 And I'll just take a roll call to confirm everyone's here. Good morning, Commissioner Cameron. Good morning, everyone. I am here. OK. And Commissioner O'Brien, who's taking a step away from her vacation, good morning. Good morning. I am here. And Commissioner Zinnega. Good morning, everyone. I'm here. All right. Well, we'll get started then. Thank you, everyone. Thank you, Austin and Vivian. Today is August 26th. Happy vacation to Commissioner O'Brien. Public meeting number 353. Call to order. And we only have two items today, one that we're taking care of some more urgent business and another that really merits its own discussion today. So thank you, everyone, for joining. We'll get started with Beretta. You're covering for Nikesha today. Who's on it? That's right. Thank you, Kathy. Good morning, everybody. And thanks for putting this matter on the agenda this morning and hearing it. So I'm here to make recommendations regarding requests from Encore Boston Harbor for three amendments to its gaming beverage license. The three requests are for three new establishments that will operate in the sports lounge area, which has been under construction. I updated you on the gaming aspects of this area at last week's public meeting and informed due that Encore has announced it and anticipates opening this area to patrons on September 4th, Saturday of Labor Day weekend. And this opening, because it involves gaming aspects, is, of course, subject to IEB approval. Today, however, I'm here with respect to a non-gaming matter. And that is the beverage license amendments for the sports bar, the Shake Shack, and Frank and Nick's Pizza Ria establishment. First, the sports bar. This amenity is to be operated by Encore. The manager of this area has a key standard license issued by the commission in the licenses in good standing. Our gaming agents, led by Lewis Lozano, have performed inspections, including areas will be where the alcohol will be stored and secured. And our team has also inspected to ensure adequate surveillance camera coverage. And we recommend that this amendment be allowed. With respect to Shake Shack, you may be familiar with the establishment. Generally, this license amendment would be for beer and wine only. The company is a registered vendor to Encore. And as such, the company, through its general manager of the site at Encore, is jointly responsible for the license. The documents in your packet indicate that the manager's license is pending. But since the packet was put together, the manager has had the registration fully issued. Also, I can report that Nikisha Skinner, our licensing chief, has been in communications with the company about its responsibilities under the license. And similarly to the sports bar arena, Lewis and team have conducted the security and storage and surveillance inspections and are satisfied with those. And we recommend that this amendment be approved. Finally, on to Frank and Nick's. This is a casual fast dining restaurant, again, with beer and wine only. That company is registered as a non-gaming vendor. And as such, are jointly responsible for the beverage license, along with Encore. The establishment is owned and operated by the same two individuals who own and operate Fratelli, both of whom have the appropriate credentials. And the manager of this restaurant also was credentials and in good standing. As you recall, the IEB recently reported to you about a compliance matter that had issued with Fratelli's regarding issues around the restaurant's employees not being timely, credentialed in the past few months. The compliance with the registration requirements at Fratelli's has been met and achieved. And with respect to the new establishment, Frank and Nick, an individual and attorney has taken on the responsibility and the role for ensuring that the employee registration requirements are met at Frank and Nick as well. And of course, the licensing division will continue to work with them. And we recommend that this amendment be approved. I do wanna point out that it's critical that these employees, that these three amenities being involved as they are in the service of alcohol, that they undergo the TIPS training or other credentialed training to be approved by the IEB and that they become certified prior to commencing any duties and Encore has already been proactive in providing the requirements to all three, but of course to the two vendors critically and instructed them of their requirements for compliance which is part of Encore's internal control. So we will be following that as well. So happy to try to answer any questions you have but the IEB does recommend all three be approved at this time. Commissioners, Lewis is available too for questions. Thank you, Loretta. Commissioners, any questions for Director Lillio? So I'm just gonna, and so. Yeah, I'd like to just like a couple of questions for perhaps for additional context, Loretta. Thank you for that great summary. The area which was all of the prior buffet area had a prior alcohol service, is that correct? The buffet area did have service. So the amendment really goes to the sports bar because it's a whole new amenity, entirely new structural area as well and new method of service as well with a bar as well as servers bringing to patrons as well. Yeah, no, I recognize that at the buffet you could not essentially leave the premises prior to re-entering and this now becomes a bit of a possibility given the open nature of the layout. Is that correct? Also, there will be appears to be service that you can come to the counter and take with you in a couple of these venues, correct? That's exactly right. Certainly at Shake Shack and at Frank and Nick that that is contemplated. Thank you. Commissioner, can I ask so that I'm thinking how you might be thinking, do you have an additional concern about that because it is different in terms of this issue? No, not a concern at all. I was just pointing perhaps for the record that in some way this area mostly was licensed already given the buffet but both as Loretta said because of the layout and the manner in which now the services from that bed in a couple of different and one of those spaces is leads to another entity that has also been licensed that all of these revisions to the license are appropriate. I was just noting it perhaps for the record. Commissioner O'Brien or Commissioner Cameron? Any questions? Thank you, Cameron. Yes, thanks. Director Lilios, you gave a very complete summary. It doesn't sound like there's anything there that gives you or your team pause in moving forward with this licensure. Is that correct? Yeah, I mean, the recommendation is that all three be approved. We certainly will continue to work closely as these establishments near opening to ensure that all the employees are in fact properly credentialed and trained but all of the requirements under the governing regulation for these amendments have been met and the establishments have been entirely responsive. So the recommendation is stands. Great. Thank you. So just one follow-up you mentioned that I'm pleased to hear that for the Frank and Nick establishment, there's a plan for making sure there's timely and accurate credentials for the employees, Loretta. Shake Shack, I'm not sure if they have experienced working with casinos or not, but are they getting the same kind of sort of any initial training around these issues? Nikisha has been working closely with them. They have provided the materials and the job codes and so forth that her team requires. We have mobilized GEU to be able to respond to the increased fingerprinting need to make sure that folks can get through the process in a timely way. So Shake Shack has been educated and has been very responsive to the process. That's all great. And it sounds like great news too in terms of some new employment opportunities here. Absolutely. That's great. Can I ask, do you know when they say hours of operation be some time through 2 a.m., do the establishments serve food throughout that period as well? Yeah, I think they do. There may be a period right before closing that they stop taking orders, but I think the food service continues right up till around closing time. I don't think there's a period where it's bar only, where it's alcohol only. So that means that perhaps people right now, it's my understanding that the only real bite to eat is at Dunkin' Donuts, not in any way to diminish how good a donut at one in the morning would sound, but there might be more opportunities other than the sit down at Telly's. Oh, absolutely. I think that's part of the model. That's good. That's great, Loretta. Thank you. All right, so Loretta, you need an authorization from us today. Yes. I'm not sure whether or not there was a formal motion made, but perhaps a month or so. I'm happy to make a motion, Madam Chair. I move that the commission approve the Encore Boston Harbor Gaming Beverage License Amendments 205-CMR-1306-03-I to include Sports Bar and Lounge, Frank and Nix. Shake, shake, shake. Yes. Second that motion. Any questions for their edits? All right. Commissioner Cameron. Aye. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Zunka. Aye. And I vote yes, 4-0. Thanks Vivian. Okay. Thank you. Excellent. And I think they're all slated to open September 4th. That is Encore's plan against subject to regulatory approval. That's right. Okay. Well, I wish them luck. I know that my fellow commissioners join me, but I know you still have work to do at IEB. So thanks. Okay. Moving on to item number two. Karen, good morning. Good morning. So for the administrative update today, we're on the agenda, we're discussing the reopening of the Boston office. As the commission is aware, we have had employees on site at the three casinos and the racing employees have been there along with this eight police. So we have the issue of the Boston office reopening for you today. There are three components and they all kind of blend together as far as the plan going forward, but they each require some discussion amongst the commission. The first is that what we have proposed is a pilot flexible and remote working arrangements policy. And that draft policy was put together by the working group that the chair requested. And that included a commissioners O'Brien and Cameron or a Lilios Derek Lennon, Trivita Vanda, Todd Grossman, the Trina Jagger of Gomes and Joe Delaney. So we have been meeting and we have a draft of a policy for discussion and commission's consideration. The other two items are, I do have a memo with a recommendation on vaccination mass wearing policy. That would be a directive from the commission to draft a policy in compliance with the commission's directive on that. And then we would come back before the commission with the actual policy. And then the third item is the actual reopening date and what is the plan for reopening? We put that last because the other items up for discussion may impact the reopening date and what the commission would like to do. So Madam Chair, with your permission, I thought it would be helpful if I just sort of highlighted some of the areas in the draft policy that the working group sort of identified as maybe potential for commission input and approval. And we can