 Okay, today we'll be conducting our our meeting again virtually using remote technology that allows us to gather for this public meeting given relief from the open meeting law that was issued in executive order back and marked by the governor. Today is Thursday, November 6, and excuse me, November 5, 2020. It is public meeting 325. Before we get just started today, I want to remind everyone that today we will again focus on the implications of the continuing uncertainty of the pandemic. Yesterday was a new Massachusetts record since May 14 of confirmed coronavirus cases. And the United States recorded more than 100,000 new virus cases for the first time yesterday. So we want to renew our gratitude for the medical community that is facing the challenge of changing public health metrics. And we, you know, thank them for everything that they do to help heal those who are affected by the virus. With that, we want to get started on our meeting. Item number two, approval of the minutes. Commissioner Stevens. Good morning. And thank you for that reminder, Madam Chair. In your packet, colleagues, you have the minutes from the August 13, 2020 meeting. I removed their approval subject to any corrections for typographical errors or any other non-material matters. Any edits that you have? Commissioner O'Brien? I did just one wording suggestion at page three at 10.13 a.m. Director Bann is talking about poker and then it concludes basically saying that it will probably not be resuming. I just think it needs to be phrased that he was not recommending that it resumes since ultimately the decision to resume or not is up to the commission. So I just think the wording needs to say not recommending. Okay. Thank you. I'm just pulling up the minutes as well. Any other edits that you'd recommend? Commissioner Zuniga or Commissioner Cameron? I have one suggested change to, I think it was, it's fair that it was complicated but under 11-01, I'm sorry I don't have them pulled up in front of me, but the 11-01 entry, Commissioner Stevens, that was with respect to the independent monitor. Commissioner O'Brien, maybe you too also might want to help on the clarification. First off, it does suggest that the chair made a recommendation. That would be the chair and Commissioner O'Brien. We work together with the independent monitor and I think the real clarification, Commissioner Stevens and Sharra, is that I believe you get to it in the second part of that section under 11-05 but that the contract, we were recommending that the contract be between Mr. Pugh and Miller and Chevalier. I don't believe we ever have a contractual arrangement with Mr. Pugh's firm. So that's the clarification I'd like that it's strictly our recommendation is that Miller and Chevalier work out a subcontract, which is in fact what did happen. Am I right on that, Commissioner O'Brien? You are, actually. Yep. It's so it should say the commission is in communication with Miller and Chevalier who is working on a contract with Mr. Pugh to retain him. Right. And I think that that's really the bottom line. If I'm sorry I don't have my notes, I'm going to pull this up on the next more successfully than what I'm doing right now. It's okay. So that's just a point of clarification. Anything else on the minutes? All right. Then do I have a second? I second with those amendments. Okay. Excellent. Thank you. Any further comments? Okay. I abstain, Madam Chair. I was not present for that meeting. I'm trying to imagine where you were. It was August, right? I'm hoping that it was a good round or something. I was on the cake for that week. I can't remember that. So, you know, in terms of our virtual meeting that you were absent, but yes. Okay. Thank you so much, Commissioner. So I'm one abstention. Commissioner Zuniga. Hi. Commissioner Stevens. Hi. Commissioner O'Brien. Hi. And I vote yes. So for yeses and one abstention and Commissioner Cameron, you did not have to tell us where you were. Thank you so much. It's just hard in this virtual reality to remember where people might have been. So thank you. Moving on then to our administrative update. Next second, Director Wells, please. Good morning, Madam Chair. Members of the commission. I just wanted to start off the administrative update, just a job listing update. As the commission is aware, we've been running a very lean shot, particularly during COVID. We're recognizing, you know, the economic strains that the pandemic has put on other licensees and commonwealth. And we've been cheering in that burden and being very judicious about positions. However, there are three critical positions to our operations that were necessary to fill. So we do have three open positions. And I just wanted to give you an update on those. The all positions are on all of these positions. The team is working with Jill Griffin on the diversity end and with HR to enhance the diversity of the applicant pool. So far, we've seen that to be very successful. So we're very pleased with those results and very encouraged by that. The first position I just wanted to mention was the licensing division chief. That was the first one that was posted. We are in the final stretch of that process and we are quite happy with how that is going. So we're hoping to have some resolution to that quite soon and be able to report out on that. So that has been successful so far. We also have the IED director position. That posting does close tomorrow. So any member of the public that is interested, I just wanted a reminder out there, but that date for that posting closes tomorrow. So we have had quite an interest in the position. Many resumes have come in. That is a high level position within the office. So I just wanted to remind the public and team here that we'll be moving forward with that position. And that also within the general counsel's office, we do have an associate general counsel position that is posted. And that still is open and they're still collecting resumes for that position. All three of these positions are great opportunities for people. They're great positions with interesting work and there's opportunities for career development in taking those. So I just wanted to flag those to the commission, let you know they're moving forward and our enhanced process with the diversity efforts. We like how this is working and having chill in the mix and getting some more outreach out there. So that's been very positive. Does any commissioner have any question about the process or any of the positions at this point? Yeah, thank you. I would just make a comment and recognize that just what you said at the beginning that we've been very much, you know, very lean type of operation and that's really failed these three positions on three key people that stepped in to do a lot of the work that would normally be done by others and specifically thinking of Loretta, Derek and Todd when it comes to doing a lot of other functions that they normally do in addition to the ones by virtue of the vacancies. It also means that they coordinate with others like you Karen and other staff members, but I just wanted to mention their efforts. And I think also to, as you alluded at the end of the remarks that it's great that we're getting a lot of interest, but I think also in the past it's been a good opportunity for internal candidates to be considered and we as our processes do it in the same way that we've always done it. And I'm happy to hear that it's moving along. Thank you. And just a clarification, Karen, with these job listings that there's no expansion of our team, it's filling those positions. So again, to emphasize that we are cognizant of these times, certainly. Right. It's a really good point that the people doing double duty and you can only do that for so long without that being too much. So I think this is appropriate given our resources but we're being very judicious in the positions that we're filling and not going extra positions. Yeah, all three are filling. Exactly. Okay, excellent. Thank you. Okay, so from the next part of the administrative update, I would like to turn it over to Dr. Lightbound just to give you an update on racing and what's going on there. Thank you. Hi, Alex. Hi, thank you. And good morning commissioners and Madam Chair. So about a week and a half ago, we had our finals for the mass spread races at the harness track called the sire steaks program. This program, as you've heard on other reports, has really taken off. There were eight races that day, each giving out a purse of $90,000. And this was preceded by three separate heats of races starting in September for horses to qualify for these races. So that was a great program. And even in those races leading up to the finals, the purses were around $30,000. So that program is getting quite a bit of money out to the breeders and owners in Massachusetts and the area. Just in general, we've had 49 judges ruling so far this season. And that's on par, usually in a full season, we have around 120 or so. So our judges have been very busy. The veterinarians and their veterinary assistants in the test barn have been busy also. We've done around a thousand TCO2 tests, including 67 on the sire steaks final day. On that day, the Santa Brent owners of Massachusetts has asked us to test every horse in their finals races. Usually we do two per race. So that was a big day for testing. Again, everyone was very good about complying with that program. And we've done around 600 blood and urine tests and 800 blood tests so far this year. Again, that's on par with what we would do in a normal year as far as a daily rate. As you know, that Plain Ridge was able to get their spirit of Massachusetts and Clare Barton races in. The $250,000 spirit of maths and a Clare Barton for $100,000 earlier this year. That was July 26th. That was quite a feat. They could have easily canceled that race. As you know, we opened for racing on the 13th of July. So that came up very quickly. But Steve O'Toole's staff was very good about going ahead and getting everything done so that those two races could still go on. We're scheduled to finish out the meet with about 68 days of live racing. The last day of racing is November 27th. So far this year, we've run in based on everything from very hot weather in the middle of the summer to Friday where it was freezing. So kudos to our staff, particularly out in the testing area where they're exposed more than the rest of our staff to the elements. So that's a quick roundup. I know we have a busy schedule today. If anyone has any questions. Dr. Leipa, with our significantly, significantly increased purses, as you just pointed out, it's nice to see that our violations, i.e., you know, illegal substances has not been an uptick. I believe I understood you correctly to say that. All right. This year, so far, we've only had two adverse... Yeah, so I read what's happening nationally and the call for national reform. So it certainly is a tribute to everyone involved with racing here in the Commonwealth that we are able to run races safely and that the integrity is such an important piece. So I thank you and the team as well as all the participants for really abiding by the rules and making sure that the races are fair. So thank you for that report. Thank you. Other questions? Commissioner Zunica? Thank you. Just perhaps just a comment that I think you alluded to. I was doing a little update on the annual report and looking at the difference in disbursements out of the Racehorse Development Fund. These latest fiscal year, which ended in June 30th, I know your update was more on the Canada year. And compared to the prior fiscal year, it was, well, quite a bit less for a couple of reasons, mostly the money that funds the Racehorse Development Fund from March to the end of that fiscal year was less because of the suspension of operations in the casinos. But it sounds like from the update that you just gave is that there was an offset with the reduced number of days. And therefore, the track and your staff was able to maintain the same level of purses it appears. I didn't even increase them in some cases as you just described. Is that a fair overall sort of summary of some of the dynamics that we're beginning to see? Yes, and we were fortunate. I think it's probably been mentioned at some of the other meetings. There was a holdout trying to think of the right word. There was an excess in the purse account at the beginning of the year, $400,000 from 19 and $400,000 from 18. So there was about an $800,000 rollover from the previous years that was in the purse account. And it actually was very fortunate with the COVID striking that that was in there because it allowed Plain Ridge to keep their levels of their individual daily levels of purses up. And also that our casinos were able to open, which obviously funds a lot of the resource development. Well, it does. It funds the resource development fund purse money. So other tracks in the country, if their casinos were still shuttered, even if they were allowed to go ahead and open racing, their purse accounts took a big hit. So we were very fortunate. And actually, a lot of coursemen really wanted to race at our track because the purses were kept up at decent levels, which was very fortunate. Thank you. Other comments or questions for Dr. Leibbrand? I just want to thank you, Dr. Leibbrand, for your leadership during this complicated time. You worked very closely with, of course, the, with Director O'Toole and PPC, but you also worked closely with the community of the horsemen and women, and they wanted to go to work. And, you know, with guidelines in place, you've been able to lead a safe return to horse racing during this time without incident. And we're going to, you know, knock on wood. Thank you so much for your leadership. I sensed it when I got to visit that people were happy to be back and, and, and we're pleased to be able to, to do what they love the best. So thank you. It certainly has been a challenging time. Thank you. Okay. Right. I'll set then with your administrative report. Yes, thank you. We can move on to item number four. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, this is on the COVID-19 development. So, thank you very much. I wanted to still give the commission an update on what's going on on site at the casino and then we'll go into the executive order on number 53. Well, why don't we start with the casino updates so you can get a sense of what's going on presently at the casinos. And I'll turn that over to Loretta and Bruce just to give you a sense of the onsite activities and COVID related issues. Thank you. I want to start with Loretta. Good morning, Loretta. Oh, Loretta, you know what? For some reason, you're, you're not, doesn't say mute, but you might want to check your computer. Yeah, can't hear her. So you just, you want to just act, see if on your keyboard you accidentally muted yourself on Loretta. That, otherwise we'll move on to Bruce, but we want to make sure we can restore Loretta's audio. Katrina, any ideas for her? Oh, she's seeing one, one minute. We're patient on this, Karen and Derek, I already had a meeting where we had some technological challenges, but it was on visual on that one. So, getting the whole gamut. Yeah, I guess you have to be understanding and flexible these times. Yeah, we're okay. Yeah. Oh, shitting seeds. Yeah, here you are. I'm having the pleasure of seeing Kate for the first time in many months today. So that started my day off good. And so I'm ready to proceed and we'll figure out later what's going on with my situation. So I, Bruce and I have been updating you on the COVID related operational issues at every meeting. And really, I don't have a lot of material updates for you since the last meeting. You know, the properties have all been operating under the enhanced health and safety measures. And I guess it does bear repeating that all three licensees have been incredibly responsible about those measures and have taken them very seriously and have put in a lot of hard work. And we're very grateful for that. And the guests as well that have been visiting the properties, any issues with, you know, for instance, not wearing masks properly, those have been a few and far between. So we're really grateful for that as well. Each property has stayed connected with its local board of health and has contacts in the local board of health. And the boards of health have been conducting their routine inspections in each property as well. The properties have notified us as well as the board, their boards of health, whenever they become aware of a COVID positive case in their employee population. I did report to you about a month and a half ago that we received a handful of notifications of COVID positives amongst the employee population across the three properties. I can update you on those notifications now. To date, since the three properties opened in early July, they have notified us of 20 active incidents or active employees who reported testing positive for the virus. The boards of health have also been notified in each incident. In the large measure of those cases, the each employee reported that they believed their exposure to the virus occurred off property, usually from a family member in a couple of occasions from a social gathering. We did not see any concerning pattern of multiple employees in the same division, for instance. And of course, the boards of health were looking at that same information. So I did want to bring you up to date on that and also remind you that, you know, whenever employees were on site, they are wearing the masks and subject to the health and safety measures, the hygiene measures as well. With that said, we are all mindful, as are the properties of the uptick in cases in the Connell-Wiltham chair, you mentioned that in your opening comments, open the Connell-Wiltham on a national basis. And we are mindful of those, the properties are mindful of those, and some of those trends and data are set out in the governor's new order. And obviously, the governor's order is somewhat the business of the day. We've got a number of agenda items on that. So you'll hear about those details in the next agenda item. But, you know, we're mindful of those trends. The properties are mindful of those trends. We've been meeting with them all week in connection with the new order. And it's clear that they're prepared to continue to put in the hard work and cooperate as this situation continues to evolve. So really, those are my prepared comments. I know Mr. Banz on the call. If you have anything you'd like to ask either him or me to try to provide further insight on. Commissioner, Bruce, do you want to add anything at this moment? My commentary is kind of mirror Loretta's of what a good job the three properties you're doing and making sure people adhere to the policies that we've set forth. They've all been doing a great job. But any comments? I certainly am willing to take any questions or comments. Commissioner Cameron. Yes, Mr. Banz. I know we're always, we're certainly concerned about the public, but we're certainly concerned about our own employees. Now you have frontline workers, your gaming agents out there. I know you did not report on any issues, but I don't want to assume, but I suspect that they are all the plans that we have in place are keeping them safe and they are, you know, providing and conducting their responsibilities in a way that they all feel safe and that that plan has worked effectively. Yes, I believe so. On a whole, I think we just took a survey that was very positive through HR. So yes, I believe they are. Excellent. Thanks. Other questions for Loretta or Bruce with respect to the operations at this current state? Just again, I appreciate you're echoing the licensee's cooperation. I think we all, we all have appreciated that really sense the guidelines were put in place. So thank you. All right. Then moving on to the update with respect to the governor's executive order. Yes, as I'm sure everyone is aware, the DPH issued a stay at home advisory and also the governor issued order number 53, which had some restrictions related to the COVID pandemic in Massachusetts and they have implications for our operations. So we've been working internally and with the licensee's to come up with a process for you today to review how the licensee's are going to comply with the executive order and updating our minimum requirements. So I'm going to turn it over to Loretta to review what we've been doing and next steps for the commission as far as adhering to that order in the industry. So thank you, Loretta. Okay. Thanks, Gary. So the governor's order issued on Friday afternoon. It explicitly says that it's aiming to intervene to slow the spread and does talk about some of the recent numbers and the role of social activity in the trend. So the order applies to casinos, live race tracks and simulcast facilities for our purposes, along with a number of other entertainment venues. As Karen mentioned, it's accompanied by an advisory from the Department of Public Health urging all people to stay home between 10 p.m. and 5 a.m. and it's effective at 12.01 this Friday. The order talks about the properties closing no later than 9.30 p.m., reopening no earlier than 5 a.m. and that during those hours there would be no admittance of guests or any members of the public to the premises and no services offered during those hours. The order does explicitly say that employees and other workers are allowed on property during that closing period to perform duties that do not involve admitting page prints. The order also has restrictions on alcohol sale and service, no alcohol sale or service during that mandatory closing period of 5 a.m. to 9.30 p.m. And the order directs the commission along with any other affected agencies to amend or in our case to supplement our rules so that there is adherence to the governor's order. So we've the next three agenda items are some parts of 4b. They're broken up into the casinos, the live track and simulcasting. So I can move right into the casino measures and you do have a document in your packet. I think it's a three page document requirements to ensure compliance with the order by the gaming establishments. And that document reminds you that in June, on June 23rd, you approve minimum standards in the seven page document. That was the document that talked about, you know, in order to reopen, they had the pre-opening cleaning and all of those masks requirements, the communications plan, the sanitization, social distancing, plexi class barriers and so forth. You supplemented that initial document once already when you allowed roulette to be reintroduced. And the document in front of you today would supplement it again to incorporate the governor's order. The document in front of you today requires each of the three gaming licenses to submit a plan. Each of them has already submitted a plan and the plan addresses four required