getting beyond sort of the scope of this initial sequencing discussion. And I say that respectfully director. I'm just trying to keep this part of the discussion, um, uh, focused. Thank you, Mr. Nozo. Uh, counselor Grossman. Um, I do want to make sure. Um, That we are. If we are decided if there are points that director Lilios is making that do sound substantive. Um, in fact. You know, is this the, is this the right time for her to make those points? Or is there a better time given that we are talking right now? Should we move on the, the requests? Yeah, I think that we do want to just kind of stick with the process. And I think, uh, uh, Ms. Lilios has made the point as to why, uh, she believes that, uh, I think we should move on to the best, perhaps, or not ripe for decision today. Um, And I think, I think we've covered that now. So yeah, I think we should probably kind of stick to just the process. Um, At this point. So commissioners, I do want you to weigh in here. This is complicated. Um, But I think the core question is right now before us. Do we hear the request for withdrawal in advance? Hearing the IEB report. Um, that's been prepared by, by, um, Um, IEB on preliminary suitability. And that of course includes some of a, you know, supplements on financial suitability. Do we hear the request first? Um, And what I guess. Uh, director Lilios. Um, could you answer the question? And I don't, I don't know the answer to this question. So I'm asking one. Um, could you, um, Explain to the commission. Why the order matters. Without. Getting into facts. I think I heard you say, um, because the withdrawal shouldn't be determined in a vacuum. And if that's one question, my question would be, and maybe my fellow commissioners have questions for you on that point. Wouldn't you introduce those facts substantively. At a hearing or. Um, on the withdrawals themselves. Yes, there is overlap in those facts because the issues. Identified. In the IEB review. Um, Reflect not only on. Christopher Carney, but they reflect upon the applicant and all of the qualifiers in this report. Including the statutory suitability criteria. Any questions at this juncture for director Lilios. So. Um, Consider it in a vacuum and theoretically you could bring the facts in that are necessary so that. As you cited. Just started to cite for us. Other. Is there another. Um, Ration now for the order question. And thank you. Uh, sure. Uh, The commission asked the IEB to. Perform a preliminary suitability review of this applicant. Uh, The commission asked the IEB to. Supply a report on this preliminary review to you. That's consistent with our regulations. That's what our regulations directed. Uh, we have done that. We did the preliminary financial suitability review. You had a report and two supplements on that. And you have the general suitability. Uh, Only after that review was performed and you got the. Report. Or the request to withdraw. Uh, brought forward. That report is done. We have done everything that the regulations and that the commission has asked us to do. And we have given you a full document. And that is before you. Now. And. To move forward with withdrawal as. Entirely separate from that report. Ends up changing the report. The applicant would look like a different applicant. Uh, so, um, I understand that the applicant isn't. They should have the opportunity to, uh, Present these withdrawal motions. The qualifiers should have that chance to do so. But the issues that are. Causing the qualifiers to ask for withdrawal. Are integrally tied. To the suitability review that was already performed. And that is a completed preliminary report. That is before you and that I suggest in consistent with the transparency principles that you have always operated by. It is something that should be reviewed by you. As scheduled today. And then you can look at what the IEB already did. And then you look. When you can be better prepared and hear from the IEB. If you want to. At the withdrawal request. And then decide those two matters. In one, um, comprehensive decision. If you want to weigh in our commissioners, do you have questions before he got. I defer to the commission's questions, but of course, I do have a few points that I wanted to make sure that's helpful. I did share if I, there are some other instances where the commission has decided withdrawal requests in the past. If it would be helpful, I can touch on, on those. There are three instances that come to mind with that. Could we, could we hold on that? Um, attorney nozzle can respond to your most recent, um, comments. And, and, uh, We'll go to, uh, attorney nozzle and then commissioners. We'll make it a little bit of a flexible back and forth. This is not an adjudicatory hearing. I want to point that out. So we have flexibility to hear from each other. Um, okay. Go right ahead. Attorney nozzle. Thanks. Thanks, chair. Just, just a couple of things. Um, in, in response. Um, I think what we're attempting, what's being attempted here in connection with, uh, the application, um, is to, uh, remove two qualifiers that, uh, the IEV report has raised questions about, uh, which we feel will be difficult to address in a preliminary suitability, uh, determination. The request to remove those two qualifiers doesn't insulate. MGA of the remaining applicants from questions, um, that, uh, are raised, um, in connection with the IEV reporter, uh, pertaining to, uh, a relationship or no relationship with, um, certainly those, um, uh, entities that were asking, uh, to be removed. Uh, in addition, you know, I do want to point out and it's documented in the, in the materials that have been presented to the commission. Um, we have been talking about removal of Mr. Carney for probably over two months. Um, the, um, impetus for the change that we've now made, which was one that comes without, you know, which was a significant and I won't get into the details at this point, uh, was the issuance of the July 17th, uh, report, which again, we felt it was in the best input interest of the, uh, applicant for the category two sports wagering license to make a change, uh, in, uh, the interest that was triggering, um, uh, the, uh, requirements, uh, for the trust and for Mr. Carney to be, um, uh, part of the application, uh, as to the timing of that again, um, we did that and I, and I, and I don't want to be in a position of putting sort of words into anybody's, uh, mouth, but as once we made that decision, we did, uh, inform the IEB that we were taking those actions. Um, and I don't remember the particular date, but it was, I think, um, you know, at least within a week of the report being issued, took a while to document, uh, and make the changes that we needed to effectuate, um, uh, you know, the basis for our, uh, withdrawal. So again, I just don't want to act as if the, the request to withdraw because Carney is a new issue. It's not, it's been at issue for a long time. Our preference certainly would have better to have this done under what we believe the discretion that the IEB had, uh, in order to, uh, remove Mr. Carney, they disagreed with that, which, uh, essentially necessitated, um, uh, this being decided, uh, by the commission. Um, and, um, and we've moved, uh, uh, as quickly as we can in light of the report in order to make those changes. And again, from our perspective, the commission set up clarity of what it's reviewing for preliminary suitability, um, prior to getting into those, uh, deliberations. And I'll stress one more time as I finish, it does not insulate MGA from having to answer any questions, um, that, uh, I think the commission, uh, is interested in getting a response from the commission. I think we can have a second. Is there a chance that it's going to be a gain to the trust or to Mr. Carney as they relate to the MGA application going forward. Missions questions at this juncture. Can I, Brian. Oh, no, I have, I have more comments than questions. So I, if Loretta, Lalea says something else to add. I'll. Maybe he's not at the time for the comments. Um, Um, absolutely correct that the applicant, uh, requested weeks ago to withdraw Christopher Carney and that request went to the IEB before the matter was scheduled for hearing. The basis for the withdrawal at that point was entirely different than the basis for the withdrawal that's