go from there unless there's another way to proceed with going forward. Sounds good, thank you. The other thing, would it be helpful to share the screen or do commissioners have the policy accessible? I have the policy. Does everybody have the policy? Yeah, I have the policy with me. It's fine. I have it as well, but I actually like the screen share because you have highlighted areas that we kind of focus on. So that's okay. All right, so why don't I go through that? And we can just go through it in any questions. And I have the group. Katrina is unavailable this morning, but I think the rest of the group is available. Any questions? And just encourage folks to chime in on thoughts because this was the collective effort. And we recognize this is new. This is what we're doing for the, you know, as a result of the pandemic has caused some changes. And so this is a pilot policy. And I think that it's helpful for us to understand that the recommendation is for a pilot. So we can, it's a test period to see how it goes. So some of the things in here we're putting in there so we can test it out and then get some feedback and sort of do a data-driven analysis. Does this work? Does it not work? What adjustments do we have to make? Because we may have to make some adjustments just because we're doing this now doesn't mean that it's forever. So I think that that's important as part of the recommendation. So when I share my screen here, make sure you have the right one. Can everyone see the draft policy there? Yes. Okay. So I'll, the first item, which is in highlight, but we do have sort of the start date the month. We'll put that in once the commission decides on the start date back in the office. So that'll be for item 3A, little BIs. We have the policy statement, which is that the commission's committed to providing a working environment that ensures the agency's needs are met while encouraging retention by affording employees the best possible opportunity to achieve positive work-life balance. And the MGC also recognizes the many benefits to the agency and to employees by having in-person interaction in an office setting. With this goal in mind, the MGC has created a pilot program allowing employees to request flexible schedules and or a hybrid work arrangements. Noting, however, that not all positions lend themselves to a hybrid work option. I think that's something we need to recognize. Their job, for example, the gaming agents, that the expectation would be that they are on site. That's their job and that's how they do their job. So we have to recognize there are some that may be able to take advantage of this, there may be others that will not. So with that in mind, the other piece of that just to recognize, right now we have mandated most employees that are not on site because most of those to work remotely. So this is a shift in that dynamic where it is a book. We will have the offices open at some point and we will have space available. So this would be at the request of the employees if they would like a hybrid option, they can work with their managers and request it. But we are not mandating that anybody work at home through this policy. Any questions on that, does that make sense? So I won't go through this line by line because I know you've all read it. One of the issues which is slightly different will be identifying the core hours and those are hours in which employees must be available during their eight hour long day because we are suggesting for this test period to test if we could have flexibility on start time and end time, particularly now with the pandemic and commuting that may be something that would be helpful to employees. So just highlighted that sort of the potential hours are down below, but there are still expectations that employees still have to put in there 37 and a half hours a week. The offices would be open from nine to five one day through Friday. And then the core hours issues, so the recommendation, and we can modify this, but that people who are working would work between the hours of seven a.m. and seven p.m. So they'd need to get there 7.5 plus their half an hour mandated lunch break within those hours. We can adjust those if the commission wants to adjust those. This would be a test period. It does have all employees must be available for NGC work hours from the hours of 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. So that would be have to be available. Those can also be modified. For example, if you wanted this sort of start time to be a little later, so people could wait for the rush hour traffic and then get in a little later, you can modify that. So maybe I'll pause there and see if the commission is comfortable with those hours. If they're good with that, I'll move on to the next item, but this is sort of a test period to see if that core hour concept would work. Does anyone have any questions or comments? Questions, commissioners? I have a question is on the core, does the core hours extend? Does this assume already the two or three days or the particular two or three days or is it any two or three days? So this would be, yes, that's a very good question. So this would be potentially we could modify it, but any day, so if you are working remotely, you could still do the modified schedule or if you're in the office, but there certainly is discretion under the policy. You could have core hours only applied to remote or only applied to in person. So there certainly is flexibility if we wanted to test any of that out as well. Can I just ask one more question? Does each individual have to sit down with their manager and go through this or is it the reverse? If you're, or is it just a given that you can establish it yourself? No, the intent of the policy is that the manager has to take responsibility and work with the employee to make sure that the agency needs are met and the work is getting done. So this, and it's been interesting, doing some reading, talking to other executives, other agencies, sort of that concept that this does put more of a burden on managers. Managers will need to manage because there is more flexibility. So there is an inherent component to additional management responsibility with this. But yes, the concept is that the manager has to make sure that this works for the agency and the employee. So they have to sit down and work it out together and then come up with, and then the manager would have initially approved it and then it also has to be approved by the executive director. Does that make sense? So the executive director, Lisa, got it. Thanks. Okay, so the other line here, and this is sort of red and highlighted because I think this is one of the key issues that employees are interested in. So the recommendation suggestion for the pilot program is that line level employees request an average of up to three days of remote working per week and managers currently request an average up to two days of remote working per week. Coming to that, so a recommendation or test period suggestion, a lot of that, in my perspective, comes from the governor's, you know, his policy on average had about two and a half. So this sort of matches up and then it also gives sort of a test, testing ability through the pilot program. So we've got more burden should I expect beyond managers than line level employees on the remote working. And this way we can see hopefully the difference between two days in the office and three days in the office and that the average comes out to about where the executive branch is coming out which I think was approximately two and a half days a week. And, you know, there certainly it varies among in state government what the recommendation is for hybrid working and how many people in the office. We do not have the same constraints that we're looking at in the executive branch where they're looking to potentially shrink the footprint because we are locked into our lease for the time being, we do not have the issue of having to move people for space reasons. This is really sort of a test period for how does this work? How does hybrid working, is it super effective or people really happy? Is it, or are there issues? Is there, you know, are there tech issues or the things we have to resolve? And this is, so that's sort of where we came down on the recommendation for this test period but certainly the commission can alter that that the commission so desires. So any questions on that? Cause I know that's the heart because this is a really significant issue potentially for the employees here. Any questions? Okay. Just a comment that I think I'm very comfortable with this recommendation, the way you outlined it in terms of the pilot and, you know, see what comes to fruition and see what we might need to modify if necessary. But I like the way it's parsed out with the flexibility. And to your point, there is also in the next paragraph that there is a caveat that flexible engines may be suspended or canceled at any time. We'll have to see how it's going but yeah, we would make every effort to get notification that we reasonable with employees. But given that this is new, we're putting on the policy because we have to make sure that this work and the commission gets done appropriately. I am encouraged because work has been getting on in the remote setting. So I would encourage that it would be hopefully very effective here. I wondered if during your discussions that came up cause I agree with on the game, you know, I think it's really, this is important to establish the flexibility we've learned that we've been very productive with the flexible arrangement. But I also know in my sort of informal surveys and my own informal research that there is something that has been missing in that, you know, the informal collaboration that occurs and innovations that come out of being in person. So I wondered if in your discussions you gave any thought as to when core groups would be or, you know, the masses, if you will, leveraging numbers of people assuming public health issues are addressed. Let's just assume the public health and that we're not dealing with that issue. If there's an idea of having folks come in on a, at least on one of the days on mass and more numbers than having them across the five days spread out. I just wondered if you would discuss that and whether that might be a requirement. I can jump in there. Yes, that was absolutely discussed. And I think the working group kept coming back to how important it is for supervisors to supervise. And they know their structure, they know what's needed to be effective. And if in fact, that's something that is needed to be effective, I think that will be part of the plan that supervisors put in place. And they of course would have to justify that to the executive director. So yes, that was discussed. And again, I think we came down to really allowing supervisors and taking responsibility for putting a plan together that makes the most sense for their work environment and how that work will get done. And did you also discuss the culture of the entire organization, the benefit of when not just each management unit gets together, but also the benefit of the wider organization culture. And I'm also the follow-up question