areas. The first is to identify the operational steps and measures that they will take to achieve compliance with the governor's order in a safe and orderly manner while also continuing to comply with all of the other health and safety measures. The second area they're required to address is to supplement their communications plan and their website information to inform the public of the mandatory closing period and related expectations on property around COVID-19 measures. The third requirement is that they identify steps and measures which they will take to ensure the alcohol restriction are complied with. And the fourth item specifically requires them to communicate with their employees and their amenities, restaurants, retail, and so forth to make sure that the requirements of the governor's order are understood and complied with by all across the property. As I mentioned they each have submitted their plans. The plans are in the packet for you. I do want to remind you that although when they were built, it was intended that they would never close down. They have each gone through a closed down period already. So there is some experience with that and with respect to Plain Ridge, they only recently resumed a 24-7 schedule so they had been closing down on a regular basis as well. So they've had some practice. The plan which would take place by 9.30 this Friday night for the first mandated closure is that the gaming agent team and MSPGEU would have an on-site presence with the idea that any issues could be dealt with in real time and any adjustments could be made going forward. Bruce, as you know, is on the call now. I believe Captain Connors is also on the call. The licensees are each on the call. So we would invite your comments, questions, any areas you want to discuss at this time? Commissioners, no questions at this time. Well, Loretta, I think that that means that your submissions were thorough and that the responses from the licensees were thorough. I do think that there are, and I may be wrong because I haven't scrolled on Loretta, but there are also perhaps representatives from our licensees on today. They were each invited to be here. I have looked through earlier in the meeting and I believe I saw representation from each of them. So I think what I would like to say is, and maybe my fellow commissioners will chime in after me, is that we wish to thank the licensees for so quickly responding to the governor's request through the executive order for their cooperation. I did listen to the governor's comments during the press conference, I guess it was on Monday, and he made it clear that businesses like the licensees have been doing their job, that the safeguards are working. It's just that the informal social gatherings around entertainment venues are problematic. At least that's what the data is pointing to. And so they're going to look at this sort of measured safeguard of these closings to see if it will help what looks to be a sustained surge in cases. So I think you earlier commended the licensees for their adherence to the guidelines for Bruce, and already you articulated that so well. And I think we can say the same and recognize this is a hardship for our licensees to have to close at this hour. We know that the later hours are so important to their business. I also think I can say it's, it is part of a greater good. The casinos are having to be part of the puzzle here to help with respect to what seems to be the uptick. And so they are being responsible community partners, and we thank them for getting these plans together so quickly. And I don't, I'm not hearing any questions with respect to the actual operational changes. And of course, the communications plans are clear, you'll see the update on the website. So patrons will be aware. Any questions with respect to the GEU efforts? Well, I would just look forward to your updates that have now become regular or periodic rather, as we enter this new phase. I think, Chair, you articulated well that it's, it's a cautious step that is being imposed freely on everybody, on all businesses. And, and again, I look forward to hearing from how that goes as we move into it. Madam Chair, I, yes, I, you know, I agreed with your first statement, which was because we have experience with this and changes because of the, you know, the situation changes on the ground or licensees as well as our gaming enforcement unit members, gaming agents have worked so effectively, collaboratively, and taken this extremely seriously. So I think the lack of questions are really because we have confidence that this will be done in an orderly manner. And you all have experience with a changing environment. And I am grateful for everyone that has really worked collaboratively to keep it as safe as possible. I see, Captain Connors, you're, you're now available. Any questions for him as his team navigates these changes as well? Yeah, Madam, Madam Chair, if I could just to chime in and add on to what you say, obviously, we're, we understand the impact this is having on the livelihood of our licensees and obviously beyond that the livelihoods of all of their incredible employees who are being impacted by these reduced hours as well. You know, I will be interested in monitoring and kind of share this with our gaming agents as well as the GEU is to look at the precautions that we're taking to that 930 hour, depending on, you know, the size of the patron, you know, the number of patrons, how we kind of conveniently, safely, effectively get everybody back onto elevators, back to their cars and that there's, you know, we maintain social distancing and everything else that, you know, has been so important since the reopening, but understanding that 930, there might be a crush of patrons who were all anxious to get in there last few minutes of gaming, but making sure that they're safely and effectively being escorted, helped to leave the property in orderly fashion that maintains the safety protocols. To reiterate what Commissioner Cameron said in terms of the lack of specific questions, I think it does speak to the efficiency of the working group and this commission's relationship with us and IAB in particular and their compliance. The fact that we did it once before means that, you know, we're prepared to do it again, they're prepared to do it again and I, while I appreciate and support and absolutely endorse the governor, you know, taking the information that he has to make the decisions that he makes, I do think it's worth pointing out also based on Loretta's comments today in terms of the history of compliance in cases there. Casinos are a necessary part of this based on the nature of what they're doing and the nature of the conduct that needs to be contained at this point, but it is not any indictment on their behavior or compliance, which is why I think we all have faith that the plans they submitted and the confidence that IAB and GE has that this is going to work is why you're seeing us, you know, ready to move on with this. Yeah, I think that's right. I think that's right and so we commend the licensees. I can't see them their faces, but again, we have been so fortunate to have your full cooperation. Captain Connors, did you want to chime in because I do see you just on behalf of the G.E.U.? Absolutely. Good morning commissioners, Madam Chair. Good morning. Just to commission a stepping's point, obviously that is one of the primary concern is just the orderly exit of everybody in a relatively short window. We'll monitor that. We'll report very quickly. We'll see how this weekend goes. We will have our staff obviously on site. We'll work hand in hand with the security and executive and management staff to make sure that it is orderly and, you know, we'll make suggestions as needed and we'll work, you know, with the licensees and with the MGC as far as coming up with anything that we see is maybe a concern or anything along those lines, but we are confident that we can get this done in an orderly fashion, and if we have to tweak it or make suggestions, we will, but that line of communication is open across the board. So I feel very confident that we'll be in good shape come this weekend, but we will report back to the MGC so they know exactly what's going on. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Zuniga, you want to start? Okay. Excellent, excellent work to Loretta and to Bruce to the entire team and Karen for, you know, leading us through this. I know that Commissioner O'Brien mentioned the working team. That team's been so good at getting together on a regular basis and as Commissioner Zuniga, we will continue to make sure that we get back to the commissioners on the continuing cadence of at least, you know, pretty much at every one of our meetings going forward as we go through this change. If not, if you can always meet even earlier if necessary. Okay. Thanks so much. So there may be a motion associated with this agenda item. I don't know if you want to visit them all at the end of Section 4b, but I am asking you to approve the requirement so that we can officially supplement your original argument. Maybe it makes sense to do it now. Well, it's fresh on the casino guidelines, correct? Yes. So this is to, of course, supplement the guidelines. And I know that you've done that in consultation with the DPH and the governor's office over there. So thank you as required. Correct. Madam Chair, I move that the commission supplement the gaming guidelines previously approved on June 23, 2020 by requiring each gaming licensee to comply with the requirements to ensure compliance with COVID-19 order number 53, requiring early closing and limiting hours of the Commonwealth's gaming establishment in the manner discussed today. Second. Thank you. No further discussion? Commissioner Cameron. Aye. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Zuniga. Aye. Commissioner Stavins. Aye. And I vote yes. 5-0, Shara. Thank you. Okay. Then moving on to item B2. Okay. B2 is the governor's order with respect to the live racing track. There's one live track, the harness racing track at PPC. I see Dr. Lightbound still on the call. I believe Mr. O'Toole is on the call as well. The document in your packet requires PPC to supplement its protocols in a manner that incorporates the governor's order. They have already responded that they essentially are in compliance already because the hours of live racing are from 1 to 4.30 Monday, Thursday and Friday, and that the live racing patrons exit the area within the hour after the completion of the 4-30 race, which is well before what will be the 9 p.m. closing time. And also the season is scheduled to end the day after Thanksgiving on November 27th. So that one is pretty straightforward. As I said, Dr. Lightbound, and I think Mr. O'Toole, are on the call. If you have any questions for them, but similarly, I would be asking for you to formally approve the document after your questions are addressed. We thank them for their immediate response as well. Any questions for either Loretta or Alex? Should I have a motion? Madam Chair, I move that the commission supplement its protocols for the conduct of live racing under COVID-19 to incorporate the requirements set forth in COVID-19 order number 53 in the manner discussed today. Thank you. Second. Thank you. Any discussion questions? Commissioner Cameron. Aye. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Zuniga. Aye. Commissioner Stevens. Aye. I vote yes. Five-zero. Thank you. Moving that on to the 4th, B-3, please. Okay. And that item involves the simulcast facilities. Deming compliance with the governor's order and the document in your packet requires each of the three simulcast facilities to submit in writing their plan, explaining how they will abide. They have all done so already. Raynam has indicated that they intend to close on a before 9.30 p.m. and I understand from Dr. Leifam that they are already in the process of starting to inform their patrons of the new closing time. Suffolk Johns has indicated in writing that they are not open past 8 p.m. anyway and will not be opening before the 10 a.m. hour. And PPC has already responded and has implemented a limited hours Sunday through Thursday from noon to 8 and Friday and Saturday from noon to 9 p.m. So similarly, I believe those facilities are on the call. If you had anything specific for them, we did get prompt responses from them that are in your packet and would be asking you to adopt the document as well for the simulcast. Any questions on the simulcasting? Again, thank you to those involved for getting back to that in team so quickly and comprehensively. Do I have a motion? Madam Chair, I move that the Commission direct the simulcasting licensees to supplement the respective plans for reopening of simulcast facilities as discussed today to ensure compliance with COVID-19 order number 53 and submit that plan to the Commission for approval. Second. Thank you, Commissioner. Any questions? Okay, Commissioner Cameron. Aye. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Zuniga. Aye. And Commissioner Stebbins. Aye. And I vote yes. Thank you, Shara. So thank you so much for the comprehensive report. I feel like we've accomplished the goal today on that matter. So we can move on then to item number five. Beretta, are you all set? I am all set on that item as well. And this item involves the request that MGM submitted for an amendment to their gaming beverage license. There is a one page memo in your packet specifically. MGM is asking for what they have turned a smart bar service bar to be located in a secure area. They have explained that they want this bar, feel they need this bar during the period where we have these COVID measures because all patrons when getting anything to drink now, whether it's an alcoholic beverage, non-alcoholic beverage, the servers are required to bring them the drink. There's no cell service and patrons are not allowed to go up to a bar and place an order themselves. So this service bar would increase service times and also reduce some of the or enhance some of the distancing measures for the cocktail servers. Our IB team, in particular Andrew Steffen, senior supervisor has conducted an inspection with an eye towards the restricted aspect, restricted access aspect of the bar and the surveillance coverage of the bar. He's on the call. I would invite him to tell you what his inspection showed. And Mr. Miller and Mr. Berry from MGM are also on the call if you had any particular questions for them. So if I can turn it over to Andrew, that'd be great. Good morning, Andrew. Hey, good morning, Madam Chair, commissioners. I'll make this very brief. Last week our IB team at MGM Springfield inspected the proposed smart bar in the former promotions area, first with regards to its security measures. The service bar is located behind a locked or accessible only by an RFID swipe or proxy card, similar to a card that you would use to access the building. Once at the service bar, the system itself is only accessible by a point of sale or POS swipe card held only by MGM beverage staff members. The bar has a locking storage cabinet in the lower section, which can be secured when not in operation. Again, only MGM beverage staff will have access to this physical key. Lastly, we have also verified the adequacy of the surveillance coverage in that area for which the IB does approve for MGM to conduct their proposed operations. With regards to the actual operation of the unit, as this is referred to as a smart bar, the system dispenses mixed drinks only. Beer and wine will not be available from the service bar. To utilize it, a beverage staff member will swipe their POS swipe card, select the correct mixed drink and the system will auto-dispense the beverage. There is no real bartender or actual pouring of drinks. So to close, the IB does approve for the use of the one smart bar as proposed by MGM Springfield. Those are the only prepared comments I have on the smart bar. I'd be happy to take any questions you may have, or we can go back to Elena. Commissioners, questions in the comments. Yeah, just a question for Loretta. Remind us, Loretta, this we have been in the present for some time now in Angkor. If I remember correctly, we had a discussion about this a while ago. Is this the first one at MGM, or have there been others? Just for context. So you're right, Commissioner. There are some units, similar units that serve the same function that you approved for Angkor. This is the first such amendment at MGM. MGM has indicated that it's a COVID-related request. Unlike Angkor, they would not expect to continue with this item when we are finally in the day that we can return to normal operations. Go forward to that time, too. We all do, yes. Other questions for Andrew or Loretta? I have just one question. It's probably not an issue, and I'm sure you gave it thought, Andrew, but it looks like it's a rather confined space. The servers who go there are able to maintain their social distance. If they have two, is it pretty much only going to be one server who goes up to mix the drinks? The way it was explained to me, it would only be one server that would utilize the bar at one time. However, there is space in that area should another server enter in that area. There's space where the server can keep their distance as well. Okay, thank you. Again, later on, it probably makes sense when it is busy that that space wouldn't work, so I understand that's great. Thank you so much. We do need to take action on that as well. Correct, Loretta? That's right. The regulations require recommendation, and we do recommend that you approve this, but we require your vote to approve. Madam Chair, I would move that the Commission approve MGM Springfield's request to amend the alcoholic beverage license to add a new licensed area for a smart bar or a service bar, as discussed here today. Thank you, Commissioner O'Brien. No further questions or comments? Commissioner Cameron? Aye. Commissioner O'Brien? Aye. Commissioner Zuniga? Aye. Commissioner Stephens? Aye. And I vote yes. Thank you. Moving on then to item 5B. Thank you so much, Andrew. Nice to see you, and on the employment exemptions. Thank you. Maybe Andrew will be back. There we go. Hi, Derek. Good morning again. Good morning. How are you? Good morning, Madam Chair and Commissioners. I'm joined by Mary Polgren, Acting Supervisor of Employee Licensing, and Lisa Bruckner, Acting Supervisor of Vendor Licensing, and we here to request service employee registrations exemptions for both MGM and MGM Springfield and Encore Boston Harbor. In your package, you have two memorandums. The first is a request from Wallburgers, a vendor of MGM Springfield, which is located within the gaming facility. But due to the layout of the MGM facility, the Wallburgers restaurant is not connected to the gaming floor at all. The five positions being requested for exemption are consistent with other positions exempted at MGM both for their employees as well as for vendors of the employee of the establishment. The second request is for a position at Encore Boston Harbor. It's a new position titled Security Ambassador, and the main responsibilities of position are welcoming guests to Encore Boston Harbor, distributing masks and hand sanitizer, as well as monitoring thermal imaging equipment and temperature scanners. Through multiple discussions with the EPH team, we have verified that even though the position reports to the security team, they will not have access to gaming systems, player data, or secure areas of the back of the house without an escort. The licensing team is in agreement with these requests and has asked the Commission for consideration. If you have any questions, our team here is available to answer. Mr. Seneca. No, just to emphasize what perhaps what Derek alluded to that this would be very much in my read in line with prior exemptions we've done in the past. There is very little connection to the gaming floor. I have also been personally on the side of exemptions because those tend to provide more opportunities to groups that sometimes are shut out of opportunities for employment. So I'll go along with the recommendation and I thank you for that. Other questions or comments for Derek and team? It was nice to see Lisa. Good morning. Madam Chair, just one question as it relates to the EVH facilities. Mr. Linnan, do you know if those security ambassadors are going to be on the gaming floor, they meant to be in more of the public areas of the gaming facility? This is part of the conversation we had. It's mainly by the hotel entrance, which is where they'll be where the security ambassadors will be. Not on the gaming floor. If they were to be asked to do a little bit and this is really only before staffing issues, right by the gaming floor where they enter, they may do that, but the intent of the position is at the hotel entrance. Thank you. Just to put a finer point on that, the job description says no work on the gaming floor. So they may be near the gaming floor, but that's a no to that question on the form. Correct. That's a no. Actual floor. Okay. And we had to have multiple conversations with that because when you see a position reporting to security, and actually this is a good area where Loretta had asked the IEB to review this, it brought up a few extra questions just to that point. How aren't they going to have access to these areas when it's reporting to security? But we did get verification that will not be accessed not on the gaming floor. And this is really an ambassador just to make sure masks are being worn, temperatures are correct, and hand sanitizers available. These are new positions created in response to the pandemic. Correct. And so they're going to really limit their role. Correct. Any further questions? Madam Chair, just a comment. I find all of these requests reasonable and in keeping with what we've done in the past. And I appreciate the thoroughness of the team in asking those additional questions to make sure we are comfortable and consistent. I have to ask the follow-up question. This is an exciting opportunity for new positions at Walbergers, you know, really supporting what was envisioned, of course, without the complexity of the pandemic being the economic driver and job creator. So we want to commend Walbergers, and this is an opportunity for jobs. So I guess I'm wondering if we know, do we have an idea as to when the doors will be open? Not yet. So we still do not have a date for when the doors will be open. And I think the latest executive order has caused some reconsideration for even what they may have had for a sensitive soft opening. I understand. But at least they're lining up the idea that these jobs will be put in place. So that's exciting. Excellent. Do we have any further questions? Just to that point, Madam Chair, obviously, us looks like granting those exemptions will then kind of help direct Walbergers as they go through and screen and recruit candidates for these jobs. This is an important first step. Okay. Can we do a single vote on this, or do we have motions? I'm prepared to make a motion on all of them. Assuming that there seems to be consensus around it. Madam Chair, I'll move that the commission exempt the following positions from registration requirements for the reasons described here today. Number one, the Walbergers line and prep cook. Number two, the Walbergers dishwasher. Number three, the Walbergers hostess. Number four, the Walbergers dining room attendant. Number five, the Walbergers cashier. And number six, the Angkor temporary security ambassador. Second. Thank you. Any further questions on those positions? Okay. Commissioner Cameron. Aye. