 Good morning, everyone. I hope everyone can hear me. Today is Tuesday, April 28th, 2020. This is a public hearing before the Massachusetts Gaming Commission. I am Commissioner Bruce Stebbins of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission. We are convening this hearing pursuant to Massachusetts General Law Chapter 30A, Section 2, given the unprecedented circumstances resulting from the global pandemic. Governor Baker issued an order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law to protect the health and safety of individuals interested in attending public meetings. Keeping with that order, the Commission will convene this hearing using remote collaboration technology. I will ask that attendees please mute themselves until they speak to help keep background noise down to a minimum. Also, please note that the Commission is recording this hearing. Whoops. The purpose of this hearing is to offer any interested person or group an opportunity to comment on the Commission's proposed regulations. Once we begin, anybody who wishes to comment on the proposal may state their name and be recognized. They may then proceed to offer their comment. The agenda today pertains to the following items. 205 CMR 133.04, voluntary self-exclusion, duration of exclusion and removal from the list. The proposed amendment would revise the period between the reinstatement session and reentry onto the gaming floor after removal from the voluntary self-exclusion list to establish uniform procedures. Also, 205 CMR 134.09, investigation, determination and appeals for gaming establishment employees and vendors. The proposed amendment clarifies provisions in the existing regulations regarding the handling of information and records pertaining to sealed and expunged records by the Investigations and Enforcement Bureau as part of suitability investigations. After we hear comments, we will close this public hearing. We will then review the proposals including consideration of any comments for final approval as part of our scheduled meeting which will follow this hearing. We will now hear comments on the proposals. We'll begin with the first proposal. I ask that any speaker please identify themselves before commenting. To help facilitate everyone's opportunity to comment and the use of technology to conduct this meeting, if you are accessing this meeting virtually, you may signify your interest in making comments by sending a note or raising your hand at the bottom of the screen. Those features are available at the bottom of the screen through moving your cursor. If you're dialing into the meeting by phone, I will invite comments and make sure that everyone wishing to comment has that opportunity. With that, we will now open this hearing for comments on the first regulation, 205 CMR 133.04, voluntary self-exclusion duration of exclusion and removal from the list. Is there anyone out there who is joining us who would like to offer comments on that particular regulation? Okay, at this point, I am not hearing anyone. We will come back for comments on that particular regulation before we close the hearing. Again, is there anybody of interest in offering comments on the voluntary self-exclusion regulation? Yes, I am trying. This is Weezy Waltson. I'm trying to be heard. Am I being heard? You are, Weezy. We are talking. Hi, good morning. So I wasn't just a minute ago. I have a point of order question on the technology at this moment, which is that the only way I know to get into the hearing is by this phone call. That was the only thing in the notice that I saw. Is that the only way or because there's no screen that I am aware of and it's not on your website. Okay, hang on just a minute, Weezy. So I'm willing, we'll accommodate anything just we want to know how to coordinate with you. Does she have an email that you could send an invite to? Yes, and and we've been getting the notice. Is there something else we should be getting? I think Todd, the by calling in that is sufficient under the new arrangement because it is a collaborative connection. If she would like to be able to see to actually participate visually, you could send an email, but it's not I'm not I'm not concerned about being able to participate visually. I am concerned that we know how to raise our hands when we want to speak without being disruptive. I can there's only three of you who've called in so we'll make sure that each of the three of you have an opportunity to speak. Of course, is it Pauline from Greater Boston Legal Services in Angela? Do you know from Roxbury? We can only see your phone numbers. So I'm not sure who they are. Pauline are you on the line? Yes, I am. Okay. Good morning, Pauline. Hi, so is so is Angela and Angela. Okay, perfect. If you great if you can send us the link so that we can raise our hands in the right way. That would be just great. Thank you so much. We see you're you're fine. I think the way we can accommodate you by dialing in on your phone is is is certainly is certainly fine. It's working out for all of us. We can hear you perfectly on this end. We can move on now to if there is no one wishing to offer any comments on the voluntary self exclusion regulation. We can move on to accepting comments on 205 CMR 134.09, which is the investigation determination and appeals for gaming establishment employees and vendors. This is the proposed amendment clarifying provisions in the existing regulations regarding the handling of information and records pertaining to sealed and expunged records by the investigations and enforcement bureau as part of suitability investigations. So if anybody wheezy or Pauline or Angela who would ever like to go first, please identify yourself in your in your hometown, please, and then feel free to offer any comments. Hi, this is Pauline. I'm from Greater Boston Legal Services, and I'm the director of its Korean reentry project and I had submitted some written comments which are self explanatory. And I wanted to begin by thanking the Commission for proposing this change in the regulations so that if records are sealed, you can't go behind the sealing order or the administrative order that sealed the order by by way of an investigation and then use the sealed record information against the person. This actually this regulation brings the gaming hiring practices in alignment with a lot of the criminal record sealing laws which say essentially that once your record sealed, you can say you have no record, it shouldn't be used against you. The second comment I'd have though, one thing that in terms of looking at the proposed regulation, our groups did notice that that juvenile records can be considered in terms of employment, which I think is problematic because that's inconsistent with the anti