is if you discussed our commission meetings in terms of whether those should be in live or all remote, et cetera. Well, I think that no hard and fast decisions have been made about that. I mean, everything's been discussed, but I think it's very early to make those decisions with the way things are on the ground right now. And that requires a lot of people to be available in person. And I don't think the working group was ready to make that commitment at this time. And that's because of public health or just in terms of- It was a little bit of public health and a little bit of seeing how this works as we transition to hybrid. We did have conversations about how to maintain the sense of cohesiveness for the office, whether it would be quarterly staff, meaning things like that, that would get people in to connect on a more regular basis, given that the flexibility they have, maybe in their ships passing in the night more than they are now or more than they had been. And then we did discuss what if all of our agenda setting and our regular meetings are in person in the office, that what that may mean for a lot of people is Wednesday, Thursday becomes days when obviously more people are gonna be in. But we felt like that was premature to really, obviously, this commission hasn't made decisions about that. And then seeing how it all shakes out, I mean, it may be that whether it's hybrid or all in person has no impact on the wording of this document. It just may mean the practical applications for people may be that most come into the office in the middle days of the week. So I have two comments also on that. One is that I think as far as practical applications of activities for cohesiveness, one thing that we haven't had in a year and a half is in-person trainings. And I think that's a key element to bringing the team together and doing things together and learning. We've done a lot with our IT department. We've done that whole conversion, got the 360 and all that going on. And SharePoint, there's a huge opportunity for us to get together and do trainings in person. And I think that scheduling those so people can be together is really important. The other thing we talked about is also tracking the information. So for tracking what days people wanna be in, what days people are in, are we seeing people generally wanting to come in on certain days and does that work? So part of the pilot program concept is also getting information. This is sort of a temporary information gathering period. And then, okay, so what do we find out? Is do people come in? Because to Commissioner O'Brien's example, I am a proponent that being in the office, if you have something on for a commission meeting is really, really important and that's something I'd like to see because it makes it so much easier for the commissioners in running the meeting. So things like that are gonna be really important. And getting some feedback on that will be helpful. The other thing is getting some data. If we are looking to renew our lease, either where we are or make a difference, getting information on sort of what works and what days and how many people will give us data on what size of space will we be going forward. But in just to chime in here too, I think if you look at the policy statement, it does address, Madam Chair, what you're getting at, right? So the biggest part of the conversation before we ever got into the nuts and bolts were, what are we trying to do here? And that's up at the beginning of the document Karen, where it's one, make sure the agencies need them that. Also balancing that with and charging retention because for every person that wants to be in the office, other people that are gonna look at jobs that are more flexible. So we wanna be a mutually beneficial employer and we can absolutely accommodate the people who wanna be in the office and it's where's the right place to come down for the people who want some flexibility. But then third comes that piece that you're getting at, right? How do you have a good office environment and cohesiveness without being present? And the current restrictions on health issues haven't allowed us to really have those conversations of how do we get everyone in what's the timing on that. But that is one of the big factors that we're looking at and how to balance that. So we're not pranking people in just to bring them in but there's a purpose, there's a reason to get the office cohesiveness there. So a lot of conversation went into that and those are the three main things that we are trying to balance. And look at, there was a lot of work done by HR, a lot of work done by Liu, a lot of work done by the working group to figure out what other agencies are doing, what private sector is doing, what the health community is doing right now and how do we get all this into a place that makes sense? I think that's why Karen keeps hitting on, this is gonna be iterative. We're not gonna get it right out of the bat. We need to be flexible and managers need to really bear the brunt of this, right? And work with the team and work with the commission to make sure the job keeps getting done and we're not overstressing one area or under stressing another. Very, very helpful, Derek. I think that you outlined that perfectly along with Karen and the whole policy. Thank you. Any more questions on that piece? Okay, so the next piece just highlighted because I think it's a concern right now because we're not quite out of the pandemic and there's still maybe issues with childcare and all that. So for the, you know, generally in prior remote working that we've seen where agencies have sort of started doing that prior to any COVID-19 coming on the scene, there are certainly strict rules about remote work not being a replacement for childcare. So if there are elder care or any other work you need to do at home. So it's not as if you can be at home and take care of three kids and still be doing your job. But the way we phrase it here just to be mindful of the situation we're in is that, you know, it's remote work is not intended to be a replacement for childcare, elder care, vacation or sick time, family or medical or the types of leave. However, the current way the MGC recognizes the need for enhanced flexibility due to the COVID pandemic. So although an employee schedule may be modified to accommodate family care needs in accordance with other MGC policies, the focus of the work that must be remaining on job performance and meeting business demands. So it's the message is there is that yes, we will work with it. The job still needs to get done but we recognize that we're still in a pandemic and I get it that there may be an issue with a child that gets sent home from school because there are things going on. So I think the message here is that we're going to be reasonable because we recognize that we're still in the tail end of the pandemic. But any questions on that or any suggestions for how to modify that and certainly open to that. And then so the next piece, this one is a little more challenging and we've got to sort of figure that and that's sort of the equipment and supplies. So I'll put it sort of bottom line is that the MGC really as a state agency can't be supplying a full complete work station monitor to all the whole thing in your office and then a whole work station all thing getting home. It's that we've got to figure that out. So it's slightly different for people that are in offices and people that are in work stations or cubes because the expectation we do have sufficient equipment if we're doing this hybrid model people could just take their laptop and have what they have at home and then come into the office and then plug into a work station not necessarily the same work station every day but there's a solve to that. But we do have in here that employees are responsible for coordinating with their managers to ensure they have adequate equipment to perform the job functions properly during remote work. In some cases the MGC may assist the employee with recommendations for specific equipment related to their work. So if they want to purchase a monitor with specific connections to keep out around recommendation docking stations they want to set something else at home and I think some people have done that during the pandemic. You may be able to ride some limited equipment to an employee on a discretionary basis but we do have a work station at your office then come to the office and work there and if you'd like the option to work at home there may be a need for some equipment. So certainly opened any questions on that or if there's any comments on is that the right approach or do we have this right and do we strike the right balance there? Usually it's more the managers that have the offices there. They may have to purchase something if they want to work at home efficiently and that's partly the advantage of having a hybrid option. Any questions on that? Commissioner? Yeah, I'm just out of curiosity. I suspect a lot of this was already addressed but given that all of us have worked remotely again with some exceptions like the gaming agents it's fair to say that everybody who has worked remotely they have already found some kind of solution at their home. The issue is if they took all their stuff from their office and brought it home what do they do if they go into the office and do they just have their little laptop but they actually work in a job where you need two screens to do spreadsheets and all that and then they go into the office and they don't have it. That's sort of the question, right? Yeah, and it's interesting because I did have a director say to me that they are much more comfortable working at home even though they're happy to be coming into work to see people and work with their team that they no longer are comfortable because they're just bringing their laptop into the office. So they've established with MGC equipment a very comfortable working arrangement in their home place and now don't have that at work. So this actual provision is a real practical issue. Are we going to support to make sure that there's no disincentive to work well at the workplace with your team as a manager or are we really gonna make them come back in with their equipment that they've now set up at home and return it to the office? Are we just gonna just decide to invest in the setup? So this has been a conversation and we're working with IT and it really is unique to managers because for non-management employees a lot of it is one cube is another cube especially since we've gone to digital records you just find a cube plug in your docking station to the thunderbolt and you can often run. I think a workable solution would be some managers sharing offices if that's the case. I know I plan on moving out or taking some of the equipment from managers' offices who have established areas and redistributing it across the floor. So this is one that we're gonna have to work through as we go in and see all of the issues. We have not taken off the table buying more equipment but I know if Katrina we're on here she may pull her hair out managing the equipment for this initiative. But I know for myself I can, anyone wants to use my office they can go