presented to the commissioners today. The basis for the withdrawal at that time was, you know, he would not be involved in any future management role, you know, subsequent to that as late as mid this month, there was a significant role that he played in a significant piece that's probably better reserved for executive session. But just in terms of the IEB's awareness of withdrawal request, there was one made to the IEB weeks ago. I think it may have been in May. We declined to disturb the designation as a qualifier at that time because we felt it was a statutory requirement that Mr. Carney, Christopher Carney, were made a qualifier. But I did want to emphasize that what was recently submitted as a basis for the withdrawal is not something that was before the IEB when that request was made. Director Lillians, can I just clarify, you're not saying that you just learned, IEB just learned of the basis for this withdrawal on Thursday. The writing came in on Thursday. But when did you actually have conversations with turning those? I just want to make sure we're very clear that IEB was considering that. Yeah, it wasn't that much earlier than Thursday. Initially when the IEB received the request, I think back in May, the IEB asked about this other basis for withdrawal and whether that was something that the company was willing to do. And we were told, no, that was not on the table. And now that is the basis for the withdrawal now. Yeah, Chair, I'll just respond quickly again. I don't think Director Lillians and I are in disagreement about the substance or the steps that have been taken here. I think we, in connection with the previous request for withdrawal, there was a discussion around taking an additional step that we've now taken. We weren't comfortable doing that at the time, obviously, without the benefit of the report. And it was really once we had the report and understood what was going to be before the commission and how we were going to navigate that, that we made the decision along with Mr. Kearney and the trust to withdraw those applications. So just for context in the sequencing and Lorette, again, I'm not like excuse me, Director Lillios, I'm not. I believe we had a conversation. I think it might have been the Monday after the report was issued about the steps we're going to take again. That would have been just two or three days before we actually filed it. OK, now, Commissioner O'Brien. So it seems to me like IEB was prepared to go forward to present on the report that's been in front of us. And there seems to be a representation from IEB as well that the motion to withdraw as a qualifier is somewhat integrally intertwined with the information within that report. So it would seem like the logical progression would be we go forward today with that presentation. We can also hear presentation on the motion to withdraw from Chris Kearney and the trust, but it also sounds like IEB is asking for the ability to put something written in response in front of us. So it would seem like continuing to move would be here. The presentation that we were queued up to here. We can also if they want to go forward with the presentation on the motion to withdraw, but I would also want to give IEB time to put anything in front of us and writing in short order that we could then come back and decide if we're going to either move on preliminary suitability and or the motion to withdraw. But it seems like we could keep the ball moving by going forward with IEB's presentation today. OK, Commissioner Maynard, Commissioner Hill, Commissioner Skinner. Oh, Commissioner Hill. I don't know which one first. You choose. I think Commissioner Skinner beat me to it. So by all means, I yield. Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you, Chair. I understand the assertion that these two matters are overlapping. And I want to lend support to Commissioner O'Brien's suggestion that we hear what we were expecting to hear in terms of what have been teed up today, but then additionally to allow the applicant and IEB to the extent that they can to present their positions on the withdrawal petition. I say I can relate to the statement that we should not be looking at these matters or the preliminary suitability matter in a vacuum, because on the one hand, if I were to decide preliminary suitability today without consideration of the withdrawal petition, I might have difficulty finding any affirmative. But on the other hand, it was already mentioned just having received the withdrawal petition on an additional basis. I don't feel I have the benefit of an understanding of IEB's full consideration. I'm aware that there were prior discussions between IEB and the applicant relative to the withdrawal request. We have the materials in the exhibit packet. But all I have in terms of a response from IEB in that written material is the declination to accept the withdrawals. So I would like the benefit of additional information and briefing on that question. Commissioner Hill. I agree with my fellow commissioners, Madam Chair, on this issue, I would like to get further information from IEB on the request for withdrawal petition. And I would like to move forward with what we had previously thought we were going to be debating today, which is moving forward with the application. So in my humble opinion, IEB information needs to be put before us. We need to give them some time to be able to do that. And then I would like to move forward with the application today as we thought we were going to be doing a few days ago. Commissioner Maynard. I hear what the applicant is saying, so I want them to know that I hear them. But this cannot be decided in a vacuum. And I agree with Loretta Lilios on that point that we can't unsee what we've already seen. We do have to do everything in public. It's a part of what we do. I don't want to make a decision in a vacuum and then have that decision disturbed. I think seeing the full field and then making a decision is what I have to do. By the regulations and the statutes. So I feel like my other partner will have to look at this and look at it in full. So I'm going to present another alternative just for everyone's consideration. I did hear and thought a lot about this because of just figuring out our agenda today, right? And I worked, thank you for your help, both Attorney Grossman and Attorney Monahan on that. We could as an alternative because these withdrawals and writing came to us on Thursday. We could ask IEB to respond to prepare something. And she did say, Director Lilios said she could do that in relatively short order. We would give IEB the amount of time needed and in many ways. And I would make the suggestion that, of course, we cannot decide the withdrawals in a vacuum, but much of what is in the IEB report could be incorporated fully into the withdrawals. The withdrawals, that would allow, I take very seriously the point that Attorney Nolzel made, that this isn't, would not instantly MGA in any way with respect to its assessment of suitability should the withdrawals be granted, that we would then be able to focus on the applicant. In an efficient, and I heard Attorney Nolzel mention that, an efficient process. And focus on without distraction should the withdrawals be granted without distraction about the two entities that were no longer qualifiers. Quite honestly, I'm having a hard time from a practical and intuitive sense about going forward, assessing the preliminary suitability report, knowing at the end of the day, how do we do that if in fact we haven't determined whether two of the qualifiers that are very much a core piece of the preliminary suitability report are, we haven't determined if they're in or out. I just think from a practical point of view, we could roll it over. I am aware of the, that time is of the essence, but I put that out as another consideration. We come back in short order and Director Lillios and IEB response to the request for the withdrawals. Now, I do know that Director Lillios is going to inform us that we have, I think, three decisions where this issue came up. We haven't had this issue come up under 23N and preliminary suitability, but we could hear on that. If in fact none of you wish to entertain that, then we don't really need to go on. But I also have one last note. Our regulation allows for a