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Zuniga. Aye. Commissioner Stevens. Aye. I vote yes. Aye. Sierra Sharer. Thank you so much. Thank you. I just want to say thank you to Lisa, Mary, and the IB team for all their work on these. And we actually have Lisa and Mary joining us. So thank you. It's nice to see your faces. We are missing you regularly. Thank you. Moving on then to item number six on our agenda. Back to Loretta for IED matters and Kate's. Thank you. And I, can you hear me now? I think you can hear me now. I'll be carried. All right. I will. I figured it out. Just in time to turn over this agenda item to Kate. Excellent. Good morning. Nice to see you all. And I have several items for consideration today. We have two corporate qualifiers for consideration, David Williams and Christopher Soriano. And after that, I'll move on to five entity qualifiers for Boston Harbor. So beginning with the two corporate qualifiers, these are both qualifiers for Penn National Gaming Inc. Penn National Gaming is the parent company of the Massachusetts Category Two Casino Licensing, Plainville Gaming and Redevelopment LLC. Each of these individuals submitted all of their required forms and comply with all of the IED's requests for supplemental and updated information. The IED conducted its usual complete protocol for suitability, for casino qualifiers and we confirmed financial stability and integrity, reviewed litigation history, searched criminal history, verified that no prohibited political contributions were made in Massachusetts and also conducted checks of open source material and law enforcement databases as part of the investigation. The team for the investigation into Mr. Williams consisted of Trooper Thomas Rodger of the Gaming Enforcement Unit and Director of Financial Investigations Monica Chang. The team for Mr. Soriano consisted of again, Trooper Rodger and financial investigators on FESU. And I am very fortunate to have the members of the teams joining in on the call today in case there are any questions from commissioners after presentation. IED investigators were also able to interview each of these candidates via teleconference. Mr. Williams was interviewed on August 25th of 2020 and Mr. Soriano on September 9th of 2020. I know that both parties were cooperative and forthcoming in all aspects of the investigations. Turning first to Mr. Williams, he joined PNGI in January of 2020, first as an executive advisor before taking over as Chief Financial Officer in March of 2020. Mr. Williams' responsibilities as CFO include oversight of all Penn's corporate financial functions. Mr. Williams reports directly to Jay Snowden, who's the Chief Executive Officer of Penn National Gaming. Mr. Williams is based out of Penn's corporate headquarters in Yomissing, Pennsylvania. Prior to his current position with Penn National Gaming, he worked from September of 1990 to May of 1995 at first Franklin Financial, where he was a financial planning and analysis manager. He then took position at Clarice International as CFO. That was from May of 1995 to October of 2019. And then joined Penn National Gaming again first as an executive advisor in January of 2020 and then in his current position as Executive Vice President and CFO beginning in March of 2020. Mr. Williams, as part of his employment, has submitted gaming lessons, applications, and numerous jurisdictions where Penn National conducts business. Several of these are currently pending. However, he has subsequently been approved by gaming regulators in Texas, West Virginia, Colorado, and Ohio. Our background review confirmed that Mr. Williams completed his undergraduate studies at San Jose State University and graduated in 1990 with a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration. Mr. Williams has demonstrated to the IEB by clear convincing evidence that he is suitable and at this time the IEB recommends the commission vote to find him suitable as a qualifier for PMGI. Any questions with regard to Mr. Williams? Okay, I will note that Ms. Bajard has prepared the motions and because Mr. Soriano and Mr. Williams are both authors for the same licensee will present the vote together for those two parties. So I'll move on to the presentation of Mr. Soriano. Christopher Soriano currently serves as Vice President and Chief Compliance Officer for PMGI. He attended George Washington University and graduated in 2000 with a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science. Mr. Soriano then continued his studies at Temple University Law School, graduated in 2003 with a Juris Doctorate. At PMGI, his main responsibilities as the Chief Compliance Officer are to oversee Penn's regulatory and legal obligations. Mr. Soriano is also based at Penn National and Gaming Corporate Headquarters in Wyoming, Missing Pennsylvania. He reports directly to Carl Sodosanti, who is the Executive Vice President and General Counsel for Penn. Prior to joining PMGI in February of 2020, Mr. Soriano worked previously from September 2003 to April of 2009 at Wolfloch LLP, where he was an associate. He then moved to Dwayne Morris, where he was an associate Special Counsel and Partner from April of 2009 to February of 2020. And he also at the same time held an Agile Professorship at Staten Hall University. He began that in January of 2019 and currently retains that position in addition to his current role at Penn, which he took in February of 2020. Mr. Soriano has also submitted gaming licenses to numerous applications jurisdictions and most recently he was found suitable by the New Mexico Game and Control Board that was in October of 2020. Mr. Soriano has also demonstrated to the IEB by clear and convincing evidence that he is suitable. The IEB recommends the commission vote to find him suitable as a qualifier for Penn National Gaming. Any questions with regard to Mr. Soriano? No, I do want to note that Mr. Soriano has joined us today. If you haven't noticed, I see him. Thank you so much for joining us today. Any questions for Kate? Mr. Soriano, thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, no, just a quick note. I'm a fellow colonial like Mr. Soriano, but we did not attend GW at the same time. Commissioner, I hope the basketball program has improved us since the times of both of us were there. Madam Chair, both investigation reports were clean and comprehensive. There are no issues at all with these investigations. So I'd be happy to make a motion. Yes, I guess I would just note that I did appreciate the thoroughness of the reports as always. I want to thank Trooper Roger and, of course, Monica and Enzon Faye's Zoo for their work and the thoroughness of the reports so we can move on these matters. Thank you, Mr. Soriano, for today. We appreciate your arriving as part of our meeting. Commissioner Cameron? Yes, I move that the commission issue positive determinations of suitability to the following two individual qualifiers for Plain Ridge Park Casino. Christopher Soriano, Vice President and Chief Compliance Officer for Penn National Gaming, Inc., David Williams, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer for Penn National Gaming, Inc. Second. Thank you, Commissioner. Any comments, questions? Okay. Then we'll move ahead on our vote. Commissioner Cameron? Aye. Commissioner O'Brien? Aye. Commissioner Zunicka? Aye. Commissioner Stepans? Aye. And I vote yes. Thank you so much. Excellent work, Kate. I appreciate the thoroughness. Thanks to the investigative team for those individuals. Excellent work. Yeah. And thank you, Mr. Soriano. We wish you well. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it. All right. Next, I can move on to the five entity qualifiers that will be presented today. These are five entity qualifiers attached to Encore Boston Harbor. I'll list them first and then we'll go into an explanation of how they're connected and again ask for a vote at the conclusion regarding all five. So these are entity qualifiers, EVH, Mass Property LLC, EVH Holdings LLC, Win America Group LLC, Win Resorts Finance LLC, and Win Resorts Holdings LLC. I'll give again a brief oral explanation of how they're connected to the licensee in Massachusetts. I would note that there's a very helpful chart at page three of the reports that were submitted prior to this meeting through your review, if you find that at all helpful to keep track of things as we progress through the report. As the commissioners know, Win Mass LLC is the category one licensee in Massachusetts. It's the parent company of two of these qualifiers for your consideration, EVH Holdings LLC, and EVH Mass Property LLC. Win Mass LLC is a subsidiary of Win America Group LLC. Win America Group is a new holding company of all of Win's North American properties, including Win Mass LLC. Win America Group LLC serves essentially as a pass through to another one of these entities of your consideration, Win Resorts Finance LLC, and Win Resorts Finance LLC is a holding company in turn for Win America Group LLC. Win Resorts Finance LLC is in turn a subsidiary of Win Resorts Holdings LLC, which holds ownership interest in Win's intellectual properties. So with that brief explanation, if there are no questions, I will move into a more detailed explanation of the first entity, EVH Mass Property LLC. EVH Mass Property LLC was organized in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts March 29th of 2019. The business purpose of this entity is a real estate holding entity of Win Mass LLC's physical assets. The entity has no employees and the officers and directors are all individuals who have already been found suitable by the commission. The company is owned by Win Mass LLC at 99% and EVH Holdings LLC at 1%. The following individuals are qualifiers and good standing. As I mentioned associated with EVH Mass Properties LLC and these are mathematics, Allison Rankin, Jackie Crum, and Brian Goldbrantz. Again, all have had positive determinations of suitability or have been reviewed as key gaming executive employees by the commission previously. Are there any questions regarding the first entity of the five before I move on? Okay, moving on. The second entity for consideration is EVH Holdings LLC. This is a legal entity registered and organized in the state of Nevada. It was organized in March 18th of 2019 and it operates as a holding company. EVH Holdings LLC has no employees or subcontractors for consideration and it also has individual qualifiers associated with it who have been found previously suitable. And these would include mathematics, cred billings, Ellen Wittemore as well. And again, these individuals have been deemed suitable as qualifiers for Win Mass LLC. All are currently in good standing. Any questions with regard to EVH Holdings? Okay, moving on to the third entity qualifier. This is Win America Group LLC. This is a legal entity registered and organized again in the state of Nevada in September 2019. Win America Group LLC operates as a holding company for wing resorts and limited domestic operating subsidiaries. And these include Win Mass LLC, the Massachusetts licensee. This entity also has no employees and the officers and directors are all individuals who have already been found suitable by the commission. The company is owned by Win Resorts Finance LLC at 100%. The individual qualifiers all in good standing associated with this entity are cred billings and Ellen Wittemore. Any questions with regard to the third entity? Okay, moving on to Win Resorts Finance LLC. This is a legal entity registered again and organized in the state of Nevada in September 2014. It operates as a holding company. It has no employees and the officers and directors are all individuals who have already been found suitable by the commission. It is owned at 100% by the Win Resorts Holdings. And the individual qualifiers in good standing are cred billings and Ellen Wittemore. And moving on to the fifth and final entity. This is Win Resorts Holdings LLC. This is a legal entity registered in the state of Nevada in May of 2000. It operates as a holding company for all of the company's intellectual property portfolio. The entity has no employees. The officers and directors again are all individuals who have already been found suitable by the commission. This company is also owned by 100% by Win Resorts Limited. And Ellen Wittemore is the qualifier in good standing with respect to this particular entity. Moving on to the financial analysis that was completed with regard to these five entities. The financial team did its usual thorough analysis. They did conduct a financial evaluation of these five entities with regard to their connection to WinNAS LLC. To do this they reviewed audited financial statements of Win Resorts Limited. They also reviewed unaudited and internally compiled statements where appropriate and did confirm that there were no areas of concern regarding the financial integrity of these five entities. Any questions with regard to the financial review? And I do note that Ms. Chang and her team are on the call. Should there be any particular questions? Moving on to gaming licensure as the commissioners may be aware of these entity qualifiers who do not hold gaming licenses in other jurisdictions. They have not previously been through the qualification process. And I would note, however, that Win Resorts Limited's licenses in Nevada and Macau are in good standing. And in terms of compliance or regulatory history, these are all fairly new entities. They do not have independent compliance committees or independent audit committees. However, there are standard reporting requirements under the Win Resorts Limited compliance program and also under the Win Resorts Limited audit committee rules. So if there had been any activity that met these reporting requirements, it would be reported up through those two bodies rather than individual committees within the entities. Regarding criminal history, these five entities have no criminal history to speak of. The same goes for the research into any civil litigation. No civil litigation involving these entity qualifiers exists, which would impact suitability determination. And the investigative team notes no significant issues or concerns regarding any of these five entities. In conclusion, based upon review of the submitted applications, supplemental materials and independent analysis, the IED finds no reason why these newly formed entities should not be deemed suitable by the commission and therefore recommends the commission make a positive finding of suitability for each of these five entities. Thank you. Any questions for Kate on both her thorough presentation and the report? I guess, again, that that is an indicator that it's well done. So our silence speaks volumes on that front, Kate. I want to thank Lieutenant Banks for my interruption. I neglected to mention Lieutenant Banks and Paul Eldridge of the FIT were the investigative team with regard to all five of these entities and excellent work as well. Excellent. Thank you. Okay. No questions. Do I have a motion with respect to these entities? Right. Madam Chair, I move that the commission issue positive determinations of suitability to the following five entity qualifiers for Encore Boston Harbor. Number one, EVH Mass Property LLC. Two, EVH Holdings LLC. Three, Win America Group LLC. Four, Win Resorts Finance LLC. And five, Win Resorts Holdings LLC. Second. Thank you. No questions. Okay. Commissioner Ken. Hi. Commissioner O'Brien. Hi. Commissioner Zunica. Hi. Commissioner Stevens. Hi. And I vote yes. Thank you. Five-zero. Excellent work. Very much appreciated. It's so nice to see you, Kate. Thank you. Likewise. Take care. Oh, and there's Monica. Thank you so much, Monica. All right. Then we're going to move on to item number seven on our agenda. Community Affairs Division. We have Community Affairs Division Chief Delaney. Good morning. There you are. Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioners. So today, in front of you, we have a, we issued a non-transportation planning grant back in 2019, a joint non-transportation planning grant to the towns of Foxborough, Plainville and Rentham, in the amount of $75,000. And that, those funds were used to hire a marketing consultant to prepare a strategic marketing plan for the region, and specifically, excuse me, for the Plain Ridge Park Casino, Gillette Stadium, Patriot Place, and the Rentham Outlets. And in that work that was done, it came in at significantly below the originally estimated cost. So it was only $47,800, which leaves an unexpended balance of $27,200. So the communities have asked if they could repurpose those funds to do the development of a web page that would, a website, I should say, you know, to promote those particular things, Plain Ridge Park, Patriot Place, Rentham Outlets, and the communities themselves. And so we got a draft request for proposals from the communities, and we took a look at that and made some comments on it. But it looks, it looks great. This is not, this is similar to what we did with Northampton, where they developed a website to try to, you know, leverage the folks that come to the casino to come see some of the other things in the area. So we think this is a great use for this money. And we recommend that, that the commission approve that. The reason that we had to come back to the commission is that it's more than 10% of the value of the grant. So to repurpose that, we need a vote from the commission. Thank you. Questions for Joe or Mary, who I see. Good morning, Mary. Sure, Madam Chair. More just to comment. And thanks, Joe, for your good work and following up with the folks down there on this kind of additional request. You know, I think we need to, you know, just commend the folks in Foxboro and Plainville and Rentham Page and Jennifer and the team on Rentham for trying to be so creative and think outside the box. This is the use, I believe, Joe of Foxboro is reserved. So again, just speaks to the regional cooperation that those communities are having and trying to position their community, which includes Plain Ridge Park, is a visitor destination. So I commend their work, I commend this effort and, you know, hopefully at some point they can come back and show the good work that they were able to do with this kind of supplemental or reallocation of funds, but certainly encouraged by their work and appreciate all their good efforts. Further questions? No question, but I concur with Commissioner Stebbins and I've always loved this project. You know, working collaboratively to really highlight the area and the fabulous amenities there are in the collective area. So I think I agree that this is a great use of those funds. Commissioner Zunica, can you hear all that? Yeah. I echo the comments that I have reminded that you may be putting together some kind of a brown bag training and this is an example of a great regional effort of a certain scale that might be really helpful for other prospective applicants. This doesn't impact my vote whatsoever, but I'm just curious. When they did the strategic marketing plan was the development of a website, a joint website, part of the plan's outcome. If you happen to know. No, I don't think it was initially it was, you know, they wanted to come up with this, with this plan and I think as part of that, you know, developing a website was sort of the next logical step of that, of that project. Yeah, well, it does work together nicely. So just curious. Thank you. Madam Chair, also, as I know, in a future meeting, we're going to be looking at Plain Ridge Park's tourism, new tourism plan. And I believe this partnership, at least in the early drafts, is mentioned prominently. Good. So inform that that's excellent. It's good to see it at work. And it's also good to come out under budget. Don't you think? Yeah. I see Commissioner Zunica. That was what I was waiting for. I thought Commissioner Zunica was going to comment on that. It's nice to see that they accomplished what they wanted, that's dollars. So excellent. Alrighty. We have to have a motion then, I believe, for this, the 10% piece. Madam Chair, I move that the Commission allow for the amendment of the joint 2019 non-transportation grant instrument to reflect that the balance of $27,200 can be used for the development of websites slash brand design services highlighting the connection of the casino with the towns of Foxboro, Plainville, and limber. Second. Any further comments? Excellent. Thank you, Mary. Commissioner Cameron. Aye. