full hearing um and without a recommendation if that makes sense tonight can I ask this question please and I'll turn to commissioner brian we did have this issue pop up yesterday where we wanted no more fulsome investigation on certain you know to to learn more facts into question additional members of the operators team as witnesses uh and and IEB has been instructed or directed by the commission to do that I'm gonna come back with that fulsome report um could we right now if we were to adopt the same approach as as what we were doing with that could we right now ask for that fulsome investigation um and then that's used for the um that's used for our adjudicatory hearing I'll tell you what I'm thinking that's that's what I'm looking for yeah I'm thinking of the win matter in terms of procedurally the directive to do the investigation right up the factual report but then ultimately to the extent we wanted to question more and make the ultimate you know disposition and fines etc that was on us sorry to get so excited but that's exactly where my mind was yeah and I had that discussion yesterday um with director monahan because we're trying to figure out the right process going forward and I did use that as an example just now I also had it in my head because in that case to commissioner brian there are two parties yes so that would allow commissioners for you to still ask questions of the witnesses I think the efficiencies that we can accomplish with the second option are clear too I might be in the same camp as commissioner skinner right now because this does feel like a um an alleged violation that uh you know it's telling if in fact we've learned that as that's been reported to us that the the league actually reached out in which we give them great credit for because they're looking after uh their players um that the nature is different than what we've heard so I I like commissioner skinner's analysis of setting the tone but I also like the efficiency of option too but I think in this case I might yield on the efficiency all right well so can I can I follow up on that chair and so I I'm with the two of you I understand what you're getting at um you and um commissioner brian and even commissioner maynard um but I just in the context of the three options that were laid out this doesn't sound like one of them although it might very well be a variation um in that um in the case we heard yesterday or started to hear yesterday and sent it back for some additional information to IAB we had already determined that we wanted to move forward with respect to that matter as an adjudicatory proceeding so I think that would be the first step here and then um you know we could get to you know where where I think we all want to be is that we have a more fulsome investigation having been conducted by IAB before we actually hear the matter right so is there a next step that comes in with the what is the anticipated notice etc to your point goes out to the parties and then the question is do we then say yep IAB is a party we're going to proceed that way where they conduct the investigation and report back to us I think the operator has the opportunity to be heard percent witnesses cross exam etc so I think I think I think it's what what I'm hearing and just just so we'll clarify is that you know the commission would like to proceed to a new judicatory hearing but as was discussed yesterday would like a really fulsome investigation with interviews and um you know potentially documents additional documents from the IAB and in that case the IAB would be acting more as a party more as a you know in a prosecutorial role potentially if it if it found that it there was the violation that it believed um that is sort of in contrast to the way we've been doing these adjudicatory hearings to date where the IAB has actually served as a witness so the IAB has conducted an investigation and created a report and then presented that report but has not acted as a party in so much as it's calling its own witnesses it's presenting a case it's affirmatively stating that it believes there's been a violation of the statutory regulation so all I would ask from the IAB's side of things is if the commission would like the IAB to act as a party here um that it just sort of affirmatively say so and so that we know that we're all on the same page moving forward um and if that's the case uh you know I would I we can mark this up for another meeting um I would ask you know the same question with regard to the other adjudicatory hearings that have been scheduled thus far would you prefer that the IAB act as a party or as a witness because there are differences there and I guess the only thing as point of clarification on that Caitlin is I do feel like in the wind matter the direction was come back with the factual record and it wasn't so much you also making a finding of a violation that that was still left to the body of five and so I guess that's the only distinction yes you were a party calling the witness's during the report but that the ultimate finding of any violation and and penalty was left to us 100 so so the commission would absolutely make the ultimate determination as the body over the adjudicatory body of whether you know one whether or not there was a violation and two if there was a violation what the penalty would be but just again just to make sure I'm 100 sure if we were a party the IEB would be saying we believe there is a violation we're now presenting evidence to you to determine whether you agree or not as the we're like it's like the bench we are the ones in that circumstance who would say I find the evidence sufficient or not absolutely so we would the IEB would come to the commission it would say we believe there has been a violation of XYZ here are the facts we're going to call witnesses you know the the other party would have the opportunity to call witnesses to cross-examine witnesses this is all contemplated in 