notice of withdrawal to be given. And I know that in many cases, we would pause and hear that. And I know, yes, we're ready to go today, but I just wonder and perhaps MGA, Raina Park, you'll say, no, let's go. Let's move forward and you don't want to have to pause to allow for IEB to respond to the notices. But I am not uncomfortable pausing all together to allow for the opportunity to address these issues of efficiency, practicality, and then there's also the issue around order. Can we do this in a public meeting and then and not address the withdrawal in an adjudicatory hearing first? You know, that's a concern of mine. Should we, and maybe I could ask Council Grossman, would we be hearing them withdrawal requests in an adjudicatory hearing setting? Or would it be a continuation of this public meeting? So I throw out that as an alternative process for your consideration. Madam Chair, if I could respond. I appreciate your suggestion. A pause is my most preferred way to deal with these issues. I did not want to suggest that out of respect for the applicant who has is appearing before us now day three on this application for a category two sports wagering license. I think that, you know, to your point, that's the most efficient way to deal with this because already, you know, it's been two days and at some point it's going to be a little bit of information overload and it is difficult to keep up with all the facts and the documents. There are many. If the applicant would be amenable, I would support Madam Chair, your recommendation or your suggestion to postpone these proceedings in their entirety so that we can have an opportunity to more fully review the issues as a whole. Can I just insert one clarification? My suggestion would not be to come back where we are today. My suggestion would be if it's amenable to the applicant because I am mindful like you, Commissioner Skinner, of time being of the essence in short order coming back and then turning to the request of the review of the, I'm sorry, the withdrawal and turn to that with the information, you know, incorporated everything that Director Lillios needs to make us really well informed on that decision based on what has come in and writing to us on Thursday night. Thanks for clarifying that, but then I would not expect any decisions to be made today on preliminary suitability. Is that? That's fine. Okay. Excellent. Thank you. So I have two concerns with that. One is I do think procedurally we're in a posture to go forward with the report as it was presented to us and I have some issues with not moving forward with that and then prioritizing the withdrawal motion given the context. And I appreciate also the representation MGA would still be subject to continuing cooperation, however, because Carney himself would not be given the integral intertwining of those two. That gives me pause to move forward with the motion to withdraw before we hear subsidably on suitability. The other concern that I have is really an internal procedural issue, which is Director Lillios leaves us in a couple of weeks. And so not only the applicant wants to move forward with this, but we structurally, I would like to get as much off of our plate and IB's plate as possible before the end of August, particularly the 24th. So I would still, I mean, and I deferred IB and to Loretta and Kathleen, but I would like to hear from them in terms of timing as well, because we do have our own internal issues and trying to try to move this forward. Well, I'll respond to that. I understand Director Lillios's schedule and I know that there's quite a schedule in August for all the commissioners. I just want to and Director Lillios, I know you appreciate this. I do feel that IB and all of her divisions will be able to address this matter. I think because it, if it continues through her date of departure, I mean, we have to operate that way. Madam Chair, I'm not implying that they can't. I'm just being realistic on the ground in terms of trying to move everything, not only this applicant, but the business, the commission has a hand moving forward. So I stand with sort of my original request for how we proceed today, move forward as much as we can. But I defer to IB and what their response is to your suggestion. Okay, thank you. And I just want to turn to, I think commissioners can raise an important point about how does the applicant feel about the alternative. If there were a date, I don't know Grace, what would be the date theoretically we could come back on? So commissioners, please correct me if I'm wrong on your calendars. I believe next week a number of folks are on vacation. So we'd be looking at the week of the 14th. I know early in the week some folks will be traveling going to a conference as well. There is an agenda setting meeting on Wednesday, August 16th. We could tack on to that meeting. Would probably be the earliest date, but commissioners Maynard and Hill, I'm not sure if that will work for you all. And then is the 17th we have a public meeting on a bunch of other things. And then what about the 18th? The 18th does appear to be available. It is a Friday, but the Friday August 18th does appear to be available as well. Right. And I don't know if we've gone back to next week, but I think IEB needs time, would need time to prepare. But now can I turn to Director Lilies, do you want to weigh in now? Yeah, sure. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity. And certainly the IEB, it is the IEB's preference to move forward with what we can move forward on today. I have absolutely no doubt that the IEB will be in excellent hands once I move to the next step for myself. But nonetheless, this has been a significant body of work that we have already completed here. And we are also faced with, as you well know, a significant body of work with the other full investigations on the category three. So it's definitely the IEB's preference to move in a forward motion on what can be accomplished today. And I am a little concerned that there was paid a lot of attention to me not talking about sort of substantive matters in my presentation. And I fully understand that this is a process question. But I want to make sure that the IEB has the full chance to put forth its view on why moving forward today is actually a time-saving piece. And I do think that those prior decisions of the commission may be helpful in, you know, further rationale for moving forward on preliminary suitability today. So if you think that would be helpful for me to speak to those cases, I'm happy to do that. I'm going to turn to Attorney Nozzle. It looks like you might be prepared to respond. Sure. A couple of things. First, I just want to turn to Attorney Maurizio to address an issue that Commissioner O'Brien raised regarding Christopher Carney's availability or participation in the process going forward. Yes. I would like to assure the commission and the IEB that even if Mr. Christopher Carney is allowed to withdraw and his trust, the trustees of that trust and Mr. Carney, Christopher Carney will be available and will make themselves available whenever the IEB or the commission requests. The fact that he's no longer a qualifier will not stop his participation in this process if that participation is requested by the commission or IEB. So I think that's important to put into the record. The other thing I'd like to say is there may be a little bit of confusion over the request for withdrawal. We believe respectfully that that is a very discrete issue. We fully recognize that the commission is free to explore whatever questions it may have with the applicant, but the legal standard for withdrawal as to the trust and Mr. Christopher Carney is a very specific and narrow question. And we have tried to put forth the papers and we're happy to talk about them today, which demonstrate that Mr. Christopher Carney and the trust have absolutely no financial interest in the category two license whatsoever as a matter of law. And we also have pointed out in our submission that Christopher Carney as a matter of law exercises no control whatsoever over the applicant. So we're prepared to discuss that in detail, but we would ask from a process point of view that we use today to talk about as many issues, many of those withdrawal issues that the commission and the IEB