in and use it because I plan on going back and working out of a cube for most of the time and using the office as a team room so that we do have that ability to do private work in that area. I appreciate that Derek and you've shared that with me before but this would be I think there's probably some directors who might not adapt that approach and I think it's an interesting dilemma because you don't want it to be a disincentive to come into the office. And I think this is one of those ones that we've identified in the working group and we're just gonna have to see what happens when we go back in but there are people that are working fine from home and have gone out and bought extra stuff which means there is extra equipment in the office to be distributed to those cases. And I think we'll just have to figure out as they're identified. Like I said, I have two monitors in my office I think Troupi still has two in her office and really those are two monitors in my office that can probably be redistributed to a director that needs them when they come in because I'll just plug in at a cube and do like I have here. I'll tent my laptop as one monitor and use the other monitor that's in the cube as a monitor. So that makes sense. So Karen, maybe I'm struggling with a little bit here just in terms of the language is that it's focused on making sure the home office is really well equipped to be able to perform and to be able to perform comfortably and safely. And in turn, I wanna make sure that the workplace has comfortable and work arrangements and so maybe you work with each of your managers to say, hey, what's your setup at home? What's your setup at work? Let's make sure that it works for you equally so that when you are on your couple of days at home it's really good and when you're at work it's really good as opposed to a compromise, right? Yeah, I think that's 100% correct. Like we can't compromise the sort of the work product. For example, financial investigators that are doing complicated analysis that are using multiple screens, if they can't come into the office one day and just have a laptop and maybe one screen, it has the work product has to come first because that's why we're all here. But it's funny because I had a lot of consternation about this whole equipment thing at the beginning when we were talking about this. I have less anxiety about trying to figuring this out as we have gone along. I think that given the number of employees we have that are not in offices and given the functions of managers, I actually think this will work out but to your point, you have to have, wherever you're working, you have to be properly equipped and whether it's, and that includes the office because to your point, if you're working on a laptop at the office and you got your setup at home, nobody's gonna wanna come into the office. So you have to, that has to be solved and you have to have a good setup at the office and then we'll figure out the secondary location. But I do think based on the equipment that we have and the flexibility, I think we're in pretty good shape based on some of the communications I've had and I think I was somewhat in the same position. I was very concerned about this for a while and I have less concerns based on sort of the logistics but that's part of, to Derek's point, that's part of the test period. Let's identify where the gaps are and where we might not have recognized that we have an issue. So that's why it's this pilot policy. Commission Zinnika? Yeah, no, I think that's all right. I'm glad that you have that approach, Karen and I think the solution really is what Derek implies by his example with Tripti, that pooling resources is gonna get, perhaps a lot of people are in the optimal setup on both home and office. And I should say that, I think also it was implied earlier that maybe low cost, high return investments in a mouse or another docking station here or there might also get us all there. Especially when we are potentially and hopefully thinking about our lease renewal, which is not imminent, but eventually it'll be a conversation where there will be perhaps opportunities like the governor's office has been doing with agencies to reduce some footprint if we adopt this more fully. But of course I'm getting ahead of ourselves, this is a testing piece and I think it's the right approach. And either questions or comments on that, any other suggestions? Okay, good. Okay, really helpful. So the other piece that I highlighted here just for your discussion is this, and we reworded this a few times. So this one was a little bit tricky. So it's basically, what do you do if the person's working at home and the internet goes out or the power goes out, what do we do? So obviously, your power's out for three days, you don't want employees, oh my power's out, I'm supposed to be working remotely. And then they are not able to work for three days. There's a common sense, I think, aspect to this. So what we sort of settled on at least for now and certainly encourage some input here is just if a temporary loss of internet or utility connection causes the employee to be unable to perform their duties remotely, that employee shall inform their immediate supervisor the issue as promptly as possible. Supervisory develop a plan for continuous operations may include going into the assigned work location or using vacation or personal time for the period of such interruption. So it may depend on the ability to work. So for example, if an employee has work they can do and they're not dependent on the internet connection, even if the internet's down, they can still do work. They're still working. Just before they were the manager and they still do work. But if it's gonna be an extended period of time, it may be that you have to go into the office even though you were thinking you would be working remotely for the next two days. So it's just sort of a common sense. This isn't, there are gonna be issues. We've seen it. There are sometimes connections or problems. And I think there is also a line there that the internet connection or having accessibility to being able to work with your colleagues is incumbent on the employee. If they don't have that, it's not gonna work. We're not mandating you to stay home or giving you opportunities. So if that is not available at the remote workstay, work area, then we have a place for you to work. So we can make sure that you can get your job done and be successful. So there was a few rewrites of that. So certainly interested in any feedback on that or if there's a better way to phrase it or just confirming that the commission is comfortable with that approach. I'm gonna finalize this document for your consideration. Any thoughts? My only addition is that the employee should cross their fingers and say a few prayers and try again and then check in with their manager. We've all been doing that throughout this last 18 minutes. I think it's worth noting our IT department, they track everything. So they attract the service calls and there is an enhanced amount of work for the IT department when people work remotely. There are more calls for service when people work remotely. So it would be interesting to look at the data and see what we go to say this average of two and a half, does that cut, how much does that cut, and it does it cut down the service calls and things like that. So the interesting is how that plays out, but there are resources being used at the commission in order to allow for this remote working and they've been very effective and if you've ever called the help desk, they are so helpful. So I'm really grateful for all the work that you did. Well, Eileen and Gail, I'm sure you guys discussed this, but I'm very comfortable with this language. I know that everyone will appreciate this flexibility as a privilege and they're going to want to be able to work. So they'll just work it out the best they can. Right. I agree. Can I, Karen, before you move on, this is a minor issue, but it might not go without saying the prior bullet to what's highlighted over there in the screen, relative to the second information. I thought of the, perhaps uncommon, but it could happen a situation in which somebody goes into a public place, let's say a cafe to connect because there's a good Wi-Fi over there or whatever the situation, and which is still working remotely, but not technically in a home setting. So I would just like to see something to the effect of protecting information, including the information that other people may see just by looking at what you're seeing. Oh, I see what you're saying. If you are in a public place. That's not to, I mean, that has not been an issue is my suspicion so far because there's this pandemic, but as this becomes less restrictive, hopefully, we need to be thinking about that. That's a really good point. I did see that it refers to a secure connection when you do use the public access, which I think we could all use some training on these things, right? Yeah. But on the securing the documents, and then of course, reporting, if something happens and things can happen, you could have your files in your car and the car gets broken into just always a responsibility to let people know, can always work on that. No one should be fearful if something does get lost or picked up by potentially the public. Just a matter of reporting it. Okay. So maybe for purposes of processing, if I could work with Commissioner O'Brien and Commissioner Cameron just on the language and have them as members of the working group confirm the language, but we'll add something on basically the concept is you're protecting any information in any location in which you're working. Correct. Okay. All right. So let me add that. That's page three. Okay. All right. Anything else before I move on to the next page? Okay. You know, there's information, you just know safety and then the procedures. And basically, as Derek had also highlighted, this is really a connection with the manager and the employee in working these things out and making sure it works. And then the proposed plan is outlined in the written submission. So initially it'd be approved by the manager and our division head and subject to the approval by the executive director. So the manager's gonna know sort of boots on the ground, what sort of gonna work in a particular division and then, but ultimately it also has to be checked. So there's two places where it would be checked and it would be in written form. So there would be some really common understanding with the employee and the manager, what's gonna work. And then those managers also, as soon as I say that some managers report directly to the executive director, so I would just approve those directly unless the commission wanted some kind of secondary approval by commission. I just actually just thought of that as we were discussing that. So for a number of director reports, so I could either just approve those if you want any kind of secondary approval. I could go with this one. Any thoughts on that? I'm fine with your discretion, Karen, and then taking it, if you think that you would want confirmation, that's fine, but I'll leave it up to you. I agree with that. This is the appropriate