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Zunica. Aye. Commissioner Stevens. Aye. Yes. Five-zero. Thank you, Shara. Thanks. Thank you, Joe and Mary. It's always great to see you. Alrighty. Moving on now back to Dr. Lightdown on an important discussion on the application. Thank you. Thank you. The Gaming Commission received one application to conduct live racing in Massachusetts for 2021 from Plainville Gaming and Redevelopment Plan with Racecourse. On 11-3 earlier this week, the Commission held an open meeting and hearing on the license to get input. No one spoke against the license and several of the town officials shared their good relationship that they have with Plainrich. I would like to echo that. This year has been particularly interesting. Steve O'Toole and I have opened the racetrack multiple years before, kind of have a pattern down. We had actually come to the Commission with several of our opening ideas and items right before the COVID shutdown. Obviously, that created a whole new dynamic. Steve was very good to work with and his staff about trying to come up with the protocols and then implementing them. I also want to thank Chris McElaine, who's the Vice President of Racing for Penn National. Chris overseas multiple tracks for Penn National, including Plainrich, and he ended up being responsible for helping come up with the plan with the horseman and I. His steady hand and his input on what was going on with some of the other tracks was very helpful and I really did appreciate getting to know Chris better and his help with that matter. Again, once we came up with the COVID plans, it's a whole other thing to implement them and not just the plans themselves, but how to incorporate that with the regulation of racing. It ended up that we, in order to keep the social distancing, we basically had to use the entire backside as the paddock, which included having to retrofit the stalls and I want to commend the horsemen. They were very helpful in jumping right in, providing things like gates, snaps, different things that help Steve and his crew get that transition up and running fast. As you know, the jobs were impacted by the COVID and with the horsemen, it's not only their income that is affected but and their ability to pay their own personal bills, but they also still have to feed their horses. So these were very trying times for them and they pulled through and really helped get the meet up and running so that we could get the first money out to everybody. So I want to commend the whole racing community as well as our staff who got very involved in making this all work. With that, I'll go on to the application. There are several criteria that are outlined in chapter 128A section 3-1 and the commission can of course consider other items as well. Quickly, those criteria are the financial ability of the applicant to operate a race track, the maximization of state revenues, the suitability of the racing facility for operations at the time of the year for which the dates are assigned. That large group of spectators require safe and convenient facilities, having and maintaining proper physical facilities for racing meetings, and according fair treatment to the economic interest and investments of those who in good faith are provided and maintain the facilities. Plain Ridge meets all of these criteria. They are the only facility to apply for a harness race meeting this year. Previously, they've met the requirements of the gaming statute on the number of days that they need to race. Now it's the gaming commission can work with them on the number of days they want, and they have a seven-year agreement with the harness horsemen of New England's Association to run 110 days of racing each year. So that's what they've applied to. That also will complete their requirements for the simulcasting requirements of 128c. So my recommendation and the racing division's recommendation is to grant the license. Something we've done for the last six years is have a condition that they have an independent expert review the track surface prior to racing. This is not done because there was any perceived issue with the track, but it was something that we began doing with Suffolk Downs, and so the commission felt that we could go ahead and do this with Plain Ridge as well, and it never hurts to have a second set of eyes on your race track. So this has gone very smoothly in the past. CFO Tool is on the line if there's any questions. Questions for Dr. Leiphoun or Dr. O'Toole? Madam Chair, not a question necessarily because we heard from community members, town officials who are very enthusiastic about this racing license and the track in particular in the town, and we did get a chance to hear a little bit from Mr. O'Toole at that hearing, and he satisfactorily really responded to and explained everything about this upcoming season in a very comprehensive manner. I would like to thank Mr. O'Toole and Dr. Leiphoun, because they really did have to work extremely hard this year in a trying year, and the horsemen and women, everyone really collaborated effectively to keep it safe. There have been some issues around the country with tracks, but we were able to keep our racing meets safe, and it certainly gives me confidence that next year they will be able to do the same no matter what the circumstances. For the comments, I would just reiterate what I said at the hearing is that we not only had comments this past week that were so enthusiastic about the horse racing program, but also as part of consideration in our relicensure process. The public comments there were, um, the multitudes were really focused on the horse racing, which I really had anticipated, and I'm so pleased that they were so enthusiastic and really value the partnership with, with the National and PPC. So thank you. And again, just what I said earlier, Dr. Leiphoun, your leadership here during these trying times has been tremendous for you, your team, and for the entire horse racing community. So thank you. Thank you. So this is a vote now on the application that we need. There are no further questions. Uh, Commissioner O'Brien, you're all set for Dr. Leiphoun. I'm all set. Thank you. Okay. And Commissioner Zunica. Okay. Commissioner Stevens. And this is our single application. We need a motion. Thank you. Uh, Madam Chair, having conducted a public hearing on November 3rd, 2020, to review the Plain Bill Gaming and Redevelopment LLC application to hold or conduct a live racing meeting in 2021, as included in the packet, and having considered the factors outlined in section three I of Chapter 1288 of the General Laws, I moved to the Commission of Water Racing Meeting License to Plain Bill Gaming and Redevelopment LLC for racing meetings located at Plain Ridge Park Casino for 110 days during the 2021 racing season. I would only add that I don't believe we had a single negative comment with respect to the relicensure or with respect to this application. And that's just a tremendous, a lot of input. This is a very important part of the community in Plainville and for the towns, the surrounding towns. So thank you. I just wanted to make sure I was clear on that. Okay, we'll take a vote. Commissioner Cameron. I. Commissioner O'Brien. I. Commissioner Zunica. I. Commissioner Stevens. I. Can I vote? Yes. Thank you. Congratulations. Thanks so much. Thank you. Thank you, Alex. Moving on then to item number nine on our agenda. Just before we get started, does anybody need a brief break? I'm not seeing any thumbs up yet. So should we continue? Yes. Okay. So moving on to item number nine, Executive Director Wells. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Numbers of commission. So I have come before you before and given you some outlines of what we've been doing with respect to compliance within the agency, but this would be a good time to just have another conversation about that. I know you've been briefed in writing in detail on some of our compliance activities, but it would be helpful today if I go through all of these to allow for an opportunity to discuss the internal audit and compliance committee. We have commissioners Zunica and Commissioner O'Brien have been working with that, but it gives the other commissioners an opportunity to ask questions and be briefed more fully on that. And also just an opportunity to have a discussion and get some feedback from all of you on the structure of compliance at the agency or any thoughts you have going forward as we look at this. Compliance is a really important part of our function as a regulatory agency. And we have both external and internal compliance functions. We're looking at other entities in our licensees, but we're also looking at ourselves. So I am definitely open to any feedback or any suggestions or any improvements that we can have on our own operations and how we ensure compliance by our licensees. So Shara has agreed to help me out here and share the screen. We have a brief power point just to help me walk through some of these areas. Thanks, Shara. Okay, we can go to the next slide. Thanks. So as I stated, we engage in compliance activities which focus not only on our casino licensees but also on our own internal operations. And I could compartmentalize into three groups. We have to ensure on-site compliance but our casino licensees at the game establishments. That is a very public function that we have. These casinos are our large properties in the Commonwealth. There's a lot of attention. And that is a core mission for our agency by statute to ensure compliance and they're doing what they're supposed to be doing. We also have compliance with community and commission requirements. There are external requirements by the state, by the commission, by local communities. And enforcing those is part of our job. So I wanted to give you a briefing on how that's working. And also we have our own internal MGC compliance activities. We do hold our casinos and our other licensees to high standards. And it makes sense to hold ourselves to those high standards as well and do the right thing with our own operations to preserve our own integrity as we complete our statutorily mandated mission. So if we can go to the next one, please, Sharron. Thanks. So ensuring on-site compliance by the casino licensees at these game establishments takes a multi-pronged approach. One of the most notable, obviously, is the 24-7 on-site compliance that we have through our investigations and enforcement bureau aiming agents division. We have approximately 33 full-time employees that serve on all three properties. And a big part of their job is that casinos are required to submit and obtain MGC approval for their internal controls and how they operate game-related departments. And that includes surveillance, cage, table game slots, etc. And the gaming and agents division, they review the original submissions requests for changes, which must be and those all must be approved by the executive director. And then what happens on-site is the gaming agents who are on-site, they ensure compliance with those internal controls and those related standard operating procedures. If there is an issue at the property, we have a whole protocol. If there are identified instances of non-compliance with internal controls, the division can issue an informal or warning or written notice of non-compliance. If there are more serious or receded incidents of non-compliance, the division in conjunction with the chief enforcement council may issue a formal notice of non-compliance followed if warranted and upon authorization by the director of the IEB, a civil administrative penalty. The casino may negotiate an agreed upon resolution to the identified infraction or they can appeal that to the commission. So there is this established documented procedure if there are infractions. But the gaming agents division does do more than that. For example, they're monitoring and inspecting gaming equipment in the casinos, not only the table games, but also the electronic gaming devices. As part of their duties, they track and approve the movement of all the slot machines that perform strict oversight and regular review of progressive leaders. For example, they also monitor compliance with regulatory requirements including adherence to the licensees responsible gaming plans. They work with the ABC on compliance with alcohol measures and with the state police game enforcement unit to ensure compliance with prohibitions on minors being permitted on the casino floor. The division also processes any complaints from the public relating to the conduct of gaming and wagering. That's required by statute and they as well they require they conduct periodic reviews of operations and facilities for the purpose of the commission's regulations and they oversight exercise oversight responsibilities with respect to gaming as required by chapter 23k section 20. So there's a big part of the function on property is conducted by this division. Obviously they're very busy always on the move doing a lot of these activities and just making sure things are operating where how they're supposed to be operating for a function of compliance. Any questions on that before I move on to the ITS division? I had one question for Mr. Bannon. I think he's still on. Bruce, are you there? I saw him and he just may be on mute and if he's not I can try and field the question. I was actually going to ask about some of the comparison with his experience in New Jersey so that would be difficult for you to answer Executive Director Wells but not not an issue. Now the other component of on-site compliance is the information technology services division. So our ITS division is comprised of two major teams. We have the corporate technology unit and the gaming technology compliance unit. So the gaming technology compliance unit or the GTCU they do a significant amount of work related to compliance by the licensees at the gaming establishments. Generally the overview is that the GTCU ensures electronic gaming devices and associated equipment so slot machines and associated equipment as well as the backend systems within the MGC that the licensees that they're compliant with all pertinent gaming regulations set forth by the commission. So it you know the especially when you've got slot machines which are really just IT equipment. We've got an IT division to make sure then they work with the game agents on the compliance for that. They'll verify new operating systems. They test their testing these before I'm going to CMS our central monitoring system for custom features. They also help the finance team understand a counting meter adjustment sent by the Network Operations Center or are not allowing GGR or gross gaming revenue reconciliation at each property. They also upgrades or reports report additions are also reviewed when and tested when upgrades occur at the CMS. So the GTCU fields requests from the IEB involving electronic gaming devices and non-electronic gaming devices such as your marketing kiosk to verify various items ranging from probability to accounting. The GTCU also assists the research and responsible gaming unit with technical compliance on play my way which has been a very successful program and really something that division can be very proud of. The product is evaluated for accuracy functionality and reporting in concert with the licensees and their in-house systems. So a necessary function with any casino is your IT division and we've also got the finance division which works with on-site compliance. The finance division works regularly with the casino to review its compliance with regulations as well as certain aspects of 23k. The majority of the regulatory requirements surround verification of the gross gaming revenue for taxation firms. Casinos are responsible for providing commission staff with estimates for daily gross gaming revenue on a daily basis and the finance division reviews the estimates and accompanying documentation and compares that to the CMS to the MGC's central monitoring system for reasonableness. In addition the MGC's revenue office samples transactions from the casino's tax packages for compliance of their system of state of internal controls. So again like the gaming agents testing the internal controls finance division also testing the finance control their finance divisions internal controls at the casino. So there's a parallel there. And then in addition on-site as required by statute section 23k, pardon me, chapter 23k section 65 which requires an audit of the casino property. The annually the MGC employs an independent accounting firm in Bailey to perform an audit of certain programs and their associated controls of the licensees. The scope of that audit is developed by members of the IEB the executive director's internal audit and compliance working group and that specifically includes the CFAO and the Bailey team. So the MGC also files a report regarding these required audits and with the legislature before April 1st of each year in compliance with the statutory requirement under chapter 23k section 65. So those are some of the highlights of our external on-site compliance at the casinos. So I'll take a pause there to see if there's any questions by the commissioners any comments or any suggestions on anything we could be doing better or any any areas you'd like us to look at when we're talking about compliance on property. Anything on that? Okay, all right. So Karen, you know maybe maybe now it's appropriate to mention just to just do a comment because I think it's a very good overview of the external program. How much we do and how critical it is to all the operations that that are pertain to our mission. And one of the areas that I think you mentioned but it bears emphasizing is this notion of coordination and how internal departments different groups within our agency coordinates with external groups and other internal groups as well. You mentioned finance with technology as well as their own compliance teams. And that's an area of focus that I think is very important and has been highlighted recently where you know things could fall through the cracks if you will if somebody's concerned about one thing and someone else is concerned about something else and there's little coordination. But I think the way you outline in your presentation really emphasizes how much we do in this effort in terms of coordination. Director Wells if I may comment as well. First of all in preparing for this presentation I guess it just struck me how comprehensive the work is that we do and in a short period of time in the five years since these casinos have been open how much expertise our team has gained and how seriously they take their responsibilities. I had a chance to speak to one of the casino's executives recently about the work that we do and you know just really positive feedback about how comprehensive, how thoughtful the relationship but just the fact that we really do pay attention to every single issue and that is known by all the properties and it wasn't said in any kind of a bad way just how thoughtful and comprehensive we really are about the work and just really impressed with the expertise that has been gained by this team in the last five years. Thank you. Anything else before I move to the next slide? Okay Sharpe we could jump. Thank you Sharpe. Oh I think there's one in between. We'll be back up one. There we go. Nope back up one. Sorry I'm having a little trouble with it. No worries. It should be compliance with community and commission requirements if you can find that one that'll work and if not I can just move on if that's not going to work. Okay. It's okay. She can we'll take two seconds. This is really helpful to have it in front of us. Do you like it? Okay. Yeah and besides we're ahead of time on time. It was it was interesting because it was Derek's suggestion to do the the PowerPoint and I actually think it's a good idea. Very helpful. There perfect Sharpe. Thank you. So the next section which I'll put in the category of what we call the external compliance is compliance with community and commission requirements. So this we've actually been through quite significantly in that in that hiring of Joe Delaney as the chief of the community affairs division and we talked about his hire and the remaining of that group as the division of community affairs this ties into that. So pulling together all the that external compliance or compliance activities they're not on property but they are significant and they do are relevant to our core mission here. So establishing that community affairs division I think was helpful is sort of focusing it on the compliance piece of the of that formerly the ombudsman's office function and so part of that division's responsibility is to monitor and ensure compliance with requirements that licensees have with the state and local communities as well as requirements that the commission sets itself. So as I mentioned when we talked about Joe's position this includes a host and surrounding community agreements. So the section 61 findings the license conditions the rfa2 application commitments the licensees capital expenditure requirements and quarterly and annual reports. So there's a lot of what compliance activity that that's in a broader scope handled by that division. So I wanted to highlight that independently from the onsite compliance activities that the other divisions are working on and the chief Joe regular reports to me and we'll be reporting to the commission on any issues related to compliance with community and commission requirements including reporting at scheduled public meetings. So you'll be here for Joe and then also that division chief right now Joe Delaney is also participates in that NGC internal audit or compliance working group which we'll talk about in a little bit. So any questions of that I know we just talked about that because of the hiring of Joe's position but I just wanted to see if there's any concerns questions or suggestions on that group and how we're approaching that aspect of an external part of the external compliance. Karen this is Bruce the one thing that thankfully over the the six seven years that we've been doing this and the five plus years that we've had a casino and operation it has not come up as an area of contention but it is referenced in the statute and that I would just draw your attention to the I love agreements making sure that again nobody's raised a ruckus we haven't had any arguments or concerns about it but I would think that would also fall under Joe's. I know he and a team reviewed it when we did the PPC re-licensing so. Right that's exactly right that's exactly the kind of thing that would fit into this group this this bucket. You know I'll just make a comment on just on these I think I made it in the past but there are when it comes to this category there are a couple of notably groups of things like license conditions and section 61 findings for example that were conceived when the licenses were first awarded and or their permits and their construction permits and environmental permits are done and a lot of those conditions and findings if you will were you know ongoing but many where to be resolved and have a sunset essentially so there's a part of some of these categories where it's important to really finalize and I'm not saying we have many or we have we haven't done much of that in that regard but it's it's a different feature from the other category in terms of their their will come and we have to be comfortable with the notion that some of these categories have a final determination at some point and many of them remain. That's interesting okay any other discussion points for this area okay all right I'll jump to the next slide thanks Shara and so this this piece you know I'm finding very interesting I found this whole exercise of preparing for this and doing the written documentation but it's quite interesting that you know as I mentioned we have a great deal of focus on our licensees and ensuring compliance and for purposes of preserving our own integrity holding ourselves to that high standard is very important so I just wanted to review for you some internal NGC compliance activities so you can get an overview and if you have any comments please chime in so you know internally we do have you know we have various systems in place to ensure compliance with statutory requirements and best practices you know we do have a very high level high functioning team you know our divisions across the agency have documented policies and procedures to ensure internal compliance and ethical efficient and consistent operations I'm going to highlight a