may have so that at the end of today's process, we can eliminate as any confusion or as many questions that exist as we possibly can. Does that mean that you would want to move forward on the preliminary suitability report that IEB would present now? Or would you prefer to address the requests for withdrawal first and then later, but perhaps August 16th or 18th date? I'm now concerned that the commission is going to consider a suitability report as you have some have turned here in the back and that the request to withdraw is integral to our response to the IEB report. And I think with respect to challenges around scheduling, certainly I think we have to work with what we can here, but really paramount ought to be at the end of the day the due process of the applicant that's appearing before you. And what we're telling you is from our perspective in order for this to be heard in a way that I think not only makes sense, but certainly protects our interests is to the sequencing of it again back to the question of ordering which we're trying to decide on having us present and on the issue of withdrawal. And we had offered at one point in connection with this hearing process that if the commission so preferred, we could hear that and potentially, you know, maybe deal with any other remaining issues in connection with the application. We don't, you know, begrudge the IEB and opportunity to look at our documents that we filed, they're finding a fact for the commission ultimately the commission's decision on this. And if they need additional time to understand the steps that we've taken, the documents that support that we would be open to an opportunity for the IEB to then do that come back to the commission. I think then you could render a decision regarding the in the first instance to withdraw and move right into the the preliminary suitability decision. Again, we are not running from answering questions that are raised in the IEB report pertaining to the trust pertaining to Mr. Kearney. What we are saying is it's a fundamentally different review for the commission if the trust is in or the trust is out. And frankly, how we respond to it is also pretty determinative of that decision. So again, I think, you know, what we're offering, we're not opposed to this being done in a multi step process, as long as we can keep this moving. But that from our perspective is the from from the applicant, whose due process rights are at stake here. That's what we think is the proper pathway forward for the commission to concern. Madam Chair. Yes, Commissioner Skinner. Would just like to pose a question to Attorney Nozzle, if I may, and perhaps our legal counsel, Attorney Nozzle, the problem that I see in what you were saying and proposing, you know, the withdrawal petition is certainly your the basis for that is grounded in fact, right, in terms of what you are asserting Chris Carney's role will be going forward. And it is that he will not have a role relative to the applicant. And the and he will no longer have a beneficial, excuse me, beneficiary interest in the trust. That's all fact based. And so the question that I have for you and our legal counsel is how should the commission be considering that when it comes to good cause? What is the what is the what are the factors that we need to be flushing out relative to those facts and what the implications will ultimately be relative to the applicant and any other qualifiers. So that's directed to me. First, Commissioner, as the as the standard of good cause, it's a reasonable reason. It can't be something arbitrary here. What we've presented to the Commission is that a matter of law, we have made substantial changes to the structure of our application that has eliminated the trust and therefore the beneficiary interest of Mr. Carney from the application in addition to taking other steps to remove him from any managerial responsibilities. And we would take an additional step as well in connection with any loan matters that we're happy to get into if we're going to address this. So I think it's got to be something that is a is a is a good reason. And I think that we're able to demonstrate that particular standard as the as the basis for the request to withdraw, which is partly grounded in the fact that as a matter of law, the steps that we've taken really no longer make him a statutory qualifier for the trust. If I if I may as well add a comment. I'm sure as the Commissioners know fact and law are usually connected or are always into connect. But we have resolved the factual question concerning withdrawal by providing the legal documents that effectuate the actual legal step of the trust no longer having any connection whatsoever to this license or to the MG or to MGA. So you're absolutely correct. There's always a factual question, but those factual questions have been resolved by providing the legal documents that remove the trust from MGA. So as a matter of law, the sub chapter as trust cannot enjoy a financial benefit. Should the commission issue the license whatsoever from that license to impossible legally impossible. The only shareholder is Mr. George kind, but there's no connection whatsoever any longer legal connection between MGA and the trust and there never was my financial connection between Christopher Connie and MGA and the license Christopher Connie has never been an officer director employee. So we have taken those steps already and we hope to be able to answer any follow up questions that you may have about those steps. And if I may, you know these issues around what has happened with the trust and then being characterized as now as a matter of law Mr. Christopher Carney is no longer a qualifier. There are many other factors that are in existence as of today that show significant entanglements by Christopher Carney with this applicant. Some of them are financial in nature and some of them are non financial in nature as well. The changes that were put into place with the trust have now an impact that it requires additional review with how does that impact the financial suitability of Mr. George Carney who has now taken that that document was just provided to us at four o'clock yesterday. Has may have significant impact on the rest of the package here. And you know we've gotten into a number of facts here and and Director Lillios can I interrupt there because this is exactly the scenario I imagine if we start going through this preliminary suitability review without knowing if they're in or out we're going to continue like well if they're in there'll be this and we're going to be out and then that and it just seems I'm having an issue with the efficiency but that I can you know I'm hearing I'm hearing Commissioner O'Brien saying she doesn't struggle with that so Commissioner O'Brien I don't because I think they're so inextricably intertwined I don't see how we move forward without hearing it and and to go back to to counsel for Chris Carney's comments too I appreciate and I trust in the veracity of the representation on Mr. Carney's availability my point was the statutory obligation would evaporate upon his status changing from qualifier to no longer qualifier which to me is key there are absolutely due process considerations in this it is a different posture they are in as applicant than the holder of a license and so I think that there is a way to do this that honors what is appropriate for the applicant what is appropriate for this commission to get in terms of the information we need to make the decision I think we were queued up to hear the details of what was known up to this moment up until a couple days before when they decided to make the move in terms of motion to request that he be withdrawn as qualifier I think the most efficient thing to do is to move forward as we were scheduled to do today which I think may then clarify how much we need to then circle back on on what would appear to potentially be August 18th to hopefully bring this to a conclusion Madam Chair at your however you deem fit I would like Todd to respond to my question please relative to a good cause oh yes and I'm sorry did you want to respond to that question is that I'm I'm sorry I might have misheard you when I posed my question I posed it to both of the evidence council and to MGC's legal counsel so you would like