101 and then the commission would sit as the adjudicatory body and determine whether believe there's a violation or not right yes I can't I'm just add to that there's nothing inherently wrong with any of this we do have a regulation that sets out what the process is and that's why we've proposed these options it's it's grounded in the actual regulation that talks about the IEB's role of making recommendations and what have you the overlying concern with all of this and the reason it was designed as it was which just to ensure that the commission doesn't prejudge a matter that will ultimately end up at an adjudicatory proceeding so I don't there's nothing inherently wrong of course with the IEB fully investigate something and then coming to you as long as we're careful when that happens for the commissioners not to say not to voice an opinion or express an opinion about the merits of it whether it's it's true it's not true it's bad it's not bad what the fine might be what it might not be any of that kind of stuff so with with those additions I think this is certainly workable we might need to take a look at the regulation and adjust it now that it's kind of the picture is becoming a little bit clearer as to what the most efficient and proper process might be so I just wanted to add that I think that this is entirely workable though I know Justin did you have something you wanted to add to that before that sorry if I might just follow up on what Todd just said sure I think Justin was going to follow up on let me be clarified but go ahead thank you I'm Todd I'm glad you mentioned that because that's exactly what I was sitting here thinking when we shifted to this new approach whereby we're getting an oral sort of summary from IEB to decide which path we want to take to consider if you recall we had been getting those reports those non-compliance reports which gave us you know a little bit more a little bit more detail in terms of what happened who you know what the reports say that was submitted by the operators and I know that we talked about bias and the risk of that and so I don't see what is being proposed now any different than that so I just I want to make sure we're being consistent because I was you know I'm satisfied now and I'm not suggesting that we revisit that decision because Caitlyn and I did have an opportunity to connect on it but I think that process is just as good as the one that we're proposing now and that at least we would have a lot more information on which to base a decision as to which of these three paths we want to take sorry Justin and thank you no worries no just a second what what's what I said here I've had conversations like that yes I have an echo so we want to hear you sorry I'm not much of a tech advisor so is it still echoing yeah it might be the if you go into the microphone there there's the echo canceling option or try meeting your doc maybe is this no one no one gets nervous over this take your time do I still have an echo I just tried switch you got it okay good thank you um no problem uh so no I was just saying I did have conversations with Caitlyn about this and the posturing of these non-compliance events from a sort of party versus witness aspect and I'm in full agreement I think it logically it makes sense for IEB to function as a party with these non-compliance events and in the way that's being laid out it does make um sort of the collection of the record and uh the assembly of the materials that the commission will review uh a little more straightforward uh because you have a you have a moving party and in the commissioners will essentially be sitting in judgment as as the body that will eventually oversee and render whatever you know essentially verdict in the matter so it makes a lot of sense I have no objection legally I think it makes a lot of it it's quite logical Justin can I ask a follow-up question um uh council grossman suggested maybe we need a reg check um uh red fix I felt as though perhaps in my conversations with you really preparing for yesterday this question came up only because of the the from in terms of my role of of chairing that was it you know it's always been a little bit of a challenge when it's not party and so are we okay on the record do would we be able to proceed on right I'm madam chair I'll I'll double check it but I I don't I don't think there's an obstacle to doing this within our ranks it's it because there are there are many instances when uh attorneys for the commission do function as parties in in other lower level judicatory hearings before they come before you so having that at a sort of a higher level with these I wouldn't see as necessarily being a legal obstacle but I'll do a comprehensive review just to make sure there's no snafus in any of the regulations that would just seek to you know be in limit on anything we're doing here and I could also confer with uh director monahan about that right and then and bring in uh Todd because Todd hasn't been thinking about this like the two of you because it just is kind of a new dark a new uh issue um commissioner skinner raises the fair question about consistency um and I can I'm also feeling that we don't have an issue there but could you address that Caitlin please director monahan absolutely um so I I understand what you're hearing commissioners saying commissioner skinner just to be clear um it would be consistent with the process that we put in place a few weeks ago so you'd be continue to be getting these sort of shorter overview overview briefs of potential non-compliance matters at the point at which you're deciding which path it should take if you choose for it to go to new judicatory hearing um you will receive the IEB's report um either as an exhibit or a pre-hearing brief we would just have to sort of again figure out the posture as a party but you would be getting that in the context of the judicatory hearing which makes it the appropriate time for