couple areas just because a lot of these functions understand we have the most robust internal control systems at the NGC and that's the finance and HR team as well as the information technology services division so particularly the corporate technology building so I'll start with the finance division just as a high level and we all know that you know Derek comes with a lot of experience in state government highly meticulous and I think it's very impressive the NGC's finance division has developed an internal compliance tracking database that tracks approximately 350 statutorily required and best practice activities you know in all areas from budget to revenue HR and then the HR finance combination so that's that's already going on at the office and you know I think Derek and also Katrina and Todd are on the on the meeting today and can contribute to any comments or suggestions or just the discussion on what's going on internally so similarly within the IT department the corporate technology unit which is separate from the gaming technical compliance unit ensures that information enterprise security policies standards guidelines and procedures that those are established and implemented and enforced so they have periodic reviews for compliance and those are done with both internal external audit teams so there's a lot of information there that they are keeping secure and doing things that they are supposed to be doing in compliance with not only state requirements but also the best practices so I'll take a pause there before we go on to the next section because I think Derek and Katrina are on the on the meeting if there's any questions or either of them would like to chime in on the you know the efficacy of what they're doing right now and you know any any thoughts on how this folds into our compliance program as a whole so any questions by the commissioners I have a comment but not a question I mean is this Derek to Derek and uh and yeah the only thing I can say is this has been rather an organic process with the started off with Enrique and team in 2014 and we've been building to get to those various activities over the course of six to seven years of you know we didn't start off with 350 activities we started off with probably 20 or 30 and we just kept building and building and building as different things came up and as the commission progressed so it's it's been a very good process and you know IT has supported us throughout it and started off I think on a whiteboard that we moved towards Excel now we use a Microsoft project and hopefully we can continue growing from there as as the rest of the agency adopts this kind of format. Enrique? No that's a that's a good summary I was it took me back to when I was a functioning CFAO and I knew my first activity was to try to get a CFAO and Derek came in and we really started essentially trying to button up if you will our operations that started very very much you know in startup mode if you will when we were conceived as an agency so there's by virtue of being the treasurer I keep appraised of a lot of the details of those 300 activities I get some great dashboard reports and another you know transfer of money reports but that's something by the way that I I want to mention that is up for any other commissioners to involve themselves if they want to and request some of these information and eventually as my as my own time in the commission begins to sunset we'll also have to start planning on involvement of commissioner or the next commissioner as treasurer or other commissioners to to be appraised of these internal systems which are really mission critical. Thank you I must that Karen. Okay so yeah the next piece just wanted to talk about just a little bit is the internal control plan so as I expect the commissioners know the NGC has a robust internal control plan which was last revised in June of 2020 that's my expectation that we will be annually reviewing that and that that plan was formulated under the guidelines through the guidance provided by the Massachusetts office of the comptroller so we'll be following that and even just you know I did I think I believe I sent it out to you know all the staff something that it would be good for staff as well commissioners and managers just to take a look at I know I think you know one staff member that responded after I sent it out and it's it's really helpful to sort of look at it look at it all as as a whole and it's a helpful tool to not only look read it but also in development and revising it I found it very helpful this year just to look at what we're doing in our practices so that is an existence um you know I know Kathy we worked quite hard on that along with Derek and and we came on that I didn't know if any of the other commissioners had any questions on the internal control plan or that process um as far as the state agency and management goes anything on that and I think um the internal control plan is a statutory requirement that there's to be one in place in the annual review so I think going forward it's you know you've got your system in place Karen moving forward on on the ICP right another piece of internal controls is the internal uh control officer so the control provided uh guidance with respect to key state finance law responsibilities and it describes different positions responsible for compliance with various acts aspects of state finance law and one of those positions is the identifies the agency's internal control officer which is considered a key fiscal contact along with general counsel chief fiscal officer and security officer uh so we did some research on that the internal control officer is designated by the department head which we've gotten some feedback has been deemed by the comptroller to be the chair of the commission and then the guidance for roles and responsibilities of the internal control officer are as follows and I'm actually going to go through these bullets because I found this really interesting and kind of helpful um so the internal control officer uh one should be equivalent entitled or rank to an assistant or deputy to the department head so that shows the significance that the comptroller places on the position that it's a high level position uh the individual works closely with the security officer uh to ensure that uh mara security roles are updated whenever staff changes impact mara's administrator security roles and that all administrator roles are approved by the department head and filed as part of internal controls there's definitely a piece in with uh the mara system and the state system uh it fulfills requirements of chapter 647 of uh acts of 1989 known as the internal control law ensures that the department has a written internal control plan which we just discussed on file and at least annually evaluates the effectiveness of these internal controls and identifies risks and makes recommendations to the department head the changes necessary to ensure the integrity of the department's business including fiscal activities in mara's so that risk assessment is something we've been talking about for years at the agency so you know i commend and uh mr zaniga has always been talking about that in different areas of the office but for this area for this piece it talks about fiscal activities in mara's um it also works with a payroll director security officer in general counsel to ensure that changes to key state finance law compliance roles are up to date and sent without delay to the comptroller's office and ensures that all written and electronic communications from the control control or security officer and other applicable oversight departments are disseminated to the appropriate department personnel in a timely manner so currently the internal control officer is the at the mgc is is directly a cfio my understanding from talking to enrique is that had originally been appointed not sure that that was supposed to be a permanent position but that was sort of the history there i don't know if you want to chime in on that but the you know it's really interesting these these bullet points on on what the position is and what it does really does come from the comptroller and i think it's clearly a significant role in compliance with throughout the agency so i don't know if any of the commissioners have any comments on that or any questions but that's that's where we are with respect to the internal control officer well let me just emphasize what what you said or perhaps provide a little more context the the initial designation of the internal control officer as as derrick actually mentioned happened organically fell on his on his purview because of his involvement in and knowledge really the main knowledge of a lot of these processes um but that was in in consultation or in in conversations with their own auditor and daily um you know they brought up the point which is a good one that that should be deemed as a perhaps short term or temporary solution because a good internal control system should include looking at objectively and and externally at at the finance operations which the CFO is a part of so um so this is this is something for us to consider i don't put that in the category of urgency but um and and as per the read from the comptroller um you know the agency head designates that officer with those attributes that Karen mentioned and then we have a decision to make eventually as to who these responsibilities should fall to i happen to believe that the involvement of a commissioner would be really appropriate and how we go about doing it is an open question any any other commissioners have any questions or comments or thoughts on that and we can we can certainly go back and do additional research whatever we need to do i think uh connecting the controls officer would be helpful things like that any other question okay so the other the other position is also um uh the designated security officer uh right now our designated security officer not surprisingly is our chief information officer uh Katrina um for statewide enterprise system security and uh in accordance um with the department head signature authorization and electronic signatures from Mars transactions policies and the statewide enterprise system security policy dsos the designated security officer they're required to certify individuals access to enterprise systems that contain financial payroll and related data so this is a control and who has access to what to make sure the right people have access someone leaves the office make sure they their access is is disengaged um and a list of those systems are as follows so mars lcm hr cms uh and ciw the commas information warehouse so that's some of the things that we have as an internal control we have a designated person in compliance with the controller's guidelines in the law on uh and who has access to what and you do review that it's also in tempo that's the the executive office of technology services and securities online security system through which the dsos and security administrator request access to these enterprise systems uh so the next piece is the i just wanted to flag is the internal control questionnaire so state agencies annually submit an internal control questionnaire to the state comptroller's office and what happens is the questions are designed to inform state agencies as to the sufficiency of their own practices and procedures and it confirms that the agency has created an environment that is accountable to the public and demonstrates proper stewardship of resources um auditors and staff from the comptroller's office statewide risk management team review those icq responses that state agencies file and they may follow up with uh specific questions um and they also may review the internal controls in more depth and contact departments to follow up on prior years finding we file this document annually in uh accordance with the controller requirements uh going through that this year in 2020 very helpful because if you're asked the question do you have a plan for a or do you have a procedure for b it's a check to make sure yes i do have the plan for that the agency is covered in that respect so it's a good tool that that all agencies across the state use uh and we are in compliance with that karen could i just add on that yes the icq is a document that um you know as karen says is is critical to our own check on ourselves but it is the tool that this that the um the state uses to check on our compliance with statutory compliance on uh uh requirements so um that's it was with respect to last year when i joined i the icq came derrick of course informed us and um between working with the then executive director and myself the comptroller um office advised that the head of the agency needed to sign it and then um asking for that that is where uh the comptroller deemed that that i should sign it as chair with that i just want to explain the process um there's how many questions derrick on the icq um derrick and i were both familiar with it from you know prior jobs but they're extensive and um he went through every single question with me and well first with the the team that needed to help answer it then with each um you know relevant part and then with the executive director and then each question with me we repeated that this year and derrick and karen were and and every team member who was needed but very helpful in making me confident that every question could be answered accurately and for that i'm very thankful um it will probably be a repeat uh a repeat um exercise next year and derrick is ready for the kinds of questions i'm likely to ask but um it is derrick's uh coordination of really the entire team with karen and the executive director's leadership that gets that that question answered accurately but derrick how how many questions do you estimate on the icq um i i don't have it in front of me but it's at least 80 somewhat questions and it deals with different areas ranging from hr controls to it controls to fraud waste and abuse controls at the uppermost levels having the mission statement having clear objectives um we have legal controls that are in place um so you know it is a really big coordinated effort of meeting with each group to make sure and then they cross it over into other areas i mean there are some areas that cover into the gaming controls so you start dealing with the iab there's some that there are systems control so we have to start talking to the research and responsible gaming divisions as well as the gaming agents so there's a lot licensing division who has their own system you know it's asking about protection of pii payment card standards so you have to then get into the revenue side of the transaction so it's a really comprehensive document that's another thing that has grown over the 20 years of better than state finance so it used to be about a 10 page review that you had to do now it's upwards of 80 to 90 pages depending on how many areas you drop down into right so um i just want to again i i think earlier when we were dealing with in june when we were dealing with the internal control plan adoption how critical that um that process is in terms of compliance that i remember saying to caron this is this isn't as nerdy of a tool as it is it is a tool for you going forward in the exact activity that you're describing now on all the um the broad range of compliance activities you have to deal with internally so uh so i just wanted to explain that that that's a more complicated than the name suggests all right any any other questions on that from the icq okay i i remember it i remember it around a hundred questions but i yeah it's like a okay so next next topic i wanted to open up was the internal audit and compliance working group for several years we've utilized an internal audit and compliance working group to assist with internal risk assessment assessment process and that working group includes representatives from across the agency including the executive director the cfao the cio members of the investigation is the enforcement bureau the general council chief of community affairs division and up to two commissioners right now we've had um uh christianne o'brien and commissioners aniga have been involved with that group and other staff members at the agency may be included depending on issues that arise so generally been convening that a team monthly um just to work on both internal and external uh compliance operations and historically the group's responsibilities include an annual agency risk wide agency wide risk assessment uh and a continual update of the mgc's risk matrix so i think the all the commissioners you've seen that and we've been doing that for quite a while uh breaking it down but we've broken it down by uh department uh we have a risk matrix which identifies risks within the agency identifying uh uh risk mitigation plans for every identified risk so that's been a good function of that group um the working group but you know they do also review the licensees audits that i referenced before the annual audit that's required by statute and also their licensees own internal audit procedures um and i expect that the working group will also utilize the icp in the icq that we talked about to help as a framework for evaluating the agency's internal control systems and the procedures um so i expect you know as as needed and as desired by the commission i'm happy to report out in conjunction with members of the working group uh to the full commission on areas of importance or areas requiring full commission input so i did also you know i i did ask you know katrina and todd and derrick and to be on the meeting this afternoon to discuss this and then we have uh commissioner bryer and commissioners aniga just to comment on the the use of the group with some benefits they see or any vision they have going forward just to get some feedback for me on what works uh what would be helpful and what would be uh some best practices for the group going forward so um you know start with commissioners aniga or is commissioner bryer if you have any comments um or any thoughts on the group yeah um i really know at the current i think this is great i think you've done a really great job of making this concise for consumption in terms of the mvc compliance group um i think it's been functioning pretty well i do think and we've talked about this before um one of the things i would love to hear from the other commissioners is their thoughts on structure going forward in terms of we want to designate individual um individuals within separate parts of the office to have additional responsibilities or do we want this more centralized and then reporting up to maybe you know that group and or the commission so i think you've covered most of it in the presentation already i just throw that out because i'd be curious to hear what the other commissioners think who are not involved uh on a on a recurring basis yeah and and if i can provide a little bit more uh more background um on on on these um there is um the group really is convened by the executive director to to support the executive director in the in the overall compliance uh function as as as karin articulates all the major elements here it includes um you know everything that that that she said but something that i had um mentioned earlier relative to the critical function of ensuring that there's enough coordination and shared understanding among the key um members the key directors of the agency on on the mission critical activities so uh you know it's it's it's gotten to a good a good cadence a big part of of that group is reporting out which is really a lot of what karin is doing today um to get that um um you know to get that feedback uh but what but perhaps to to expound a little bit on what uh a commissioner or brian is is is saying um where we have talked a little bit about without a lot of of resolution in the past is this notion of how do we test or how much can we test in terms of our own internal compliance and who is the best mechanism what is the best mechanism uh to do that um and uh what what she's alluding to is by necessity we have gravitated towards uh the notion of you know relying on this group to go down to each of the directors to to think about their own um functions and report back to that group but there's and there's another uh alternative and that is to have uh an individual uh with not belonging to a particular group coming and test certain functions and report out and that is one thing that I think again we don't have to resolve necessarily today or or in the very short term but it's a something to consider as we continue um strengthening these compliance activities and let me say one more thing if I may um which is a good comparison that I know um Derek has has made in the past there are very few agencies who get down to the testing of their own internal um compliance um which is something that I that I think we do well and in compared to other to other agencies just given the the situation that we uh that we are in frankly a lot of the risks have been addressed early on in current present current presentations because we are essentially doing a lot of monitoring of the casinos themselves and uh you know the risks are less when it comes to internal functions but they're not without risk and having us be thinking about you know how how to test what we what we say we do what we all know and think that we're doing is is a is a great thing to do and one that is done not much around other places. Any further comments or questions on this? Commissioner Stebbins or Commissioner O'Brien or Commissioner Cameron I can't see you. Yeah I had a question for Commissioner O'Brien which is were you looking now for a response to your question or is it something to think about? Well both um if you have a visceral reaction to it I'd love to hear it um but if not it's something that I'd like you to think about. No I'm sorry um so would so you're talking about um getting an individual to go in and test um someone from our shop with what a compliance background to go in and actually perform tests to see how well it's working is that is that what you're referring to? Well it could be that or it could be a position that functions within the agency and so someone's either sole or partial responsibilities would be to either execute that or supervise the team that does it and then that team could either be you know money notwithstanding so not something we can do at this moment you could potentially have sort of an internal group that does that and maybe assist Joe's group in some sort of the outside compliance or you could do it certainly with um as an alternative someone's responsibilities within each area within the office um and then they work to go test the controls that are within the MGC to Commissioner Zuniga's point if it's done in a manner where nobody who is within that group is participating I think