to hear from counselor Grossman my apologies for not circling back my apologies and I also think I had a question out to counselor Grossman about the due process issues around this being a public meeting versus an adjudicatory hearing and I think the fact that things are very intertwined so first commissioner Skinner's question counsel Grossman yes thank you as far as good cause is concerned it seems to me that you have to view it through the lens of the statute and the regulation that talks about who and what a qualifier is and I believe Mr. Nozzle mentioned this as part of his remarks as well the the statute it's section five of chapter 23 and talks about who a qualifier is and we supplement that in 205 CMR 215.02 where the commission also talked about who the qualifiers are and of course you'll recall that section five was amended recently by the legislative process you'd have to understand the facts of the matter in order to apply them to the law and that is ultimately in my estimation how you would land on whether there is or is not good cause and just to pick up on one of the things attorney Marizio mentioned I'm not sure that all of the question the factual questions have been resolved I think that's part of the point is that the applicant has made a number of assertions and advanced a number of proposals to move forward but those have not been vetted in any way to ensure that there's a complete understanding as to what impact they have and whether in fact they would completely address the statutory and regulatory questions as to who must be a qualifier you'll also recall that there is some discretion in the commission's regulations that talks about folks who have a business association with the applicant becoming a qualifier and things along those lines so it will be in my opinion critical to have a good factual understanding in order to make the good cause determination and that's the lens that I would look at this request through so let me let me talk about the adjudicatory proceeding question the regulations don't specify that this is something that has to be looked at an adjudicatory proceeding I'd want to just double check that certainly the applicant is not making that request and I don't believe it's required at this juncture I think it can be addressed then has historically been addressed for what that's worth in a public meeting session at this juncture though it seems like the threshold question is whether the commission is prepared to address the withdrawal petitions today or not and whether there is further information that would be beneficial that at its core the ultimate question is how do we ensure that the commission is in the best position possible to make this to answer this question as to whether these two individuals and entities are qualifiers or not do you have all of the information you need to answer those questions before you hear today and I think that's the first question to answer and then the second question becomes based on that do we want to move forward with the review of the application as has been presented on the agenda and as the and others have already spoken to here today it seems to me that there are certainly facts that are relevant to both questions and so for the reason Mr. Nozzle mentioned as far as the decision not insulating MGA one way or the other I think both or all of the options that have been presented are certainly legally viable but it may be helpful to address this one issue at a time and I think the first one to address is whether the commission is inclined to move forward today on the withdrawal petitions and go from there it seems to me that that will be the best way to lead to some type of resolution of this procedural question before we move on I think Director Lillios can you tell me where the three decisions that were forwarded to us weren't weren't they all in adjudicatory hearings they happen to be publicly held adjudicatory hearings they they were chair they were chair they are still instructive to you because what they did not do was decide whether there was good cause for withdrawal as a separate matter from suitability so they they you know the our way case in that case the investigation showed that there were some financial improprieties by the head of the company and after the IEB's report was filed the CFO of that company resigned and asked to withdraw his application the commission noted that the offending practices were not detected by the principles of the company until the IEB report was filed the CFO resigned after the IEB report was filed and the case was scheduled for a hearing and even though the CFO resigned from the company before the hearing and had cut all ties with the company the commission considered his request to withdraw in the context of the company's suitability at the suitability hearing not as a separate related matter the commission in that case recognized that the CFO was not an island to himself whose qualifier status could be decided in a vacuum because the circumstances related to the CFO were reflective of the business practices of the company and were integrally tied to the applicant's business practices and those that is what the IEB is concerned about here that the issues identified in the IEB report as having to do with Mr. Christopher Carney all occurred over a lengthy period of time in the IEB's information under the eyes of the applicant and a reflective of the business practices of the applicant and that is a statutory suitability criterion the business practices of the applicant the applicant in our way the overall suitability in the withdrawal motion were considered as part of the same decision of the commission you know there are a couple other instances where the commission has decided on a withdrawal of a qualifier you know notably in the Steve Wynn case in that case procedurally you know quite different because that company already had a license had already the company was already found suitable in that case and the core things that the commission looked at there was whether Mr. Wynn still had entanglements with the company and then in a Rolling Hills matter related to the MGM Springfield application there were two individuals and an entity involved they had no management no ownership in the company but they had a contractual or residual contractual arrangement with the company and that was actually handled after the full suitability decision of the company I think the facts were mostly gathered together you know full suitability was decided so you know the IEB's view is that the issues of significant investigative concern that were identified in the preliminary report go directly to the business practices of MGA and whether they were able to detect these issues whether they had the interest and the focus to address them whether they were concerned about another regulator and their responses to another regulator over the course of years and that is really why on this statutory suitability factor of business practices that the IEB feels that these you know the withdrawal matter it's not something that should be decided first and then you know as not part of the the overall preliminary suitability decision Chair if I can if I can respond that would be helpful yeah the IEB's concerns that they just outlined aren't part of the report they're not in front of the commission I'm not suggesting that there are not areas of inquiry that the commission may have at this point but it appears now that the scope of the IEB request the IEB report is expanded and if I can respond briefly on Orway win and rolling hills I think all first of all 23 cases and they're all all were done in very different circumstances and we would suggest that the business practices in Connect were at issue in our way specifically in that particular decision the business practices including the conduct of the CFO there's nothing in the report that's before the commission that challenges any specific business practices on behalf of MGA and the other applicants they've all pertains to Mr. Carney in connection with unrelated businesses second in connection with Steve win that actually occurred exactly the way that we're asking it for was a determination on his suitability and whether or not he was in or out for purposes of the company's ongoing sort of suitability