you to start digging into the facts and getting all the those detailed facts because you are then sitting as the judicatory body so now we're back to our choices commissioner hill you started with um the the more streamlined one through IEB then we look at the nature of it again at a high level just um what are you thinking I haven't changed my mind I'm still where I was before okay commissioner maynard commissioner brian what are you thinking uh I would like it sent down to IEB for an investigation and then brought back to us I'll uh win that's where I am okay and uh so that's that's really option one um and um is it though I thought it was option two well option one always went to IEB for the investigation it's just the level of investigation it's the level I guess and that's basically the the sticking point for me is what we've gotten back is sort of a cursory higher level that then has required us to do the Q&A in that matter maybe during deliberations come back out ask for more information I feel like it's more efficient to say here is the scope of what we would like you to do go do it and report back and then have an auditory hearing the option two doesn't have an auditory hearing only if we if we disagree with their recommendation and they could offer yeah which I actually think is makes that an option two terribly inefficient at the end of the day but you know I think the idea is that we would probably put a lot of weight in IEB's recommendation so that's why there's the efficiencies there but number one I think maybe I'm over simplifying this I'm just seeing it is that we're giving a directive for the investigation to maybe go deeper than what had been done in the past yeah I mean if that's the procedural avenue is one with the specific directive and as commissioner Skinner said maybe there's another meeting right where the preliminary goes out almost like we did yesterday and we say you know what we need we want you to go do these invest interviews and doc requests and come back director monoham am I am I close here or am I often I will not be offended if I just completely misunderstood and I can't lean to I know that you've been working on these processes as well we'll both be off if that's the case that I'm sure if I get the way you see it I think I think I think I understand what commissioner brian is saying I may just be saying it in a slightly different way but getting to the same point so the direct ship if you know if the commission went with I the commissioner brian's recommendation the IEB would go do a very fulsome investigation interviews document collection the whole nine yards and and at the same time the legal department would work on scheduling an adjudicatory hearing when everything was ready it would get come to the commission via an adjudicatory hearing and in that in that adjudicatory hearing the IEB would act as a party the IEB would make a recommendation as to whether there was a violation of the regulation but it would or a statute but it would ultimately be up to the commission to determine if it if there was a violation of the statutory regulation and then if so what any penalty would be so what basically you'd schedule an adjudicatory hearing but also the IEB would be doing a more fulsome investigation and then serving as a party yeah and in the scheme of our options we're not creating one that's new under our regulation or are we creating what to be a poor choice I think we're just clarifying I think we're just clarifying the role of the IEB as a party or as a witness and I think that is entirely fair for the commission it's just to noted the IEB functions as witnesses and as parties in different hearings at different times so clarifying the role is I think appropriate okay well I don't really care if it's one two or three I like how she described it that's what I must say so the commissioner thank you for nodding your head help me out here so we can move this along yeah I'm you know I and when we did these regs a few weeks ago I worried about this exact conversation right and I hate the horns done by regs that we just put out two weeks ago right and then say well should we go back to the regs I just want it done the way that I think Commissioner O'Brien has described Commissioner Skinner I've heard the chair right like that's the way I want it done so you know looking at our general counsel's office however we get to there is how I want to get there I don't care what we call it one two seven twelve I don't care I want to do it that way Todd we'll turn to you now as general counsel yeah might need to digest some of this um a little bit um because we want to make sure of course that we are getting the commission the information that you would like so you can make a reason decision that's that's the bottom line period of the story the question is like which option is this how much information do you want at the outset like in a setting like this here today what would the expectation be as far as this presentation is concerned of course there are resource issues that they come into play at some point but I think Commissioner Maynard and in all I think we get the point for sure you've been very clear so that's that's very helpful and maybe if we can move through these four today we can circle back and make sure we have a really sound process in place for the next go through could could we do this instead of having to circle back because I think I'm like we're having a lot of circle backs today could we presume that this works and then you circle back if there is a question yeah as long as everyone's clear as to what this is I think Caitlin really outlined it well I see the other commissioners are nodding their heads Commissioner Skinner you nodding your head Commissioner Hill I think we're hearing you but I think it is just some expectation for a little bit more in this case so could we do it that way consensus move ahead pursuant to a plan set forth by Director