way to go to move forward. Karen, can I just ask, does this policy I may have missed it? Does it allow you to call everyone in if you wanted the whole team in for either on training or an in-person event, cultural stuff that I was alluding to? Does this allow you to do that? I don't know if you have to have that in this policy. So I really refer back to the working group on that because I understand it really is a policy about flex time, but obviously it can override the policy, but that's not what we're talking about. Just a day where it's office day or something. Not specifically in there, but I think the opening description of the policy is that this is all subject to making sure that the agency functions the way it needs to function. So an inherent in that would be the ability to say, we need you in, but we don't have anything that specifically says either the commission or the ED has the authority to say you need to come in. I mean, the implication is even the supervisor could say to an employee, we need to have a team meeting. And so you need to be here on Wednesday, even though that's not normally your day because to function, we need you in. That's implicit in this and the opening discussion, but I don't know if it needs to be put in there more clearly. We could add a lot of, yeah, yeah. Sorry, Karen. I'm sorry. Go ahead, Erica. I think it couldn't hurt, you know, maybe one more sentence to the effect of, you know, of what Eileen was describing, you know, the director, the executive director or the, or any director can, you know, call the person in on a particular situation, but the rest would be, you know, flexibility. Okay. But it would be again, at their discretion or for whatever particular situation. There is a bullet on page two, allowing the suspension or cancellation of a flexible arrangement. That sounds like in its entirety. And maybe another sentence in that, around that location with a discretion. Although I'd like it to be framed in a positive rather than, you know, like a negative. It's more to build the culture. Sorry, Eileen. Go ahead. I think it needs to be framed more in terms of the needs of the organization at any point, you know, may require you to come in, notwithstanding any sub-color arrangement. That's good. Deppart and apart while Loretta just recognized, because that is more, we're suspending it for some, either, you know, malfeasance or some other reason. Yeah. That's how I read that bullet too. One issue that came up informally, Karen, I know that you and I discuss, I'm not sure if you discussed in the working group, commuting costs. There's not gonna be any change if it's, let's say it's the day where you normally are home and you're asked to come in. Does the commission doesn't absorb that, correct? Correct. Okay. So, Karen, just to back up on that and add clarification. Remember this is, the hybrid work is a privilege. It's not a requirement once it goes into effect. So that's why we wouldn't be reimbursing for the commuting costs when you come in if it's a day that you would have the privilege of working from home because, and that's a lot of analysis went into that too, right? As you set these up and how to make sure that we're not violating any rules as far as home offices or anything along those lines too. Thanks, that's a good way of framing it, Derek. Thank you. Yes. This is really good work, guys. Thank you. So that goes to the premise. So I've got two changes to the policy as written in the packet. One would be protecting information at any location and the other would be the needs of the organization may require attendance in the office for certain activities or events. If, with the commission's permission, I'll just work with Commissioner O'Brien and Commissioner Cameron to draft the language and get their thumbs up on the language and then we would implement the policy as they approve. Is that fair? Sounds good. Okay. So we'd vote on this and with just subject to those couple of changes. Correct, correct. So delegating a story for them to approve. Yeah, I can work with the group on the language but they would approve the final version with those two sentences. Can you take down the memo, please? Great. I just wanted to see basis. Commissioner Cameron, are you comfortable with the discussion and the recommended changes or is there anything we've left off? Very much so. The group did so much work. The team really thought about lots of possibilities did an awful lot of research. Really brought us information from their teams about how people were feeling and so it helped us consider every option when we move forward with this. So yes, I am totally in favor of the recommendations. Yeah, and Commissioner O'Brien? Yep. Okay, and is there anything that we didn't think of that was something that you think we should be chewing on and we feel that the document really reflects the work? Absolutely. Excellent. Okay. So Karen. Can I, I would also like to say that even though I wasn't part of the working group everything that you describe Commissioner Cameron and Karen and about all the work and thought that, you know, went into it is clearly comes through as you presented it and we discussed it and of course as we read the memo on the key areas. So thank you for all that work. Yeah, excellent work. And maybe it's a time to recognize who was on the committee, Karen, before we move in a more formal fashion. Yeah, so Gail Cameron, Ileena O'Brien, Loretta Lilios, Derek Lennon, Trifty Banda, Todd Grossman, Katrina Jagger-Growns and Joe Delaney. The last person? Joe Delaney. Oh, great. Cameron, towards the end, but it was a really good addition. It was, Joe's been great. So very helpful. Great. Good. Yeah, thank you. I know that the work has been going on for a while, but of course as COVID extended it's made things more complicated. You don't have a date for the pilot program to be implemented. And I heard you mentioned that, Karen, but I'm not sure about how that gets resolved. So my suggestion is we deal with the next issue of the vaccination policy and that will inform the start date because if there is a change in what our policy is with respect to our approach to vaccination, that would potentially impact the start date and how much lead time we need. So maybe the vote is the subject to be approved on the opening date which we'll be voting on later at the meeting. Sorry if I missed that. I may have just had Zoom ears and didn't quite hear that. So thank you. Thank you. Okay. Commissioners, then I guess it's mainly been you and me on making white questions because we weren't part of the working group. Do you have it? Are you all set now? Okay. And I am too. Thank you again and such excellent work and thanks to the entire committee. Did somebody want to move on this? Because you do want the vote. Sure, Brian. Certainly. Madam chair, I move that this commission approve the proposed pilot program for flexible and remote work arrangements as included in the commissioners packet and as further discussed and amended here today subject to insertion of the start date and end date at a future time. Second. Thank you. Any comments or edits to that motion? We're all good. Okay. Commissioner Cameron. Aye. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Zunica. Aye. And I vote yes for zero. Thank you Vivian and excellent work. Thank you. That's a big check mark, Karen. Yeah. Moving on to, yeah, it is a big deal. Thank you so much. I'm moving on to item two. Okay. So the second item regarding is regarding the vaccination policy. So as I'm sure everyone is aware, you know, we've seen government agencies, both in the Massachusetts across the country, they're evaluating implementing COVID-19 vaccinations with the tracking of what's been going on across the state, across the country. And we'll see it that it has been emerging and there has been a groundswell support for requiring vaccinations and at least requiring proof of vaccinations in order to give the employees some more comfort that their fellow employees are at least, if not vaccinated, then they are wearing masks. So, you know, I have a brief memo in the packet just outlining, you know, what the Treasurer and State Auditor did and they announced on July 29th that they were requiring that the employees show proof of vaccination against COVID-19 or submit to weekly testing at their own expense upon the return to the office from remote working and additionally unvaccinated employees where we were going to be required to wear masks. And then on August 4th, Attorney General Healy announced she was going to require that all her staff in the office be vaccinated against COVID-19 except for medical and religious exemptions. And similarly on August 19th, Governor Baker issued an executive order requiring all the executive department employees to provide proof of vaccination against COVID-19 on or before October 17th, 2021. In addition, that guidance, as new guidance was coming out regarding booster vaccinations that was going to include that employees would be also required to provide proof of booster vaccinations as recommended. So similar to the employee, to submit to the policy by Healy's office, employees for whom vaccination was medically contraindicated or who were subject to vaccination on grounds of sincerely health religious beliefs may be entitled to an exemption. So right now we were tracking the executive branch policy with regard to vaccinations. And we did require that anyone at the MGC who was not vaccinated was required to wear a mask was while at work at any MGC office unless they were seated alone in an office or at a workstation. We currently do not require proof of vaccination status and employees consistent with that prior policy of the executive branch. So we did discuss this again yesterday at the working group. My recommendation is given the established safety of the vaccine and what we're seeing as far as public health and best practices. I am recommending that we go with the executive branch and consistent with the attorney general's branches policy to require vaccinations of employees at the Massachusetts gaming commission. There may be a required lead time for that. I recognize that. And in the interim, it's my recommendation that we establish a policy requiring proof of vaccination to require mask wearing and weekly testing for any employee with a presence in any MGC office space until such time is all vaccinated. And I also recommend the MGC policy to allow for potential medical or lesic exemptions to be addressed on these records. So this is serious. This is the, I think the best way forward to protect our employees. And my recommendation is that we do the same thing that the governor and the attorney general doing with all those agencies. May I note also that it's not only your recommendation but that of the working group. There was a consensus after discussing this at length in our meeting yesterday that this was the appropriate way to move forward. Thank you, commissioner. Questions, commissioner O'Brien or commissioner Zuniga? No, I agree with the recommendation. This came up early on in terms of our discussions with the working group. I was in favor of being more conservative with the requirements in terms of protecting