was determined after the fact third in connection with rolling hills that situation actually the commission went forward and granted MVM its preliminary suitability finding and actually put the rolling hills piece in a box and dealt with it completely separately so all of these cases do not stand for the proposition necessarily that the commission has to consider a request to a fraud in the context of a suitability a preliminary suitability finding and again we are in a very different posture which I will admit presents a challenge of having to deal with these issues and a request to withdraw in this context of a preliminary suitability decision what we're attempting to do is to try to narrow the issues that are going to be in front of the commission for the purposes of that determination again not avoiding any area of increase any area of questioning that you may have as it relates to MGA and we're attempting to work within the processes that we have and there is nothing in the regulations that provides for an adjudicatory hearing in connection with a request to withdraw in fact request to withdraw only comes in front of the commission at a certain stage and we happen to have triggered that apparently I think the language of the rule is actually a little bit ambiguous and there are certainly requests to withdraw and there have been withdraws of qualifiers prior to that ever coming to the commission for any determination so there are a lot of different avenues in order to essentially address an issue regarding potentially regarding suitability by the removal of a qualifier and we feel like in this particular case we're working within the process that we have and we think that it's an appropriate in our mind solution to the questions that have been raised in connection with the IEB investigation and we do feel like the sequencing of this and the process by which the commission makes this determination if the IEB needs additional time in order to review the documentation regarding sort of the withdrawal we understand that but to go forward in any way with the IEB report without either hearing the motion to withdraw or preferably deciding it really does put us at an incredible you know I think disadvantage in being able to present our full application for the commission's consideration. Pastor Nozel, thank you for that. I need to request a short break and so if we could it's 1130 now if we could return in 15 minutes I just need to break and I bet my fellow commissioners will be okay with that correct? Thank you, thank you very much. Okay Dave, thank you for taking down the screen. Thank you Dave, thank you very much and thank you to the commissioners for allowing you that brief pause. I think I've got everyone this is the reconvening of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission's public meeting number 469 after a brief pause and because we're holding this meeting virtually I'll do a roll call. Good morning again Commissioner O'Brien. Good morning, I'm here. Good morning again Commissioner Hill. Good morning. Good morning again Commissioner Skinner. Good morning. Good morning again Commissioner Maynard. Good morning. I did want to turn back to Commissioner Maynard and Commissioner Hill because we haven't heard from you and of course the other commissioners but I wanted to turn back to you but and I don't know I think Council Grossman in terms of the legal framework is it doesn't make sense to do any reminders now or should we hear from Commissioner Maynard and Commissioner Hill? Absolutely I think we should hear from any commissioners who have any further comments and then I'm happy to offer a few thoughts. Okay thanks so much. Any comments from either you and then Commissioner Skinner and Commissioner O'Brien if you want to weigh in or react or add in. Commissioner Hill. Thank you Madam Chair I really have not changed my opinion from my earlier remarks. I still feel as though the request for withdrawal we should be getting some further information from IEB and others and certainly I would want a little bit more time to digest the request and I am still fine with moving forward with hearing parts of the application today even if it's the diversity piece something so that we can so that we can move forward. Yeah we're definitely going to do diversity Commissioner Hill and are you comfortable moving forward in addition to the diversity we'll have a vote on it so the answer is yes yeah that's what I thought thank you so much Commissioner Maynard. Well first of all I feel like this has been a really long conversation about process and about order of operations and I feel like any any positive to hearing this matter the way the applicant wanted to is totally negated by the fact that a lot of issues have been raised here and and I think that it's only indicative that this is a really hard matter to separate and you know the day that the applicant applied for a license is my understanding is the world in which the IEB was working on when they produced the report sounds like there was a timing issue on on when the applicant started thinking about maybe removing a couple of folks from the organizations but then it came in on Thursday and I think that the IEB should have every right to to be able to answer that report or answer that request or have something written for us and I want to have the the process that the applicants do my understanding is by the way as far as due process goes the applicant can question any matter of fact or analysis that's in the IEB report as it stands right so the assertion that they won't have the right to do that I think is I just want to clarify that I would expect them to do that if there is a factual or other issue in the report I would want to hear about it but I also have to think about 38 section 20 and and what's owed to the public and and what we as a body owe the public and you know we have to think about that and we have to weigh that too and like I said you know we can't have sidebars right so I can't I can't pull aside somebody and say this is what I'm thinking I have to do it right here and I'm doing it I think there's been a lot of questions raised that if we would have just done the report two hours ago had the applicant respond to the report and then moved on to when we were scheduling the you know the request to withdraw I think if we would have just done it that way this would already be over instead we've we've done this for two hours and and we're still nowhere and and that's what's frustrating to me so that's where I am I I I don't think you can divorce these things I hear what the applicant's saying I'm trying to respect the applicant I don't think the report can be divorced from from the withdrawal motion okay I'm going to then call the question unless I'm hearing anything further from Commissioner Brian Commissioner Skinner we did mark this up for a vote as to the order of on matters do I have a motion certainly Madam Chair I move that the commission move forward with the presentation from IEB on a suitability question on the applicant as noticed in the agenda second can I have a friendly amendment can it I believe that IEB Director um Millie else indicated that there would be no vote on that review it's simply the presentation is that an amendment I can certainly move I move that the commission move forward with presentation by the IEB as originally noticed on the agenda for today reserving any supplementation by IEB or adjudication by vote on the question of suitability and the question of the motion to withdraw by a qualifier second Commissioner O'Brien can I ask clarification does that mean that there will not be a vote at the you said reserving um that mean future date for a future date yes there's no vote today to make it clear um no voting is expected or would be moved on today thank you and then the second Commissioner Hill thank you okay Commissioner O'Brien did you open this up for discussion oh yes I'm sorry any discussion for the discussion I would be okay with moving this to a future date I just want to get this on the record if we still allow the original report to be presented first at that future date I would be okay with that I just want to put that on the record and and throw it out there for discussion I'm going to turn to Councillor Grossman um if it would put on