Ronahan should there be a problem we mark it back up and revisit and then we get things going this is you know thank you to Nate for bringing this matter to us and we'll get going on it thank you thank you okay with that I think I think we're fine then okay thank you thank you just a different approach thanks so much okay then then that was 7a and just to clarify so I I believe if I'm counting correctly I have at least three commissioners in favor of moving to an adjudicatory hearing with the IB as a party but just want to clarify that that's where I think we had Commissioner Brian Commissioner Maynard Commissioner Skinner are you nodding your head and and I'm nodding my head Commissioner Hill was off the original option too thank you I don't think we really vote on these we just give direction so thanks appreciate it thank you all right now we're turning to item B Caitlin yes thank you chair the next matter we have an enforcement counsel Deandre Franks will present for the commission good afternoon madam chair and commissioners the IEB has conducted an initial review of a sports wagering non-compliance incident which occurred at the sports books at MGM Springfield which is a category one sports wagering operator the non-compliance involves six wagers one being a straight wager and five in the form of parlay wagers on a regular season UMass Amherst men's basketball game in violation of mass general law chapter 23 and section 3 in 205 CMR 247.01 2a2 the straight wager was for a little over $100 and the parlay wagers totaled around $80 and just as a reminder the commission was recently briefed on a similar issue a few weeks ago which the commission referred back to the IEB and at this point I'd ask the commission its preference for next steps as to how to handle this non-compliance matter commissioners thank thank you Deandre commissioners option one two three commissioner hill number two again commissioner brian i'm two on this as well remembering it with the other one we just did yeah and and commissioner maynard two because i think we've we've got a record now yeah well i agree by that could you expand we said it's set the tone yeah setting a record almost are set on on this matter similarly situated to this thank you i agree with that thank you so much for the clarification and then commissioner skinner i'm in agreement and there should be a option to matter okay excellent thank you thank thank you and if we're ready to proceed chair we have two more matters they involve the same type of non-compliance but on two different events so we have both uh deandre and zach that can talk about the different events that were offered uh so i'll go back to deandre to start sure um so the iv has conducted an initial review of two sports wagering non-compliance incidents involving bet mgm a temporary temporary category three sports wagering licensee the incidents occurred on two separate dates and both involved the table tennis elite series in which the markets were available for wagering after the outcomes of the matches were known which is in violation of 205 cmr 247.01 to h the first non-compliance incident occurred in june of 2023 and involved nine straight wagers valued a little over $1,600 and one parley wager valued at $20 the second non-compliance incident occurred in october of 2023 and involved six wagers valued at a little over $600 uh bet mgm has allowed all wagers to stand at this point um and uh again at this point i'd ask the commission its preference for next steps as to how to proceed. commissioner hill do you want to weigh in on this one? commissioner brian? uh yes um with with the comment that i thought illegal bets weren't supposed to be paid out so that's just a thought for the day out of me but the armor too on this and i think we'd set the tone on this one as well if i'm not mistaken i i i think so as well um just to be clear i don't think the commission has yet so the situation in this case is that and geonetic correction if i'm wrong um you know basically a game happened and then the results were allowed after the results were known and i thought we had one already out of ppc very very early on very very early on i thought we had one and they avoided it and then we dealt with it could we get clarity because i'm not remembering it either and if that is not the case then i'd like to see this move forward as an adjudicatory hearing so option one you know what we can do is why don't um we'll just pause on our decision making here and if somebody could find out um because it we might have flawed memories or a decision might be pending can't really become um and then we'll go uh to item 10 right now as a matter of timing and then swing back to this issue is that okay everybody feeling flexible on that uh madam chair that's perfectly fine can i just add one timing note for you for consideration we have a series of matters involving the attorney general's office coming up my understanding is their availability is between the window two to four so i just wanted to mention that yeah i've been in touch with them i've got them very much on my mind okay very good yeah thanks so much okay right now i'm going to um prioritize our GEU team um in the wake that they need to attend so uh you know commissioners we do have to consider whether we want to go into a separate session i know mills and um they are available to help us uh but in terms of item 10 uh direct amount of hand do you want to set it up uh yes absolutely so um this is a conversation let me just pull up the agenda apology so make sure i get the language correct um that's that's okay um so this is a matter related to the use and deployment of security personnel or devices or strategies with respect there too at on core boston harbor mgm springfield on plain rich park casino um specifically with regard to firearms and that is relevant for all properties the firearms issue and then uh parking garage security which is specific to mgm so um