other than potentially giving expertise and knowledge to understand what's going on then you have controls in place to make sure that you're eliminating any sort of bias so it doesn't have to be a third party coming in that's actually not something that I personally would contemplate it's more is there a fixed position whose major responsibility or sole responsibility this is or is it um throughout the office sort of equal responsibility to different individuals? You know just to and I I certainly will give it some thought and would like to hear more information about it my first thought is if you um if you have one person who um who has a partial responsibility frankly I don't think we're big enough to have a full-time person doing this but if you had you know you built into their job description and say this is a part of your responsibility and maybe they work at it I don't know once a month or whatever that may be and they would I just think for consistency purposes it might make sense for one purpose one person to have that responsibility of course other than for their own shop they would not be able to to do that for the area in which they work but that seems to make some sense for me just listening to the two of you describe this activity. Sorry sorry I'm just going to ask if Commissioner Stebbins has another point of view then we'll go back to you Commissioner Zuniga because I just can't see I can't see Commissioner Stebbins. I'm here thank you Madam Chair I I would to answer Commissioner Ryan's question and I think Commissioner Cameron offers a good answer which is looking internally to see if there's somebody who would be interested in having this be a portion of his or her responsibilities obviously but might be an interesting conversation at some point is you know what are those reporting mechanisms it's it's testing a department how does the feedback get shared where does it go so the the lines of communication for that internal control officer but I think I think it's a great step for us to take you know we're a regulatory agency as Director Wells has clearly pointed out it's not just about regulating the people we regulate it should also be making sure that we're we're regulating and looking at our own internal processes so I would be in favor of looking internally with somebody who might have the appropriate background or interest or skills experience to see if that could be part of their time as well as you know come up with a plan I think at some some point not now but some point it would be interesting to have an outside party kind of come in and test our test our systems I don't know what that you know how periodic that would be but I think that would be something worthwhile but I like the idea of an internal person or somebody who's currently on the team who wants to go as an interest in the experience to take this on. So it might be helpful to jump to the next slideshow. I'd like to chime in. Oh please no it's just because it's on the same topic. Sorry it's the same topic and I know Commissioner's going to go on to comment. I appreciate this exercise very much Karen. You know we really haven't had any reports on sort of the compliance program since I've been here. We've certainly touched on pieces so this is comprehensive and more than a good first step it's excellent. I would because Commissioner O'Brien has asked that point of question I think Commissioner you know I would be aligned with Commissioner Cameron and Commissioner Stevens in thinking but most of all I just want to point this out. When I think about our responsibilities and our roles I always look at our legal framework because we have such an excellent statute and you know in thinking about this and I did bring it up to Karen that you know when she was thinking of becoming the executive director what are her responsibilities and under the statute it does say that the executive director shall be responsible for administering and enforcing the provisions of law relative to the commission and to each administrative unit there. I think that this compliance program is really core to the executive director's responsibilities. Under our internal control plan we said that you know the Massachusetts Gaming Commission is a regulatory body charged with responsibility of ensuring the integrity and fairness of the casino industry in Massachusetts and as such we also the commission must adhere to our own policies controls regulations and laws and as well as enforce those relative to our licensees. The commission now has a significant responsibility to set the tone at the top and I think we've done that and you did you did this well before I arrived in setting the values that we know that we know that we reiterate and those values extend to the internal environment they include an unyielding commitment to transparency and most of all an unyielding commitment to an exchange of you know robust exchange of ideas opinions and innovation and the testing function is that you're going to get into and and how we oversee the compliance if I had to if I had to vote today I would ask and I don't know if she's prepared to do this I would ask our executive director for her recommendation as to what she would like to do to complete you know her obligations and and would provide to her the assurance that we will do everything to set the tone to make sure that we back her on that responsibility so my answer really would be you know as much as I like what I've heard from both commissioner Cameron and commissioner Stebbins but I would defer to the executive director on how she thinks this compliance program should be effectuated and and to the extent that we need to provide additional resources or or give further guidance you know I'm supportive of that but that's you know having thought about this a good deal I have in my own mind if I were in her shoes what it might be but I'm not inclined to share that I really want to come from from the executive director first oh dead silence but that's not to put you on the spot I think this is the beginning and I and I think if you know maybe in the next meeting if you know once you're hearing feedback today you know when you think about the resources that are available um and I'm I'm I'm prepared to to really support what what you think works best in this enormously critical function yeah let me tell you that that is very much on on point and totally appropriate I think first and foremost as I mentioned earlier these falls on their role worthy of the executive director I think just going back to the question as to the format I think there's there's clauses and minuses perhaps on on having one way or another I think having a person who knows that who is tasked and I by the way I I believe it would be partially because even where we are as an agency a partial responsibility you know fosters a sense of ownership you know a sense of you know having to respond periodically and report and follow up whereas you know if it's a little diluted in each of the of the divisions you know there's there's less of that of that ownership but it's a little bit more resource you know less less resources are dedicated to it I think it's a good discussion to have and I think it's imperative to resolve now but it's one of the things that as I mentioned as we mentioned earlier as we strengthen the program is is the thing for us so it might be helpful you know we kind of organically went to sort of where we're going in the PowerPoint just to be on the topic of internal testing we do have you know the state auditor's office has the function of coming in and auditing different state agencies so you know that routine internal testing ensures that state agencies are in compliance with you know state federal laws but as well as their internal controls and policies and procedures but this this exercise may only take place once every three years so we can continually evaluate our internal program and one of one of the ways we can do that is just routine reporting to management so management checking that policies and procedures and things are being followed and ensuring that we have those and those being recorded up the chain through different levels of management up to the executive director and and reporting on that you know on those set data points throughout the agency to ensure operational compliance is I think a critical function of any high functioning state agency and then to your to your point about this um internal testing function you know where resources allow compliance uh a program for internal compliance testing you know we can talk about whether you have a a dedicated person it's a portion of someone's established time you know one of the things we have to think about is the internal process would necessarily have to include protocols to address any potential conflict of interest in testing and reporting so for example if that person whether it's a portion of someone's time or an individual that this is that separate function you know if they're testing the executive director get it Karen Wells comply with each policy procedure then then report to the commission instead of to the person they're testing there there's certain procedures that we would want to work out on that to make sure that we're doing things properly in the sort of a chain of command approach and then also you know not testing yourself so if this is a portion of someone's time and that person works in x division then that person should not be testing their own division's um procedure so we have to have some kind of other operational approach to testing that division's procedures so there's no conflict of interest so maybe just some of the things we're thinking about and working on I recognize that we're in a you know a bit of a resource crunch right now because of COVID and because of the financial position that the casinos are in in our sort of our ethical responsibilities with respect to finance management so it's something we're thinking about but this is a good topic also to discuss with that working group but it's important to me to get the whole commission's perspective on what you know what would be helpful there but that's that's those are the lines that we're thinking and that I think would be an appropriate approach and you know I'm happy to have you know Katrina Derrick or Todd chime in on any any thoughts on that and the internal testing just so you can hear some some other staff positions on that that's sort of um you know this was sort of that last question I had within the presentation for today any thoughts by any any any any staff members you know Katrina or Todd or Derek want to chime in it's fine if you don't want to do that at this time but I just want to give you the opportunity can I chime in on one thing with respect to the working group you know I'm not a part of the working group but I I have seen uh some of the um I believe the output of the working group and that is in the internal control plan where there are the individual risk assessments I'm assuming during that working group um that that's part of the functions is to help assess the vision risk and I if I think that that is an enormously helpful tool for you in the role that you have as executive director um to uh you know not only assess the risk but more importantly how do you mitigate the risk what tools are needed and that might be things that are obvious like training policies and procedures but you know using that group thing to to help you mitigate risk is critical and so um you know I've seen that tool that matrix as part you know in effect and I'm in in terms of looking at the internal control plan I relied on that matrix and in the belief that the working group is you know considering that and looking at that comprehensively so uh you know I haven't heard commissioner Zuniga or commissioner Brian you know report on on that function but if that's occurring I applaud that because I I think many organizations would wish that they had that um regular cadence of group think on on divisional risk and how you know cross departmentally you can help mitigate it yeah that that was very much a big principle of um you know when when when this group was was convened you know I um if I if I could go back to um to Karen's earlier point of protocols necessary when we when we think about testing ourselves which I think is appropriate given our size and operations um this is where I think uh you know the role of a commissioner or commissioners up to two if it's internal discussions or up to five if it's a discussion like now is is I think very appropriate uh where where somebody an internal resource is is doing testing and needs to have uh a report or a conversation about anything um that that may you know make those through um through management as appropriate or to the to a commissioner let's say or the working group as necessary and that was another another principle of you know this group to try to convene for that sort of coordination and facilitation of those kinds of protocols sure you could take down the PowerPoint so the commissioners can see each other that might be helpful there great thank you Karen and um commissioners if I may just just briefly I thought this is a really great conversation very thorough and I don't have too much to add other than highlighting just one point which was I think in a in a critical piece it's just ensuring that there's an effective communication plan in place both internally and through the executive director to the commission and really uh making sure that everyone who needs to know uh certain information is made aware of what's going on in different respects and everyone has access to the information they need to perform their duties effectively so that's again nothing to resolve here today necessarily but I think also a very important piece of shoring up our compliance you know so I'm building on commissioner Zuniga's point if if um because I think Karen you raised you know the the issue of conflicts and which I fully appreciate I do think those are manageable I don't think that the risk of having a location where there's there is a direct conflict we can manage that the overall benefit of having a testing you know component is so high that we can manage the the risk attached to some conflicts uh so let's just let's play this out you know if if in fact you decided to to include in your plan uh the recommendation of somebody internally to to to do your testing might my sense would be that that would be absolutely appropriate for you to be the I mean because again I go back to the statute and if I were you I'd want this I mean you you have to have your reports reporting to you on compliance you have if you're having a tester you have to have the tester reporting to you if they're testing you that's an obvious uh an obvious conflict or if the tester reveals you know something that would make the tester uncomfortable going to you I think I'm hearing commissioner Zuniga you might want to have an alternative channel of reporting right and I think commissioner Brian you can chime in if I'm if I'm close here but if that's what we're imagining then perhaps a designated commissioner who doesn't have other responsibilities in you know and somebody who is you know would be the the safe channel for confidential contact might be appropriate and that might be something that you know that you might not feel comfortable as part of your overall plan you know like I I say I'm going to defer to you on your plan but if you if there if the commission felt that they should have that reporting channel in the out you know to the extent that the tester needed an alternate to you we've had a lot of conversations about that because you really we in my view that's mandatory or else the integrity process is suspect because you cannot you have to have an avenue to go around the head in that regard yeah any allegation of intimidation or embarrassment or hesitation needs to be addressed by having an alternative form and we've talked about it one or two commissioners who were designated in the event that maybe one of those commissioners is involved as well so do you have a primary and a secondary so that the person can say I'm going to this person because even if I still have concerns about going to commission or so yeah not to anyone's character who's on this meeting but it's just you have to deal with the worst-case scenario yep worst-case scenario so to that extent you you know Karen in terms of a plan that could be you know obviously something the commission would need to take separate action on I suppose if you're going to designate someone to the commission I suspect then commissioner Brian commissioner Zuniga it is appropriate that it is that commission level because otherwise the correct channel would be to the executive director in agreement yeah yeah absolutely you know the one the one thing that I would you know remind ourselves is that if the commission the five of us designate to designate up to one commissioner if that's the case or if we're at that point ever or you know soon in order to not inadvertently create a subcommittee of the commission because sometimes these that this the worst-case scenario that the commissioner Brian alludes to is not necessarily one that will come to a public meeting necessarily first of foremost one in which first one one commissioner would have to be again designate right so I guess if it's two separate channels though if it's a channel like the primary one I don't know if that's a subcommittee issue but can we chill on that and not necessarily resolve that today because that's something maybe Todd can give us advice on does everybody agree with that um but I hear what you're saying um so it sounds uh sounds as though you've gotten some good feedback Karen on on possible testing arrangements yeah yeah and yeah I think I think you might be having a little quick retreat on the spot because you know those of you our CIO has also a background in compliance so um you know she's been involved in this working group and you know just want to give her the opportunity just some thoughts on what we're all talking about if there's any other areas we should be exploring or researching uh and just based on your compliance experience if you have any thoughts on this discussion that probably be helpful for commissioners hi Katrina hi good afternoon um you know the good news is the working group has done a really exhaustive job of embedding this concept around for quite some time and um you know through the efforts of Enrique and Derek initially with the risk mitigation a matrix that they had developed over time really kind of gave us a framework of the things that we're looking at and evaluating on the high note we are doing internal testing we are doing checks and balances on ourselves and I think what really evolved from the working group was developing a much more formal process and really creating that formal workflow that we don't initially have today and I think all of the things that we're talking about and all the concepts that we've thrown around and really developing that framework and methodology and ensuring that there are no conflicts of interest and if there if there are exceptions what those paths will be I think is is something that I think we've we've already discussed and had a really robust conversation about it but obviously not something we're going to be able to solve today so I feel strongly that we're on the right path I think you know everyone echoed the same theme of being you know being that example but leading by example of what we expect our licensees to do doing that ourselves and I definitely think we're honestly on the right path thank you just Derek want to chime in you just pop in I think Paul would like to speak up to the to the internal audit section but you know I this is a very good discussion I think that people come out of all different ways so it's it's it's been a very nice thing to be a part of but obviously if we had all the money in the world and the perfect structure we would hire someone have them come in to be doing this regularly you know that would be their whole job review everyone's risk assessment review everyone's policies and procedures and then do some testing against that so if and when an audit does come through we've done a thoroughly exhaustive the approach we have in place right now is the best alternative to that because we can do what you've brought up the group think sit down and think about have we identified all the areas this is what we think our key risks are have we taken a chance to take a look at those programs and read through and made sure that we think we have the right control activities and then try and set up internal reporting an internal review of of those documents and some testing but that is subject to not having you know someone from the outside come in and take well someone not in that program come in and take a really deep dive into it but it's a lot better than most agencies I've ever worked in are doing so you know I think this really comes down to if we had all the money in the world we would be doing the first thing I said and you know it's something that I think we're trying to get to and what Karen talked about maybe using some internal resources to test areas that are not so have someone from IEB test me have someone else test a piece of the IEB's controls is is where we're headed towards and to make this program more robust in the interim but I know Paul's on right now and Paul if you want to jump in and talk about the the internal audit compliance piece that would wow he's even in the bow tie I had this on for earlier today but well traditionally I was just going to make a comment that internal audit usually has a dual reporting role and that's exactly for the purpose that we've been discussing for avoiding a conflict of interest or potential reporting issues traditionally internal audit would have a functional report to the audit committee of the board of directors in this situation it could be the commission all the commissioners and then administratively to the CEO in this case we the executive director Karen and that does eliminate a lot of those problems that you've been discussing about the dual reporting there's a lot of documentation information that we find found on the IEA's website the Institute of Internal Auditors so I'd be happy to forward any of that if you're interested or discuss it yes please well thank Karen I'll send it on to you thank you welcome okay so yeah so that's sort of the the general overview of what we're doing which I think is a lot and I think we're way ahead of the game in state agencies but I just wanted to get some feedback this is discussions we're really helpful so I'll report back on sort of where where we're headed in some options and some structure but I'd like to work with you know the internal team that that we have going on how we would move this ball forward sounds