for a future date how does that what what does that preserve for the applicant or IEB well I think the obvious um piece is that it would offer the IEB an opportunity to prepare a written response to the petition to withdraw so that the you know no I think you're saying you would roll over the hearing on the petition uh on the preliminary suitability report for a later date is that right Commissioner Maynard what I'm offering up here is what I think to be a compromise which would be that the future date allows for the IEB to put together a response a written response but I do not believe that it's that the issue should be heard before the IEB has the opportunity to present what was in the initial um report so my suggestion would be on that date we would go forward with the initial report the applicant would have an opportunity to respond to that initial report then the applicant would be able to submit um or we would then have a hearing on the applicant's uh request to withdraw and and that the order of operation would not really change um but it would give more time and and and the reason it's a compromise is because I think IEB is ready to go right now uh on on the report and so the compromise would be the IEB has to wait a little while to go on the report but the applicant would still have to to answer that initial report in a public in a public forum as so much that it's required and in a private or executive session in so much that that's allowed. Madam Chair question or comment and question I guess um Attorney Nozzle indicated earlier that the applicant is at a significant disadvantage um in moving forward with uh the preliminary suitability presentation wasn't clear if it was the presentation itself or a vote on on on the suitability today and so just wondering if we could turn to the applicant for response to what Commissioner Maynard just put on the record. Mr. Nozzle and Mr. Marcio? Yeah so uh I'm gonna I'm gonna begin um so obviously our our our preferred and what we think is the appropriate pathway forward is or to hear the motions uh or excuse me their request uh to withdraw and then move to the suitability finding I'm not hearing a lot of support uh for that uh certainly amongst the discussion that's happening in connection with Commissioner O'Brien's uh motion um I think everybody here has agreed that these two things are intertwined I think that's the word that's been used so they should not be heard on separate dates so one major concern I would have is if there's a proposal to go forward with the IEB report today and then uh uh the request for withdraw doesn't get considered or even presented to the commission for another uh two weeks so if if the commission is inclined to I guess and maybe what Commissioner Maynard is proposing that these two things um you know be heard together um that should either be done today or should be done at a at a future date um we're happy to cooperate with the IEB in providing um you know any additional documentation regarding uh the withdrawal uh it's um uh its impacts um and uh essentially at least to address the IEB's factual uh concerns to the extent they are there are any pertaining to what we propose but at a minimum I think in fairness uh that these two things to the extent that the commission wants to hear them together ought to be then heard on the same day not separated by a two-week period can I ask given this discussion if we can withdraw the motion to just or respectfully um I keep your motion on okay I'm going to keep my motion there's a second I want an up and down vote on it um and in in regards to that having spent years as a prosecutor where grandeur and trial presentations were made over the course of days and weeks I've every confidence that we could for efficiencies purposes go through with what was on for today and go forward without prejudice to anyone it would give time to the IEB to respond and keep the ball moving forward I don't think it's prejudicing anyone but I don't have a problem at all um just moving forward with the vote and if the vote of the body is to delay um until the week uh two weeks out where we hear it all together um then so be it are we still under discussion we are still under discussion if I could just respond if I could just respond quickly to Commissioner O'Brien's uh comments if there is a pathway forward that the applicant is saying it's better for it for purposes of its rights in connection with this process and I'm unaware of any sort of prejudice to the commission and in fact it gives the IEB an additional opportunity here uh to provide um uh you know additional information to the commission in connection again what what it says a consideration of all these issues together I would I would think that that would be uh the appropriate pathway forward as opposed to simply making a decision based on process. Respectfully Attorney Nelson what I've heard so far from the applicant is a continued desire to hear the motion to withdraw first and then moving forward on what was prepared to be presented on suitability with any supplementation as maybe necessary based on the most recent submissions by the applicant if what this applicant is now saying is a request to continue to be fully prepared to do all intertwined at the same time two weeks out that's a very different posture than what we've been hearing uh I still think it would be an up or down vote on the motion that I had but that certainly changes the procedural posture that was put forward by the applicant. Commissioner responding again to what I sense is the the desire of the commission to both consider these issues together ultimately when they vote and to hear the IEB report first if that's the direction that the commission is going in then what we would suggest that that all that all be done together with the benefit of the additional information from the IEB our opportunity to provide the IEB additional documentation to potentially address any of their concerns and we just do that all on the same date that's been proposed by the by the commission. So my my suggestion here is dealing with the reality that the commission is not going to accept what we're proposing and I am too offering again respectfully as an applicant before the commission a compromise which I think is certainly more fair to us and I still think meets the commission's goals. If I could add in you know I if by or a moving party I would have moved to go forward first with the review of the of the notices to withdraw just because of efficiency and the way my mind works around these issues. I've heard both sides I've been thinking very carefully about it. I do think we offered IEB the opportunity to get some more time in order to be able to respond to the the motions that came in writing to us on Thursday. Quite frankly I think that that's smart. I think we should have benefit of IEB responding. I also think today raises I'm sure some questions for the applicant and quite frankly I would offer them the opportunity they need more time. So I do like the fact that commissioner Maynard even though he did indicate that this was two hours too long a process it is a very involved process question. And so to the extent that the applicant would want some more time and conceding the you know the order of events I support that so that we can all make sure we're hearing everything. That's my theory we could vote on order today and allow for this all to come before us in a streamlined fashion with both parties being heard fully. Commissioner Bryan I hear your motion and I know it's it is live and I know we have to we have to call the discussion at some point but I want to make sure everybody's being heard. Commissioner Maynard. I'm sorry I just want to know if the IEB I heard that the the applicant said they're okay with the quote unquote compromised with the IEB be okay with that again assuming that the order of operations is the way that the IEB has requested today just on a different date I would like to know that. Commissioner thanks very much for for for asking you recognize the IEB is ready to go forward on preliminary suitability today you know we do have a team approach with assembled the team today you know they're all ready today but I understand all of the different interests that you're that you're weighing you know did feel