employees. So I absolutely think given the current state of affairs this is the way to go. Commissioner Zuniga? I agree. And one thing that was implied but I'll say it in current remarks, at least one vaccine is now fully approved by the FDA which may have been perhaps a hesitation by the executive branch and others until recently to move the way they did. So I'm completely comfortable with this recommendation and I think it's a very good public health practice. Karen, excellent memo. Very, very helpful in guiding the discussion and I appreciate the working groups input on this as well. I do have a question about timeframe. I see if I understand correctly the sounds of the governor's or the executive branch's timeframe is that folks have to show vaccination or is it vaccination underway or vaccination completion by October 17th? I'd love it if we had a timeframe here to work from. Yeah, so it looks as if the governor gave it not exactly approximately 60 days for the full thing for the full vaccination status. That is my understanding. So that sort of impacts sort of the start day of the office but there are certain options. We can give a date where employees may be fully vaccinated something you and I discuss and you would suggest but it's also, you could also require and a more immediate proof of a vaccination appointment. It's not that difficult to get vaccination appointments and if there's an employee that cannot show proof of vaccination instead of waiting the 60 days and then finding out oh, you never did anything about it. Well, maybe you have to show within X number of days that you have at least a vaccination appointment or you've got the process started. This is all about protecting our fellow employees and I do not think that's unreasonable. So assuming that we were to adopt this what would be for the first step what would be the time window for us to, I assume it would be taking a photo of our vaccination cards and submitting it to HR. What were you thinking in terms of the timeframe for just that first piece? If you- Well, so similar to what the attorney generals where they came out with the announcement we will still need to actually draft an actual policy on sort of the details on the process. So I think we could potentially do that within a few, a couple of weeks. So it may be that we put employees on notice now this is going to be the requirement. The notice of the, I mean, what I've heard is that other agencies are setting up an email account would be a separate private, within the MGC and MGC mass.gov account. And that would be where employees would submit pictures of their vaccination cards. And that has been the process which seems to me a reasonable process. They can also, if that doesn't work, they could also show HR in person. HR could take a picture of that. They wanted to come into the office and we could make arrangements for that. That's what I've heard as far as process. So we could, if the commission is comfortable we could get going on that process right away. And then we'd have a better understanding of how many employees are vaccinated versus not vaccinated. I don't know right now what the percentage is. I'm hoping it's very high. And this is just a limited number of people that would need to go get vaccinated. But my thinking is that, I don't know, Derek or Tripp, do you have any thoughts or have you heard anything else about process and how quickly we could implement? So I haven't heard of anything on process but I know that the IT will want to weigh in on this to make sure that whatever location we have it set up on is pretty secure. So we do have to go through some of that information because you'll have the dates of their vaccinations on their cards and the type of back. So I know IT will want to weigh in on how to do this and probably not in a public meeting just so that we don't show where that data is sitting. But that shouldn't take that long. I mean, they've spun around secure transfer sites up. They've spun those up in a day or two. So they have the vaccine cards in and that information, that shouldn't take longer than a week. And then writing up the process is what you're talking about. Do we want it proof that you're getting it if you don't have it already in five days and that you're getting tests and how are we monitoring that and how are we getting it through? That'll be the thing that takes a couple of weeks. I think that was a discussion in the working group. Correct me if I'm on group D and other group. I think it's important that we define a timeline and share steps and that's gonna be a big part of the policy component. I guess I wanna just go back to our conversation with our licensees commissioners and we really wanted this policy in place immediately of our licensees with their employees for showing their proof of vaccination. I feel personally that there's some degree of urgency here in that people are going to the office and people are wearing masks or not wearing masks. People are not necessarily identifying themselves as vaccinated, fully vaccinated. I know we also have the piece about the Boston. The mayor's new mandate that we need to discuss but I do feel that many, many organizations now have required immediate proof of vaccination so that they understand their rate of vaccination and it's done very, very swiftly. It was, I've seen it in my own family on the day of the request was made and the photos were submitted of the card. So I think that I would put a little degree of, no, I'd put a big degree of urgency on this and if I'm out of step with my fellow commissioners, I'm all ears. Deficient ears, I must admit, but I'm all ears. So commissioners speak up. If I can weigh in, I think it's important to do this quickly as well. I was encouraged to hear Derek just say that he thinks IT can spin this up in a day or two. That's encouraging, that would, I would hope today is Thursday we could have something in place maybe as soon as close a business tomorrow. Well, we have a plan anyway. Not that the whole process is completed but we have a plan that works and is the level of security we need it to be. But yes, I think everyone's prepared to do this or should be and that it isn't urgent matter to identify and start the process. I also, I think what one of the things we talked about was the 60 day process for those who are unvaccinated. And I do think what we talked about yesterday was not waiting the 60 days and then someone saying, well, I couldn't get an appointment. We know how easy it is to get an appointment right now. So maybe we give a week in order for someone to demonstrate that they are in the process of getting vaccinated. They have the appointment. I think that would be an important step as well for us planning and for this organization to move forward. So that was an interim step that we thought was somewhat urgent as well. What we could do is give as someone who's on vacation now and I don't have my card on me. If anyone's in my boat, a week might be a little too fast but if we gave two weeks to say you've either got to get your proof of vaccination in or proof of an appointment or if you're gonna request a waiver that the request for the waiver be submitted within the next two weeks. Cause then you'll have who's been vaccinated, who's queued up so that at the end of 60 days they will have completed the vaccination period and you'll be able to adjudicate and assess anyone if there's anyone who's requesting the waiver. And then you can put the 60 day date which I believe came out to October 27th in terms of the implementation for having to be completed with your vaccination in your two week post-second shot. So commissioner Brian, you're saying start the clock now but people give folks two weeks to get all of the required paperwork in place whether that be proof that you have an appointment or that you're completed you have your card into HR or you have your request for an exemption. So the clock starts if we vote today in the affirmative to go forward with this policy the clock starts today but there's a two week process to get that paperwork. Right. I think the tricky part is not gonna be folks that are vaccinated or folks that are going to get vaccinated. The tricky part is going to be what is exactly the policy on the waiver on the medical exemption or religious exemption. I think that's the part that we may need some additional legal analysis. We may need to look at what's going on in some other state agencies. We don't know if we're gonna get any of those. We might not have anyone that requests it and then it's a little point and we might as well get going but that's the trickier part. But all they really submit is documentation to request. I'm sorry, I couldn't quite hear that. So Commissioner O'Brien, please first. We don't need to adjudicate the request for a waiver or an exemption. They just need to file the request in writing by the close of the two week period. And then Commissioner Cameron, were you weighing in too? I was trying to say the same exact thing. We don't have to have the answer in two weeks. We need to have the request in two weeks. And it's my understanding that the way that that would work at least from the executive branch is that that's a request that it would be exactly what would be made through a typical HR request. And it would just be a case by case analysis. In other words, it's not just a general I have religious objections. There's going to be more. Let's be clear. The reason why we're having this discussion is we're not gonna get over this pandemic unless we all work together, right? And so this is tough stuff. We've got to take it very seriously. So the two weeks, you know, Commissioner O'Brien, I'm feeling your pain because you're on vacation. I'm gonna make a suggestion to everyone, though. Take a picture of your vaccine cards and keep it in your phone because you may be getting asked this more and more. Can't go see the Eagles this week in Madison Square Garden without showing your, you know, vaccinations. So just redact your birth dates. You're not flashing that around to everybody. Can I say again? Redact your birth dates. You're not flashing that around to everyone. Oh my gosh, everybody in the world knows our birth dates. There's no privacy anymore. But, you know, I just think it just as a practical tip, probably most of you have done it just in case you don't, you know, so you don't lose it. And I know there's probably gonna be some digital developments that come out because of various security issues around the cards themselves. But how are we feeling? Two weeks. Does that feel urgent enough, Commissioner Cameron? You know, it made sense when Commissioner O'Brien explained it, but we're starting the clock now. I think that's the important piece. People have realized that this is happening and they just have to take just as soon as they can, we urge them to get that information as soon as there's a plan as to how to move it forward. That's exactly what I would say is that we should stick with, I thought Commissioner Cameron made a really good point. If we can hear from Katrina and team by close of business tomorrow or early Monday, this is how you send us your proof of vaccination, right? Yes. And then everybody