good any questions for Karen those commissioners well to sound sounded like we were wrapping up the discussion just to say that it's a really great presentation Karen really a good discussion everyone and again it's the exercise of going through these thinking about these procedures thinking about roles doing this periodically is in and of itself a big part of the compliance function it forces us to be disciplined and and again having this kind of report periodically is going to be also a favorable thing for the overall pro any further questions for Karen and team on this commissioner stepans I'll set commission camera and commissioner bryan uh you want to get commissioner bryan I'm sorry I'm meeting myself do you want to wrap up with any comments because of your involvement as well on the working group no as I said before I think Karen the work she put into the the powerpoint gelling it down I think was effective for the conversation it was a great job Karen thank you excellent thank you all right um then we're moving on to um wow this is amazing merian 1255 to start item number 10 and it is 1255 so um merian's magic we are right on time I guess we're uh now Todd you're going to leave this discussion today thank you sure thank you madam chair good afternoon commissioners again um we've recently been confronted with an interesting issue relative to the confidentiality of information that's provided to the commission by a gaming licensee under a non-disclosure agreement and specifically the commission was provided with non-gaming revenue data for purposes of conducting economic impact research so the question before us here today is whether the commission can publish such information publicly as part of such a research report and to answer that question I would suggest we have to look at the language of the non-disclosure agreement as well as a number of other sources of law and I note that the commission has executed non-disclosure agreements with each of the gaming licensees each of the non-disclosure agreements are substantially identical in content and by way of background the non-disclosure agreements are addressed in chapter 23k it's section 21a7 that says that as a condition of licensure that each licensee is required to make readily available all documents materials equipment personnel and other items requested during an investigation provided that the materials any materials that the gaming licensee considers a trade secret or detrimental to the gaming licensee if it were made public may with the commission's approval be protected from public disclosure and the gaming licensee may require a non-disclosure agreement with the commission before disclosing such materials so that's what the statute talks about the commission you may recall then went on to codify this non-disclosure nda process in its regulations and that's at section 139.02 of the regulations in there the regulation says that the licensee may request that the commission enter into a written non-disclosure agreement which again each of the licensees have and the commission has agreed to execute under the terms of which the commission agrees not to release the specified material or information publicly in response to a request for public records or otherwise and will assert the statutory exemptions if we do get the request essentially and so it's a pursuant to these authorities that the again the commission executed nda's with the licensees and there are a few provisions in the nda's that are worth mentioning in order to answer the question before us the first is in section four which talks about the handling of requests for public records and it says that the commission agrees that it will not voluntarily publicly disclose any information or materials that are the subject of this nda agreement whether by way of a response for a request for public records or otherwise and in the event that the commission receives a request for the disclosure of any such materials or information it will deny the request withhold the materials and assert the statutory exemption and or any other exemption that may apply under the terms of the agreement however the commission did carve out for itself an ability to make use of information that it receives so that it it's not unnecessarily unable to make use of certain information that it comes into the possession of and this is covered in section six of the non-disclosure agreement which talks about use of materials by the commission and it says that nothing contained in this agreement meaning the nda shall be construed as to prevent the commission from making use of any information or material by the gaming licensee or otherwise as part of an investigation disciplinary matter or in any other manner deemed necessary by the commission so that's the the provision that's that carves out the commission's ability to make use of certain information that may otherwise be covered by the agreement so while this this type of information cannot be released by the commission pursuant to a public records request the commission come can in some respects make use of information in certain circumstances as it pertains to non-gaming revenue the nda lists a variety of information and documents that are covered by the agreement and you'll recall having looked at the call having looked at the agreements recently i believe that we cover 25 to 30 categories of information and that includes one provision that addresses financial statements and disclosures outside of what is publicly available via sec filings and depending upon the licensee non-gaming revenue would seem to fit into that category particularly as it applies to mgm and penn national gaming which does not publicly disclose non-gaming revenues by property they each disclose it in their sec filings by essentially region and they so they basically aggregate the numbers by properties within a certain region and so it is with mgm springfield that their non-gaming revenue figures are not reported publicly in the their sec filings that are reported out by their parent company mgm resorts in providing any such information to us an assertion of this non-disclosure agreement that we have executed with that licensee was raised and requests that the information be handled in accordance with the nda was made to us which brings us to the ultimate question which is whether non-gaming revenue in this context should be publicly reported the question is not whether we should have received the information but whether we should publicly report it that is to include it in a published report relative to economic development impacts of the respective casinos and again this is the the specific question is not our access to the information but the public reporting of it so that's that's essentially the issue I can feel any questions there are as to the legal authorities that govern this but I believe that those are all the principles of law and fact that govern the commission's review of this matter so what is your exact ask then well I guess the ultimate question is whether the commission should publish the non-gaming revenue information relative to mgm springfield in its economic development uh economic impact report and at this time the um mgm position just to be clear that it would be that they would say that it's protected under the nda is that fair that that's been uh their position uh mr stratton is on the call here with us to address any specific questions but that is the uh the ask yep okay thank you commissioners um that's a great summary Todd and uh but um can I go back to the part where you were saying financial statements and disclosures the line exactly in the in the nda that mgm asserts because I believe um like many things in life the devils in the details and um what we are talking about here is an aggregate number of a number of disclosures that they do um routinely for different segments granted not by property of their operations so what what was exactly that line that you read um in the in the uh mgm springfield nda it's provision 12 on the chart and it says subject to proper identification by the gaming licensee which they did do uh financial it covers financial statements and disclosures outside of what is publicly available via sec file and then we exempt out the certification we require in our quarterly report but that's not relevant here right and we are not talking here about a financial statement but a very small component of of you know of what is normally in a financial statement that would be gaming revenue and it's also not a non-gaming revenue rather right we're not we're not talking about disclosing this the financial statement of the you know the or the property um nowhere near that well I suppose that is part of the question is whether you believe non-gaming revenue data is considered a financial statement or disclosure is it could you just say it's a financial statement or disclosure of it's an or a disclosure that's outside of the sec filing is it does it have to be a financial statement or is it a disclosure I either it says and so either or it's an and it's an and yeah it's an and but but but it's we're not talking about a disclosure either a disclosure you know I know we're not uh I'm trying to make the point that um you know this is this is only one one component of what immediately um falls on you know regularly under a financial statement but it's not a financial statement can you read it one more time you know I don't have it in front of me I'm sorry I'm having a little bit of a technical issues I don't know if you could share that information absolutely well I can share the the whole I see other people look at their screen and I'm I can't look at mine I'm sorry sure no it's a memory it's just a limited part that I believe is relevant here says financial statements and disclosures outside of what is publicly available via sec filings so any disclosure that is publicly available in an sec filing is not covered by this NDA for good reason obviously um the what this covers is any financial statement or disclosure about the property obviously that um is not otherwise publicly reported yeah that's a great that's a great point and that is you know there was a big concern when we did these non-disclosure agreements relative to the parity between the property and and their consolidated statements and you know and this is where it where for the language ended but again maybe I made this point already but we're talking about not a financial statement but one line in the financial statement and by the way I will also mention in the regular disclosures in the regular reporting on the NCC reporting they do break out by segment the non-gaming revenue into multiple categories convention put-and-beverage hotel that's part of their financial statement disclosures granted by by line but by I don't know what the category yes Las Vegas regional casino international not by property we are talking about here aggregated and aggregate of what is otherwise itemized in the financial disclosures when it comes to non-gaming revenue now I also want to say this because I am I am of mixed feelings about about this request I think there's a case to be made that you know that this is not part of the NDA when we are talking simply about the aggregate of non-gaming revenue and that it also is in the public interest which is why we're doing a lot of the research and many other sections and research apply but that is also further complicated by what I believe is a legitimate argument one that we have to weigh against those two competing interests that you know there's sensitivity towards competition that especially when it comes to to MGM they are unhappy from a little while in a tight gaming market which is frankly the unstated part of their concern in my view that disclosing some of this information may be disadvantageous when it comes to you know their their their their competition I think there are mitigating factors for that for example we're not talking about this closing that the non-gaming revenues over time or with any more break it you know detail like you know hotel food and beverage or or convention we're talking about an aggregate number and I think when we had these discussions early on when they were providing when we were asking for this information our researchers were asking for this information and they were providing the discussions all in my mind ended up well maybe this is all a matter of how it gets aggregated and reported and I think that's where we find ourselves commissioners other comments questions for Todd or Commissioner Zuniga? Commissioner Brian? I think what Commissioner Zuniga just wrapped up his comments with is is sort of you know where I am I think it's a question of the forum and the manner in which to disclose it um I do think it's relevant information um the question really if the question before us Todd is it very very narrow today just is that number supposed to be in that report or not versus are we having a bigger company about whether we want to continue to ask for this information and publish it and if so in what way? I think that's a great question I think it's kind of both I mean the more immediate question is should we put this specific number in this specific report but it obviously could have broader implications um because my yeah my point being if the if the answer is yes today I think we're answering the broader question and so I think we do have to have a bigger conversation about that um because it would got there could be a circumstance we say in the future yes but given the circumstances of how this came about we're going to decline to put it in this report and that wouldn't bind us later um but I question whether if we put it out now that that doesn't answer the question going forward and I um I definitely think we should be doing this going forward and then we have a conversation about how but so Commissioner O'Brien can I ask your opinion uh because I'm I'm I'm struggling with um one um the idea that that this information is doesn't um is not protected um I understand there's an exception of the the use of the information for something we deem necessary I understand that exception I'm struggling with the idea that this isn't protected I hear Commissioner Zuniga but do you agree that it's not protected um because because of the the narrow reading that it's just a piece of a financial statement so therefore it doesn't fall under that exception because if that's the case then you know we would we would have a different a different response to MGM or do you think it's protected but then you're getting to the then the the exception under the NDA well it's funny in terms of that broader question of the NDA I actually think this is not the form to have that conversation I actually think that's a conversation that should be done in more depth and maybe I'm wrong on this Todd um if MGM's council wants to make that specific argument um I'm under the impression we're here today on a fact specific request having to do with this particular report and then there's been an analysis done of the disclosure in this particular circumstance and I do think that the facts of this are a little bit different than the question you just asked Kathy which is a strict legal reading of this is it or is it not under the NDA either protected in the first instance or if it is in the first instance then it's subject to an exemption um but I'm not so sure we really got into that level of discussion on this as opposed to the fact specific request of here's how this evolved in this moment and we know whether or not to correct this number so if we so I'm hearing you and I'm I'm struck by this because I'm hearing you say I'm not sure this is the right form this is the only form we've got um unless it falls under no no I'm saying it's a question of law there's a question of law yeah but I'm saying I I have and again Todd if you can you know help me understand this but as I was sort of brought up to speed on this it was a narrow question for us today but that had broader implications and so my understanding is that's the conversation that's happened and that we're having today and I do think that what we do today could have broader implications for how we move forward and interpret this but I'm not so sure that we were positioning ourselves today to have that in-depth conversation about the statutes in the NDA but I could be wrong I what I would say about I think at least one piece of that is I operated with an understanding that this data was protected under section 12 that was my read I hadn't really considered that it wasn't although the commission could certainly step in and say you know what you have that wrong it's not covered at all and I I I certainly leave room for that but that was not yet can we make it then the assumption that let's just for purposes of this discussion today assume what you what I had understood was your legal interpretation and to that extent it was aligned with MGM's position that it yes you know it may fall under that I I'm hearing Commissioner Zuneda you know is counter but let's just if we could go through the assumption of okay it's protected then can then so the next narrow question would be if this were a request from let's say a researcher through a public records request a researcher not not our contractor a researcher today under our NDA we would have to deny that if we assume it's protected is that correct that's right if this came via public records request the legal department would deny the request and cite the existence of the nondisclosure agreement and the statutory exemption to the public records law and decline to produce the information somebody can I can I put a fine point can I put a fine point to that because I think this is where it hinges if if if we were given the request of give us all the information you have relative to non-gaming revenue with all of the throughout the months and with all its breakdown then I would say absolutely that's protected it was not you know that is all that detail clearly falls under under the NDA in my view the and again maybe this is a difference without a distinction but I'm saying that what the researchers have proposed for again the public interest which is the other part is that to point out the aggregate it's just it's it's it's a it's a number it's not the detail and I guess maybe that becomes the question when is detail versus aggregate part or not of of an NDA if we have the opinion that one piece of it you know means everything then maybe that's the answer but if if you buy at least partially my my the argument that I'm trying to make at that you know it is relative to how much detail and how much can be reported as a compromise so for the other for the other other goal of of of the research program by the way can I make Enrique you didn't stick with my assumption my assumption was just that right now this is what Todd has advised that this is protected so I'm just playing it out so then so then we wouldn't disclose that under it so then the next piece is to look at the exception I just want to play out you know assuming this is protected then the next piece just to make it really simple the next piece is under the exception the use of the protected material if we deem it necessary and you know I'm hearing Enrique say you know public interest so somehow there's some kind of a standard we attach and just deciding what is necessary but it's the use it is not the publication so when you when the NDAs were written you know I I wasn't here was there a reason why you didn't say we would be able to publish an override really the you know the public record you said use and so that's what I'm struggling with if again accepting the assumption not the quality or anything but what Todd has said that this would be protected do we get to do we get to publish it or can we just use it and is there a way that we can do the use and still accomplish what you know I know Mark and would like and the researchers would like is there is there any way we are using it without publishing it well I yeah I think that's that's where we are currently with with the report the reason by the way I don't know if this is much of a difference but it's our researchers who have used that information it's technically not us oh I know but I don't know that that matters much to the to the main point I think they've used that information and that that that's great because that has allowed them to do a number of things it's the publishing of the report that they're reporting out that that is the key question and again I thought there is a balance by saying okay don't report all the detail but report the aggregate by the way does the MGM see that distinction Todd you know I know that Seth is here I'm going to go on a limb and say that they don't okay you know well I just madam chair to your point I would say that as comprehensive and thorough and thoughtful as I find this NDA to be we never and some of the licensees are on the line here and they can certainly weigh in on this I don't believe any of us ever specifically contemplated this exact issue and so for that reason well I do believe it's covered under the agreement it's not one that anyone spent a lot of time talking about or thinking through and the use what is what do we mean exactly by use and is inclusion in a public report use or was the use before it was put in the report so that's I mean I think that's why it's in part it's a legal interpretation and in part it's a policy question as to how to fairly move forward with this information can I mention one other thing and I'm sorry if this is going to be muddying the waters a little bit but people should at least commissioners should also understand that they the researchers have come up with an alternative themselves to estimating the non-gaming revenue in other words saying all right we if we don't if we don't have to use that maybe we can still have a report that does justice sorry to the original intention and tries to estimate that now that's not going to be the same number one could argue that well they they are coming up with the estimate after they saw the original aggregate number and whether that's you know good bad or indifferent but can you share their methodology that would be a question that mark might need to help me answer but mark am I can you can you respond to that question am I wrong in the notion that there's an alternative to estimate that number that is independent from the data that they received good afternoon commissioners and madam chair yes they they have come up with a couple different methods in order to estimate non-gaming revenue I have to say nobody nobody was particularly satisfied with the methodology and the outcome of that though and so the feeling was that if we could use that actual number it puts it it strengthens the report and really gets to the heart of what we're trying to measure and just to be clear again when the