strongly about that order of discussion just this opportunity to respond to the motions in writing we think is important and we would review the various documents that are being submitted even as of this morning that would be related to that motion you know I see that we you know my view is that this is would not be a further investigation that we would perform over these next couple weeks you know we would be responding to the motion but not you know opening up new investigation so you know if you decide to go forward at the later date in the order that Commissioner O'Brien's motion stated you know course we will be ready for that further discussion. Commissioner Skinner no I'm sorry I didn't realize I was unmuted no no problem thank you so much councillor Gressman going to turn to you any reminders on legal framework issues that we should think about before we take our vote I think the commissioners have just hit on all the marks that think the applicant has had an opportunity to express its view as has the IED depending on the outcome of the decision I may have a few additional observations to share but I think it's both Commissioner O'Brien's and Commissioner Maynard's proposals are viable and legally tenable I don't have concerns with certainly either of those ultimately we're just looking to ensure that the most equitable process is in place and I know everyone shares that interest so I think yeah calling the question I think makes sense and depending how it goes I may have a few additional thoughts okay so I have not started to take the votes we've called the question that commissioners are all set so I guess my only question would be for Commissioner Hill I'm still fully prepared to go forward as I drafted the motion and presented it to the body given the current status and what appears to be the consensus that continuation would again start with the presentation by IAB on suitability and then go into what we have deemed sort of inextricably intertwined the motions to withdraw I would consider amending the motion um to bump that out to the date in August that I believe grace throughout but I I did want to hear from Commissioner Hill we have not heard from him in this discussion I was more than happy to move forward with the original motion but if you want to amend it I certainly would listen to it and support it okay okay um given that and the discussion Madam Chair I would move to amend the motion that the commission move forward on the presentation by IED on the preliminary suitability report that it is drafted and presented and also at that same time after which the commission will take up the issue of the motions to withdraw by the qualifier Chris Carney and the trust that were presented and that those matters be continued for no longer than I think August 18th 2024 2023 I think it's the 19th 19th no that's a Saturday I think I think this is the Friday yeah the 16th was out there but I think it might probably that Friday on the 18th if that works for everyone I mean I'm just doing that as the outer limit if we can do the 16th we can do the 16th or or even earlier you know if I'm miraculously some time before correct I second that motion I don't know if Commissioner Hill has to since he seconded originally or I think I do and I would second it because we because we were amending the we're amending right it's fine sorry yeah it's fine I don't know no issues I thought it was I thought you were true no amended no problem um further discussion okay Commissioner O'Brien hi Commissioner Hill hi Commissioner Skinner hi Commissioner Maynard hi I vote yes five zero okay um to the applicant this has been as Commissioner Maynard pointed out a long discussion on process but an important one and I think for both IEB and the applicant gives some important time for for all we did commissioners in front of us on the uh submission on the diversity plans that we had requested at our last hearing do we want to move forward on that today um we could under our agenda um or if you'd like to um roll that over to our future hearing we we're happy to do that but I just want to you know Commissioner Hill noted like I had in my mind we could at least move forward on on that too um so that that issue may be fully resolved commissioners I'll turn to the applicant next too at this point Madam Chair I think we should just move it to the next meeting at this point I was getting nods from some people in agreement with me and they'll okay so you're saying move it forward I'm just going to do a little first off um I'll turn to my fellow commissioners first yes on diversity now or wait I would agree with Commissioner Hill at this point okay just move it I'm I'm worried about how long this could be uh when we start to have this conversation on the 18th uh not the 19th um and so I I would just I would go in here as much as we can and just leave that open um to suitability so I would do it today Commissioner Skinner how do you feel I'd like to push it to the 18th okay sounds like we have a consensus to push it I would have done it too just so that we could check it off the list and not have any questions but uh sounds as though three want to push it um to the applicant um we appreciate your your patience uh to IEB we appreciate your patience this is not uncomplicated and we want to get it all just right now I'll turn to Councillor Grossman for any words of wisdom and advice that you can give us as uh in advance of our next hearing so that all expectations are set certainly um we want to ensure that there are no surprises um for anyone so um we will ensure that all materials uh that of being prepared will be shared with um certainly the applicant and the commissioners and uh we have a very clear process in place but I think otherwise the questions have been largely resolved for today um we will take a close look at the process and make sure that it is all in alignment we have a little bit more time to do that uh in light of today's conversation um so we will of course prepare the agenda um for the next meeting and then go from there but I I think otherwise the the commission has spoken on this matter and we'll be ready to go on the 18th. Attorney Nozal, Attorney Mitzio, any questions? Uh no chair we appreciate uh yeah certainly the the commission's time today and um appreciate the thoughtfulness that they've uh approached the issue and um you know we do plan to reach back out to the IEB um in very short order um in order to provide any additional documentation and information that they may need in connection um with their review of the uh of requested withdrawal. Okay Director Lillio so you all set Councillor Hong are you all set? I'm all set chair thank you. Thank you chair. Okay all right um the only request I would make is uh for us to consider to look at our schedule because uh the motion was as late as August 18th so we'll look at the calendar and then of course work with IEB and the applicant to see if if um moving if we're able to move it up I know time is of the essence in this matter so we'll continue to look at that schedule very very carefully. And chair we'll we'll make our team available uh to the extent that the commission has any earlier opportunity we will we will make that happen. Okay commissioners maybe um you will just be able to work very closely with Grace and Trudy on any options and flexibility on your calendars okay. Thank you um am I correct then uh Attorney Grossman left at this point can you look for a motion to adjourn? Yes I think I think that's yeah commissioners you don't have any other business all right I'll take a motion to adjourn. Move to adjourn. I'm sorry I thought we were continuing this is a continuation of the original hearing these are called individually. No I think we've adjourned I don't know Commissioner uh Councillor Grossman. Yeah since it's a public meeting I think it needs to be adjourned okay it's not an adjudicatory hearing okay then move to adjourn. Second. Just a matter of I think clarification on our agenda we always post the public meeting but we do note um what uh has occurred before and then we roll it over into the agenda in pretty particular around that okay um so we've got a second Commissioner Bryan. Hi. Risha Hill. Hi. Risha Skinner. Hi. Mr. Maynard. Hi. And I vote yes 5-0. Thank you everyone have a good day.