just get on board and send it. And even if there's a two-week window, you know, if you're in the situation where you may not have your card, just send it so that we'll have real intelligence about the rate of vaccination. That's a very important data point for us. If it turns out that it's lower than we expected, we may need to do something more urgent because we have to think about all of the health of all of our colleagues. If it turns out to be what Karen expects to be high, that's gonna be good intelligence for us to get. So we really encourage folks to send it. And hopefully it will be an easy ask. You know, it doesn't have to be so complicated that it becomes bureaucratic and burdensome. But secure, of course, we have to understand it's important health information. Christian Zuniga, you're nodding your head. Yeah, I agree with all of the discussion. Sorry to be very precise on this one question, but I think it's conceivable, hopefully it won't happen. But in the off chance that somebody has lost their vaccination card because we weren't expecting when we got it months ago, I hope that we can accept something to the effect of a sign of David that they have been vaccinated. I really hope this doesn't happen, but is there an alternative to showing proof of vaccination without the card, I guess is my question. If that happens. I wonder if the physician, that the person's personal physician might be able to weigh in on that. I'll go back to CBS or Walgreens or wherever you got it to see if you can back way. And most physicians offices didn't administer the shots. Yeah, this happened with my daughter, has a network where they are tracking where it goes through. So the physician's office knew that my daughter got her vaccines and they were out of CBS. So there is a way that they can get some confirmation from their physician. Okay, that doesn't work for every physician's office. So like my daughter's pediatrician did not get a notification from CBS. We had to scan it. That may be a possibility for some men, I guess. We can try to find as many avenues as possible. I would suspect the CBS would have records that we can get. Well, again, we could cross that bridge on a case-by-case basis if we need to. But that was just one thing that came to mind. I was very sure to save my vaccination card because I knew it might be necessary in the future, but that's not to say that everybody. Yeah, let's see if that's a problem. But I do think, honestly, every individual will be asked to have some credible proof. So an attestation may work temporarily for us, but the proof will need to come ultimately. So Karen, how do you feel about these discussions? Yeah, I think to be transparent with the staff that this is a big deal. This is a requirement. There would be serious consequences for non-compliance or any kind of attempt to make up something or do a false card. This is very serious and we will take this seriously up to and including termination. Any objection to that? No, no. No, I think the moment merits it. It does, it does. Okay, so process-wise then it sounds like what makes sense, probably a vote by the commission approving this approach. And then I will send an email to the staff today, basically summarizing this is the commission voted on and that they would be getting information as early as the beginning of next week on how to submit proof of vaccination and that so we'd give the details on the process next week. Does that make sense? Do you want the reference to the 10, 27, 60 days from today and that's the 99 two weeks from today? Karen? Yeah. Two weeks part of it as well. I'm not sure there's magic to the 60 days. That might be driven by not the vaccination rate but by other discussions. So 60 days, we're saying you have to get your vaccination within 60 days. You have to be fully vaccinated. So when you think about scheduling a shot, waiting three weeks, scheduling a shot, waiting two weeks, you're looking at at least what, five weeks? Okay. We were being consistent with what others are doing in state government. Oh, I know. I just know that the 60 days may not have been from the executive administration, may have been derived from other discussions as opposed to the vaccination rate. But you've raised the right point. I guess it was three weeks after your first dose, is that what you're saying? Or a month if it's the majority, right? If it was majority, perfect. I had to wait a month. Five to six weeks, so. Okay. So 60 days is fine. Thank you. Okay. And then, did you calculate the 60 day mark, Eileen? Did you give me a specific date? I went out eight weeks from today, which is 1027, October 27th. And then two weeks from today would be closed by Thursday, September 9th. Okay. All right. I can double check if the 1027 is that, we can do an actual 60 days, but you want to do the 60 days, that's what we're around then. Okay. Might as well be consistent as Kiel says, yeah. All right. Okay. So I'll put that in an email to the staff. My expectation is that overall, the staff is really going to be happy with this. I think that's sort of the feedback managers have reported to me is that people want to know that other people are vaccinated, that the agency is taking care of them and ensuring that other people are vaccinated and prioritizing their health. So I think my expectation, this will be welcome and that's a sign that we are taking care of our employees and we're prioritizing their wellbeing and we're trying to do our part to get past the pandemic. And it's a very positive step. And my hope is that if there was, for whatever reason, somebody hesitant to do it, that this would be the time to them go get vaccinated. Okay. So I think maybe the process would be a vote on this. And then, as Kathy mentioned, there is the Boston directive. So given that we're talking about the Boston offices, you probably should clarify that. Why don't, so should we just work right now on the vaccination policy first and then move to the mass discussion? Okay. Commissioners, I know that you've been able to, you've given us the privilege of asking a few more questions because we hadn't thought about it in detail, as you commissioners Cameron and Orion. So thank you. I'm all set. All my questions are answered. Amike, are you all set? Okay. So do we have a motion for Karen on this? Madam Chair, I move that the commission establish a policy requiring proof of vaccination against COVID-19 and require mask wearing and weekly testing for any employee with a presence in any MGC office space until such time as all employees are able to be vaccinated. In furtherance of this objective, I recommend that the vaccinations, full vaccinations be concluded within 60 days and that documentation be submitted to human resources within, by close of business within two weeks of today, which is September 9th, 2021, either offering proof of full vaccination, a scheduled appointment to commence vaccination or any request to be exempt from the vaccination requirement. Second. Excellent. Thank you. Commissioner, I'm assuming no questions. Commissioner Cameron. Aye. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Zinnega. Aye. I vote yes, 4-0. Thank you so much. And thank you for a thorough discussion and work. Okay, Karen, in terms of the Boston mandate. Yeah, so, and I know Carrie's on. I don't want to put you on the spot, Carrie. I know that Tripti reached out to you yesterday. So the, you know, the Boston Health Commission did put out an order and Carrie did take a look at that as far as exactly what the requirement is. I don't know, Carrie, are you available or prepared to just sort of give a brief summary of what you looked at yesterday? Yeah, sure. Oh, great. Thank you. So the Boston Order, the Order from the Boston Public Health Commission really identifies that it requires face coverings or masks in areas that are funding exact language. Places that are open to members of the public is the exact language that it uses. It identifies some examples of those places. It doesn't specifically stay office buildings. It does include municipal buildings in the examples, but, you know, that doesn't include state office buildings. So I think the language in terms of areas that are open to members of the public, it would apply to, you know, of course, in our building, the building lobby, the elevators and the building sent out messages. It would seem to apply to our office lobby, our public meeting space, if we were to go back to meetings in that space, not really to our internal office space. So I think that it's really within the commission's discretion to decide whether or not to require masks within our internal office space. Can I add to that? We did talk about this. I believe there's a strong recommendation that goes with this at the further down carry, which says in private offices, it's strongly recommended that masks are worn when you can't distance them. Do you have that language at all as part of this? I think it was down a little bit farther in the document. I don't have it open right now. Let me... I think this was a late night ask if I... Yeah, it definitely was. And Joe, you had found that at some point. Do you have that where that's located? I know Joe found it more discussing that yesterday. Yeah, let me see if I can find it. It was on the Boston website. No, as I'm looking at this, I've got a different, the final order doesn't seem to have those strong recommendations. That was just on a summary, I think, that was on the city of Boston website. It may have been in the summary on the city's page. I don't see it in the order itself. It might have been reflecting CDC guidance. I don't know if that's the language of the CDC guidance though, if it strongly recommends or... So it sounds as though it's not part of the mayor's order that there was a recommendation around our office space from asking. Karen, would that said? Right, so, yeah, so it sounds like we're, for folks that are, our offices are not open to public right now. So between now and say the date at the end of October, they're still not open to the public, but we have people, some of the troopers are working there and we have people periodically going in. So the question is, it sounds like it's not mandated. We could, if I send out my email, we could recommend it if we wanted to recommend it consistent with CDC guidance, if you're gonna be with people, or we can, given that we are now mandating vaccines, do we wanna just wait until that policies is implemented? We are tracking who's going in the office and there's only a very few people in the office. Maybe the recommendation could be, if you're not able to distance in the office, it's a strong recommendation that you mask. I think I would stay with my stated position, which is we're not the public health experts in that we would follow the, this mayor, because our office is in Boston, this mayor's guidance around masking. It was strictly with respect to public, but of course anybody can always choose to wear a mask. But again, if the commission votes to, on some recommendation around masking, I think our team would take that very seriously. And again, I just think that I'm going to stick with my position is the local mayor has made her decision on this, the governor's