way we got that information it was directly from MGM but they did note that they didn't want it yeah well they they did they did know that you know that they expressed their concerns early on and so and that's where so it's it's it's fair to say that you know they they had an understanding and and I and by the way I'm going on memory because I was at least some sometimes involved in those discussions in my my recollection was that you know it was going to be relative to how much detail is is eventually out there as long as we're not you know opening up all the research data which were not um that you know that that would be some something that that they could deal with now maybe maybe I may have understood their position that that's that's entirely possible but I think that to me is the differential between and and let me mention one one other thing it is possible if we if we try to get into that other question the second question general Brian says about the policy implications I think it is possible that we will get less cooperation in terms of data gathering going forward because you know it's understandable in other words even if we came up very strongly on one side saying you know we don't think it's covered there's an implication for the future you're not asking for a vote today Todd uh no it I mean I kind of almost deferred to Mark I'm not sure what the time frame is for this and what the urgency is I believe the report has is it fair to say has not been formally published at this point pending an outcome of this decision right um I am awaiting a decision by commission about how to proceed on on the non gaming revenue in order to get direction to our research team um the the report which it's hinging on this one specific issue and obviously the report has much much more than the non gaming revenue I am anxious to get this report done and published and so the sooner the commission can give me some direction on that the better I see you know I can see where the commission may say not for this this report we we advise that you don't use the exact number for the non gaming revenue but let's have a discussion going forward um that that seems like an option too Director Wells how do you want to proceed I think you know I do I do see Mark's point because we're we're in we're in lima there is no vote today I don't know if you want to hear from Seth Stratton and we haven't heard from MGM that would be helpful the commissioners he's on uh I'll leave that to your discretion if that's that's only if Seth Seth should not feel like he has to but exactly I was perfectly comfortable not commenting oh okay well you cannot comment it's a thorough discussion um I'm happy to address any questions but um I think Todd's teed it up exactly the right way and I agree with everything he said so there's nothing we've missed Todd's covered everything correct okay do you want um if I can just I'm listening to everyone here um the one the one piece I I think I'm very clear about so I'm not clear about every piece is that any portion of a financial report I think is covered if you're not used at all I that's how I always understood it and I spoke to Todd about this issue that was my understanding that that a portion you know that this is covered there was never a discussion about maybe this isn't even covered so I'm agreeing with Commissioner O'Brien I believe that that's a different discussion if now we're going to say it's not covered in my mind if it's a piece of it then that's that's covered but it so just to clarify in my mind because of Todd and I talked there's the covered by the NDA but then is to Kathy's point do you want to sort of invoke the exception on the necessity I think that is Todd is that how you were thinking is framed that's that's exactly right yeah and and and I'm struggling with the idea of using it versus publishing it you know I I understand that that the statute allowed for the NDA to be able to protect information from being disclosed through the public records act and I'm a little bit struggling with the idea that the same request could be made today to a researcher we would say no under the NDA but that we would not just use that information but actually publish the exact information ourselves I find that that's kind of a I don't know what the word is and Todd knows I'm struggling with this it's not a frustration of the law but it it feels just you know I don't know what the word is it's just a collision there that makes me uncomfortable that we we only the NDA allows us to use doesn't allow us to disclose otherwise I don't I otherwise I think that then this should have been disclosed to the requester you know of a public records offer we're going to do exactly the same thing as what would have happened to the public records law and I'm just struggling with that collision in your scenario and I understand you know the everybody's input here but in your scenario the way I would reconcile it is by that level of detail but I'm saying the exact same thing the number just exactly what whatever exactly our researchers want if the journalists or the researcher came in and asked for exactly that exactly that under the NDA we would say no not about the detail or anything exactly whatever we would plug in whatever we would say no to the public records requester but we would say we deem it necessary to disclose but we don't have permission to disclose under the NDA we have permission to use if deem necessary and so I'm yeah so I'm I'm struggling from the idea that use means publish only because of that collision of logic I mean maybe if I didn't see it so much you know that collision I wouldn't have dealt with use and publishing as much but you know the idea of an NDA is it's a nondisclosure agreement not publishing stuff yeah let me see if I understand your point from these other other standpoint um in other words this other researcher could come in this this hypothetical researcher a second one yeah absolutely yeah not not our own if they said well I want to corroborate what they what the researchers did no not even that not even that just I want to do my own yeah I want to do my own study let's say and I want all the detail that that we know you must have gotten um you know because from from non-gaming revenue we would say no we can only give you the one number which actually is already published is that is that against your point the no I'm saying so whatever because I'm actually not involved enough in the detail to know thank goodness to actually know what is the number or whatever the researchers want that mr stratton on behalf of this client is objecting to whatever it is though let's say it's abc I want abc and no you know under the NDA if Todd got that public record request no abc is protected under our NDA we will not disclose it to you and what I'm hearing is that however the exception as we're interpreting it could be we could use abc but now do we make the jump can we if we deem necessary publish abc and I'm having trouble making that jump in light of that collision with the publishing disclosing the same same word say exactly the same thing encompasses publishing then it's the exception as well as the rule but it doesn't say disclose in that exception gail it says use and so I wondered if if that had been you know part of the thinking you know it didn't say disclose like my my point in that comment was that if we interpret use to accomplish publishing and somehow publishing is distinct from disclosure unless we do that yeah I don't see that distinction yeah okay I understand maybe let me say this um I guess it was assumed by me I assumed that we would use all this data to publish it that the purpose the purpose of using all of these and there was one and only and that is to inform the public so there would be a disclosure of the data and that's the way and I understand very much your arguments by the way no no I I don't know but what about like but to me that every day I have to tell you I don't think I ever assumed that that meant um using the data meant publishing especially with the non-disclosure involved so using the data meant publishing findings and findings could be summarized and reported of course with without all the detail but you wouldn't do that in the course of an investigation and that part of that that exception is it's contemplates you know for the purposes of an investigation you needed to have something that was critical to maybe suitability that was somehow protected again I you know I'm I think that I think that's a good a good example we don't we never disclose all of the details that of the financial investigations for example we come on and say you know recommended for suitability that's a good finding that's ultimately a finding that you don't publish you don't publish but it's protected you know disclose what's protected right if I could just chime in referring to section 71 23 k 71 that calls for the commission to carry out a research agenda and it specifically calls out comprehensive studies of the social and economic impacts and and I would say that this piece of data though it's one number is incredibly important for us to be able to fulfill that piece of a comprehensive study of the economic impacts except for one thing it also does and I think Enrique led with this it's apparently information that our licensee doesn't want publicly disclosed and presumably because it's a commercial competitive consideration and perhaps other things but I think Enrique raises that that's the balance so where's your absolutely right mark you know but for this MDA it would be great information that you know the commonwealth could benefit from to understand but there's sort of in this paradigm of figuring out that you know that that that it is protected under the NDA for exactly why we get to have an NDA otherwise this would be subject to public records request because yeah there's no secret exception under the public records a lot the NDA it's the actually the legislature contemplated that there would be this point this kind of information that at a certain point the licensees would just say it would put us at a competitive disadvantage it needs to get away in terms of speaking specifically about this report mark and today and your desire to finalize the publication of it there is a way the researchers compiled their estimate based on another in another way that information may or may not be corroborated by the actual facts that we got from MGM is there in fact a way to use that estimation and reference whether or not we believe there's a level of accuracy in that estimation and Todd this is somewhat to you as well in a manner just for this immediate purpose that doesn't violate anyone's interpretation of the NDA not the intention right just for the purposes of this report and what you wanted to put in is there a way of drafting this using the estimated value and some indication of the reliability of that estimation that then does not violate disclosure that wouldn't be in publishing is somehow disclosing a violation of the NDA for the first part yes Commissioner O'Brien I think that the report was released or report the information was presented in a way that used estimations and I would I would advise our research team to go forward with that the second part of your question is a little more complicated regarding whether or not we can provide some type of indication whether that's that you know the accuracy of that data I would leave that well I believe to our council and and I would want to discuss with our research team that's an appropriate use that is not publication that then becomes a disclosure that's violated by the NDA my god feeling and this is purely just my my feeling is that if we if we try to put in some sort of qualifier to that it would be it could be perceived wrongly because we know what it approximates to I guess we know the data you know we already we've already you know we there's personally but our researchers have already seen that that data so so long as and they're the ones who brought up we can estimate it in this other way and we would we would be solid right no but I'm thinking they're it's stuff that's been wrongly disclosed arguably there's clawback provisions and mechanisms in the law that say I know you got it but you got it around easily and so you can't take it and I know you know it but you're not going to be able to use it so you need to sort of separate yourself from that if that's what we're saying today however use to me has a number of different meanings and even if we're saying we don't believe that use encompasses publication because that would then conflict with disclosure is there another avenue for the use of that information that corroborates the estimation that is helpful to this so the fact that we know it already as a legal construct doesn't answer the question like there are ways to claw that back and then go forward and maybe there's a way to use this data without publishing it but yeah but one point though is that we use it if we deem it necessary so there still needs to be a consensus that it's deemed necessary by us correct I for one do think it's necessary I think mark has made it pretty clear it's necessary to the the research agenda and the directors of the statute so if we're doing that consensus I would say I do think using it is necessary yeah I would I would probably struggle with finding the the information necessary deeming it necessary and so that you know it's interesting at this point and just to get to that to what Commissioner Stavich just said and Commissioner O'Brien's question it's important to remember of course that this is a tricky situation because we already have the information in theory when we asked for it they could have said well I'm not going to give it to you and then we and then we could have had this conversation at an earlier stage where we wouldn't have known but remember we are the regulator yes and I think Mr. Stratton did answer and did say but so they weren't going to they certainly weren't going to do that and but we could have discussed this perhaps an earlier stage the the issue now as others have already mentioned is that since we know the number it's harder to come up with another way it's it's not it's not this happens all the time where information gets conveyed and then you must not use it unless it's you know appropriately available it happens in lots of context I think you know Eileen just mentioned the callback you know we've done it we've done I've done it here with all of you so you know that that's an available tool can should we find out if we have a consensus on even if we deem if we were to deem use uh necessary today I don't know I'm not convinced it's necessary today I haven't heard enough about why it is frankly I mean I had a conversation with our general counsel but we did not spend a lot of time on um why it is and I did read but I'm still I I guess I'm not comfortable saying I I absolutely believe it's necessary I'm with you I'm that's why I thought we when I heard Commissioner Stebbins I wasn't sure I I am I understand the public interest in this number yes I absolutely do um I I think there was an NDA put in place and I believe that there was a reliance that this information is protected under the NDA I understand there's some counter arguments today that we haven't chewed on I think Gail and I are aligned on that um but even if we if we had had that if it weren't protected we wouldn't be here you know we wouldn't be having this discussion so there was a presumption coming in that it was protected um you know and then I I just am not sure given the competing interests of the NDA and the use versus publication I'm just not there yet either I understand why it's a good number but I also understand why you may have protected this information back when the NDAs were signed so then from an operational level because I realize there's no vote today so um I guess could be visit and yeah well that's on necessity right so my question for Mark is more on the operational side rather than the decision-making side is that given this this robust conversation and there's some consternation and you know this is a tricky issue is it your opinion it'd be better to just get this report out now uh with the information either redacted or not included and then we'll revisit this issue in the long term or do you want to wait and hold on to the report and then come back before the commission and really you know dig down and actually vote on this do you have any thoughts one way or the other at any commissioners thoughts on that well let let me suggest uh that as perhaps the one in the minority that um that we move ahead without that information in the report um because the idea of bringing this in because I seem to hear a level of discomfort relative to you know the use and publishing um that we move ahead with the report it's been it's done you know the the idea of having this discussion was so that the one year report which is this is this is meant to to be doesn't get to be you know two years later right and so um you know that that they finish the report there's a lot more information as has been stated here that we that is very relevant in the report we we got we we got to participate in a public um presentation which and this is only one of the reports that was presented then um so there's a lot of benefit in terms of public interest relative to information contained therein and uh and we can just direct our researchers to expunge that and then you know make the decision as to whether they can um you know have an estimate with some methodology that he describes that makes no use of that data when it comes to non-gaming revenue and then move that forward can I that's my recommendation if there's anything around if there's anything around this issue though and I know you know the idea of not using it um I do think it would be a good courtesy to share with um MGM in advance um to make sure that we're on agreement that it's you know protecting that unless we come back right um I think that's a courtesy Amika you would probably agree with that right absolutely and I think you know I've seen that they've seen um at least version a version of these is my understanding but uh but yeah no absolutely we would not want to inadvertently think we work you know online and find out later yeah that was done yeah and I I would advise the research team to proceed with the methodology that they used to create to to produce that data um during the the research day last month um and that methodology was vetted by MGM and we're there were um all in agreement that that was fine so I will certainly work with um with uh our licensees on on that and make sure that we're all on the same page it's an important piece of kind of finalizing that report right and then if we could go back to Commissioner O'Brien I think your initial point that maybe this is a topic for a bigger conversation right decide what use means and I think some level of agreement that publish is not used because it would violate the the directives in the end date to not disclose but I do think we need to have another conversation about what does use mean so we don't find ourselves getting in a in a situation like this again yeah and I also think it's fair to revisit just I think non-gaming revenue um and perhaps with our our licensees to see you know at what point would they ever be comfortable um but this at this point it would be premature to release it you know I think okay so two-fold okay it's not helpful do you get you know I don't think you need a vote or no because I think you need a vote in order to make that determination of the necessity and use but if we're not if we're not there if there's no vote towards that that at least gives uh mark some direction and never made a note to put the NDA on our agenda setting meeting notes so this can be a topic going forward and look at it broadly because this is going to be an annual report this is only one report we're going to be doing this for years and years yeah that's right Commissioner Cameron are you all set yeah thank you Commissioner Stevens uh I am and and just uh to chime in on Commissioner Zuniga's point I'm you know a lot of research was talked about at the public presentation and you know I'm I'm not for holding that up and allowing for what everybody's comfortable with to be published and we'll we'll still have this one issue kind of hanging out there I don't want to slow mark down in the in the great research team that it works with. Into Mark's point it's vital information it's just that we're weighing the other the other side so today um this is where we we can we come out but I think there are future conversations to address you know what you you find to be appropriately paramount so um thank you uh Commissioner Zuniga are you all set yeah I'll set Commissioner Bryan yeah I'm all set thank you all right good you're marching orders on that thank you I appreciate it okay um well the magic ended on our timing we're doing really well um we do have a time for commissioner's updates and I hope that just because we're running a little late you you'll still feel free to give any updates that you have just one update and it kind of just stems from our last discussion I mean we're not out really getting out and about anywhere these days but uh just to thank my colleagues who have uh uh a law degree and a legal background it's uh your your input into the conversation is greatly appreciated by the non-lawyer in the well we'll have to record that when the lawyer jokes come up later yeah exactly I tell you you're not the only one you're not the non-lawyer it's being recorded I didn't pause it sometimes that gets in the way of getting to good logical conclusions too answers um but uh okay so that was a kind of an almost update any other update we will take the compliment though thank you don't Eileen I'm sure you feel the same way uh we're trying to put that law degree behind us in this role as opposed to law school messes with you changes the way you think about everything okay all right um any other update commissioner Karen do any update if you look out the window no no update at all thank you well it's going to be 70 degrees here Saturday so anyway um to all the uncertainties in our world let's um keep our fingers crossed and let's not you know think about all those who are dealing with the um the public health issues today and and let's just all pray for a bit of a turn around in the near future and a little certainty um sooner than later so thank you and thank you for the excellent meeting lots of territory covered today right the big one it was you know it shows the breadth of um the team's work Karen and and makes our job really interesting don't you think commissioners we're lucky absolutely yes all righty so i'm chair i move to adjourn thank you okay all those in favor just i hi hi hi hi all righty thank you everyone we adjourn five zero