discrimination laws. Chapter 151b doesn't let an employer, for example, inquire about records that didn't end in a conviction in any juvenile matter unless it's a murder case that was filed in the Superior Court or it's another case that was transferred from the juvenile court to another court. You know, it's simply not something that an employer can inquire about. It's not admissible in evidence. The only time you can use prior juvenile records against the person is if there's a subsequent criminal proceeding and then you'll at the time of the disposition, if the case ends unfavorably, then the information can be used against you at the time of sentencing. And as I explained in the letter that I sent in, you know, over time, courts have come to recognize the scientific research about brain development and a nutshell, the brain is not fully developed until about age 25. That's why the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the death penalty for juveniles because of that scientific fact. And we have case law from the SJC in Massachusetts to the same effect having to do with consideration of juvenile records. In juvenile records, as you acknowledge in your case, the proposed regulations are not convictions, but what happens is with a lot of these jobs, you know, it's simply unfair to use somebody's juvenile record against the person in any way, you know, given that it is a juvenile record. And in terms of just general employment, in terms of employment, if it could see in what may be a restaurant that's on the premises or maybe some other entity, these are equivalent to other jobs that are out there where juvenile records are not considered. So it'd be somewhat of an anomaly that you're using a juvenile record against the person for some of these jobs. And I don't think you have to worry about some of the higher level type jobs because people probably won't have the qualifications if they're still young to apply for those positions. So we're talking about a lot of this just garden variety positions that are available, you know, at the casino. And I think that's pretty much all I have to add other than other than again, thanking the committee for listening to comments that have been made about use of sealed records. But I think we go a little further in terms of trying to give people opportunities to work in the gaming industry by also not using juvenile records against people, you know, who apply for positions. Okay. Pauline, thank you for your comments. Thank you. Weezy or Angela, is there anything you would like to offer or add? Yes, I this is Weezy. On behalf of the Jobs Action Network and Casino Action Network and Action for Equity, we just want it clear that we we're continuing to work and stay working together at this time. And but on behalf of, in fact, a growing network of community organizations, primarily based in communities of color, that we want to echo what Pauline has said. And we're appreciative of your efforts on the commission. And we're appreciative of Pauline's efforts as as having worked with us to help us really understand some of this legal background. So thank you very much. Angela, is there anything you would like to add? Hello, can you hear me? We can Angela. Good morning. Okay, good morning. This is Angela Williams, Mitchell from Roxbury Job Action Networks and Boston Job Coalition. And I would like to echo both Pauline and Weezy's statements. I also like to emphasize that juvenile infractions are not labeled convictions, but they are delinquent. Not unless, as Pauline has stated, they got bounced to adult court, got transferred to an adult court, then it changes the the the the labeling of it. So that becomes very important. I'm a Boston police officer, a retired Boston police officer. And that has been a passion of mine that as as a youth, you may do some you may make decisions that's not in your best interest, but it should not follow you the rest of your life if if you're straightening yourself out. And that's the extent of my comments. Okay. Angela, thank you very much for your comments. And thank you for your service to the city of Boston. Thank you. Is there anybody else who has joined us who would be interested in making any comments with respect to the two regulations we are considering today? Okay. Hearing none, we have a few more minutes. We can suspend the hearing for a few moments and come back just shy of 10 o'clock and see if anybody has joined us. We want to make sure that anybody who might be working through this through this collaborative technology has a chance to dial in. So we'll give them a few more minutes. So we'll suspend the hearing and come back at 9.55 and see if anybody And may I ask a question, please? When you come back, will you have discussion of this of this testimony and be voting on the regulation at that time? Or is it a regular meeting? Sure, Angela, this is just a hearing. So we're just taking public comment on the regulations that are up for consideration today. And the commission will make a final decision on the regulations at a future public meeting of the commission. Thank you. Thank you. Actually, past 9.55, we apologize. We didn't have a screen up saying that this hearing was in temporary suspension, but as we work through the use of our technology to hold these regulatory hearings, we're certainly coming up with a to-do list to make these better and more effective. I am going to reconvene this hearing at 9.56 a.m. I will ask if there is anybody who has joined this call who would like to offer comments on the regulations that we are taking public comment on today, which again are 205 cmr 133.04, voluntary self-exclusion, duration of exclusion and removal from the list. In 205 cmr 134.09, investigation, determination, and appeals for gaming establishment employees and vendors. This is a proposed amendment clarifying provisions in the existing regulations regarding the handling of information records pertaining to sealed and expunged records by the investigations and enforcement bureau is part of suitability investigations. So has anybody else joined us that would wish to offer comment on these two regulations? I'm not hearing anybody and when I look at our list of participants, I'm not seeing any new names or numbers popping up. Again, a last call if there's anybody who has joined us who is interested in offering comments on these two regulations. We're anxious to hear from you. Feel free to just speak up. Okay, I'm not hearing any. So at this point I will close this public hearing. Thank everyone for their time and participation and the comments that were offered by the three respondents we heard from today and thank everyone again for their participation and I'll close this hearing. Thank you, Sharra. Thank you.