made his decision on the state, and we're following that. I wasn't in any way thinking we should vote on this, because I don't think, no at all. I was just saying you want to recommend, if you happen to be in a setting where there's no distancing, just a recommendation that you mask in that particular setting, which sounds like it's not an issue in our office, by the way, because there are so few people going yet. I think that's right. I, although the mayor appears to have issued that recommendation and deferred to private places, in our case, which is what we're talking about, but I'm on board with that recommendation. But they must wear a mask if they are not vaccinated. Correct, that is 100% correct. Must wear a mask if they are not vaccinated. There's no shame in wearing a mask if you are vaccinated. Yeah, right, right. I can direct you to the, it's on the city of Boston website where Joe's talking about. It's under the bossin.gov slash news slash what you need to know about mask requirements. And it's under the recommendation section where it says it is strongly recommended that mask be worn at a private indoor setting with people outside your household. Though it is on the Boston website, it is a recommendation, but it did not make it into the policy, which is correct. This is just a recommendation of how to further protect. So, I think that goes into where we were looking at information yesterday and does it pertain to public health orders? And where we said, yeah, there's nothing that actually requires it, but it's a good recommendation. So, just wanted to give the site that Joe had from yesterday. And that applies to regardless of vaccination status, right? That's as you said, yeah. Yes, that's regardless of, you know, and it goes back to that mask's work if everyone wears them, right? And this Delta variant is able to be transmitted in vaccine fully vaccinated adults. And some people have immunocompromised people that they live at home with. And some people have unvaccinated people that don't have the option of being vaccinated because they're under 12 that they live at home with. So, you know, I think that's where that recommendation comes from versus a actual requirement. And that's consistent with the governor's policy and mandate, yeah. That it's an individual based assessment of risk, yeah. Understood. It never helps to remind people, you know, what these recommendations are because they may not have seen the same sites or news that we see. So, it's just a reminder is, I think, important for our team. That's right. In commission on camera, there are actually yesterday quite a few, I was in the office, there were quite a few of our teammates there. And so, again, this is, you know, guidance that we can remind people of. Everybody should be comfortable. But there is at least one mandate and that is if you are unvaccinated, you must have a mask on at all times when you're with your colleagues. So, I'm wondering, Madam Chair, that if it makes sense, if I send an email out or on the, you know, the decisions the commission made and then maybe do a link to the Boston information and a reiteration of the current policy that unvaccinated employees must wear masks in our office space. Does that make sense? Do you want to, should I send the link to the Boston, since for the Boston, wait, thoughts on that? Thoughts on heart. Right, I think that's it. Is that going to be confusing for people? I don't want to confuse anybody. I don't think it's confusing. I think it's the latest information about what's recommended. That's all. I think it's, and to have the actual language makes sense as opposed to something we paraphrase. And it's really important for them to have their mask on in the lobby and in the elevator. That's really important in the hallways, in the bathrooms, guard. Yeah, and Marianne was super helpful as on vacation. She did send that out office-wide that that information came out. So I was really grateful that she did that. Do you need anything further from us on that? No, that's helpful. So underneath that, there's no vote. So I think then the final issue is the Boston office reopening date and what to do. Okay. So what we thought about in the working group, and Karen, did you want to take the lead on this? No, no, please go ahead. No, what we thought about was matching it with our decision today about vaccinations and going the 60 days to reopen so that everybody will have that comfort level that everyone will be vaccinated by that time or they will not be in the workplace. So there is no guessing at that point. That makes perfect sense to me. So do we do the one after that? Because that date actually falls in the middle of a week. Yes. Yeah, the next Monday is November 1st. Can we have an October day? I don't know. One makes the most sense though. I mean, because we have 27th for everyone to get done and then you'll have two more days that would make more sense to start on the first. Well, if we go back on the 27th, it just seems like we're getting out of line now with a lot of organizations. I know a lot of organizations, people are working in their offices. So I know a lot of people are going back until January. So I don't... I guess that's right too. So it doesn't matter. But in terms of the October 27th, that was really 60 days. That's close to business. So you're talking the first day after that is a Thursday. So to me, the 11-1 makes more sense. Okay. Fine as well. Yeah, I'm comfortable as well, just to put a whole plan in place that makes sense. And I will get plenty of time to get office equipment in place, home office equipment in place, energy around the physical plant in place, ideas for all MGC activities, Karen, to be putting on the agenda. That's a lot of lead time now. So it gives... I know that helps you for that kind of planning. Yeah, I'm also looking at the dates for the commission meetings. And I think the commission meeting around that would be the November 4th, if we keep on the two-week schedule. So we'd be back in the office on the 1st and then a commission meeting on the 4th. And I do want to add a couple of things about the commission meetings. And one of them is that I will need my colleagues to come in to work with me and the team on the technology. There's a current proposal that technically works. It has some challenges in terms of management from my perspective and also from the engagement of the commissioners if we're in person. It's a different experience. So I'm hoping that during this interim period there'll be opportunities for us, even though I know we're not opening the offices until November that we do convene together to get this training. And I believe we have permission and open meeting law to work this out. Otherwise I invite anyone in the public that they're interested to come help us brainstorm on the solution. So I am looking for a couple of opportunities where we meet in person. The other will be around the onboarding of our new commissioner. So, and I know we're also gonna be meeting in person in September for the international conference. So there will be just a few, maybe that we can even leverage that a little bit to figure out the challenges of the technology. Karen, does that make sense? Karen and I've done one X-traum, yeah, yeah. It's pretty cool. It's just, it's still, I'd love insights from everybody to you might come up with great ideas. That's, and this is a hybrid arrangement. And our decision will be, do we adopt that? Which is a little bit different than what we were discussing today. Does that sound okay? I know commissioner Cameron, you've got some scheduling issues, but I'm wondering if in September, that might work for you. No, I'd be interested in learning actually because. Oh, great, I thought so. Yeah, it's interesting technically. And then it's also just, we need some good brainstorming. Okay, all right. So, we need to vote that on the. Did we vote on the date? Did I miss that? No, we need to have a vote. Okay. I was just before, before we voted on that, I was getting some buy-in to still come in before the official reopening date of the offices. Right. Well, that's probably really important for the staff to know that you can still come into the office before November 1st. We have a process for that and the people that wanna come in and do some work in the office is an option. I think that's important for everyone to know. I know some people have been going in because of their own mental health, they need to get out of their homes. So, it's a, you know, I think we can convey it's been a safe environment to go into. And it does offer an opportunity to bump into people. And with that said, I want to note that we do have a new colleague here before our vote, Heather Hall. I know you're gonna probably formally introduce her, but literally I bumped into her in our office space and we were able to meet in person rather than virtually as we had anticipated. So welcome, Heather, Loretta. Thanks, Kathy. And I do plan to acknowledge her at a later time at one of our meetings, but I am absolutely over the moon to have her on board with us. She's had a career thus far as an attorney in public service in multiple environments. I know she's excited to be on board with us and it has jumped right in to all of our many interesting projects. As Chief Enforcement Counsel. Yes, I'm sorry to leave that out. As Chief Enforcement Counsel, a role that is near and dear to me. So I'm very happy to have her on board. Yeah, so it was interesting because I got to meet Heather in person before I met her virtually. So there we are. So thank you, Heather and it looks like you're in the office today again. Joe, are you in the office? Yeah, yeah, and by the way, the building has walls across the way now. Glass walls are, yeah, so, but beautiful. So we have to have a vote for the date, Commissioner O'Brien that you calculated would be Monday, November 1st or 4th. Okay, 1st. All right, Commissioner Zunica, you wanna make a motion? Sure, I move that the commission determine that return to the office be the date of November 1st of 2021 in accordance to all of the discussion here in today. Okay. Second. Thanks, Commissioner Cameron. Aye. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Zunica. Aye. And I vote yes, 4-0. Great, any other business? Commissioner Cameron, anything on the update on the international? Nothing after the update last week, thanks. Do you think that the mass, well, if the mass requirement doesn't change, by then does that apply to hotels? I believe it will, because it's a public setting. Yeah, okay. Let's all say some prayers that things shift in the right direction. All right, everyone, stay safe. There's no further business. I'll take a motion to adjourn. I move to adjourn. Second. Second. Thank you. Just a big thank you to the entire team. This was an important meeting and all the work that went into it. A lot of challenges and it still seems a little bit surreal to me that we're having these discussions, but this was excellent work. Commissioner Cameron. Aye. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Zunica. Aye. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Karen. Thank you very much. Thanks, everyone. Thank you, everyone. Bye. Bye.