in light of um excuse me i lost that in light of uh gl chapter 30a section 21 e4 we would ask for an executive session on that matter and previous executive sessions have have occurred um on the same topics um under that that section of the statute that's right so commissioners for of course to from us to move on this i have to read that language into the record and it's the commission anticipates that it will meet an executive session in accordance with gl chapter 30a section 21 a4 to discuss the use and deployment of security personnel or devices or strategies with respect there to an on core boston harvard mgm springfield and plain rich park casino specifically with regard to firearms that all the properties and parking secure garage security mgm springfield and in this case unlike of the agenda the public session of the commission meeting would reconvene at the conclusion of the executive session uh and i and i do see now um uh detective lieutenant uh leo and uh lieutenant o'brien thank you gentlemen do i have a motion please madam chair i move that the commission go into executive session on the matter for the reason stated by the chair second any questions thank you directly on hand um commissioner o'brien i commissioner so hi commissioner skinner i and commissioner maynard i vote yes so we will go into executive session and i think it i'm imagining it's kind of a half an hour discussion perhaps maybe not that long uh director monahan is that fair i think that's fair to set expectations when we come back we um anticipate going to the casinos um uh unless the ag's office is ready we're just going to have to figure it out in no time uh i'm available by phone if this if there's anyone who is giving us further time instructions time okay thank you tom yeah yeah you'll uh the relevant parties will be moved into a breakout room and a screen will be put up for the public um just ask for your patience um and we'll let you know um if you need let us know i'm sorry if you need any help but you should see a message pop up here in just a moment thank you thanks everyone all right i think i've got everybody in there that was included on my list if you have not received an invitation join the executive session other just chime in here set feel free to send me a message and i can move you over thanks very much everybody okay day i'll set wait i flip back on the screen thank you okay this is um thank you everyone this is a reconvening of the Massachusetts gaming commission and we just do a quick world call we just got done a productive executive session and we thank everyone for their patience but commissioner brian i'm here i'm just looking commissioner hell i'm here commissioner maynard i'm here and commissioner skinner uh a little out of order but i'm here i'm sorry you know what it was is if i heard his door so i got distracted i was watching him coming in sorry that i'm out of order thank you um yeah see we both need water but just getting hers now um thank you everyone for your your patience we'll get started um we are going to turn to um chief um gelaney item number eight but before we do so i don't want to forget kaitlyn i don't know if um we have that item seven d if we could hold um what should we go for uh we we have an answer we we spoke with legal um legal label to get an answer on excuse me whether the commission has taken up this regulatory issue before it has not actually seen this this reg so with that i actually think it could take two minutes to finish this up but we can also wait and do that at a time this works i think i think let's take let's let's get it done um so uh commissioners you remember what the matter is the rest with that said we have not we have not visited this before so it's curious because i have a vivid memory of when we had the drachnings wager them saying you've taken this up before and because it was the ppc and it was a it was an after the event being over uh christa ron i did look back at all the decisions from last year and is this one still pending i don't i don't look at the notices right jesson i look at all the notices for every decision from last year and non-address this particular reg so that would that would encompass whenever it's pending i think we have to their pending but it's it's not one of those things so just as a cleanup matter i think we need to go back and look because i'm pretty sure that ppc had an episode where this happened and they immediately voided um but i thought we captured that in part of our dispositions but you're telling us and you think you have the marimat no i'm not thinking of pascaba i'm thinking of um because dracking specifically said you have dealt with this reg before um and it was the request to void it was voiding in that and it was and i said that was a different context because that's what that was but um i'll go back and you may be right that you may be right that it has happened before i don't know what i think it may have happened with regard to like a waiver or something but i don't think the commission took it up as an adjudicatory hearing exactly the difference i think in terms of consistency is we've had this happen before and we've talked about it but i don't think we brought this up as a non-compliance matter for them and we're bringing it up i think that's right just something to keep in mind as we go forward on this with all that said i still believe it's it we could just send it over as is an option to madam chair i do have just a motion with here if you want um to provide any clarification i think that they're referring to psi psi sorry yeah and it was a void and i think it's a different wreck but it was it's a void and a different wreck she's speaking very softly avoid but avoid because it was already the event was over right right yeah right and so this with that was sort of what we've waited it this is now being treated non-compliance and i'm wondering is it because they didn't catch it or we caught it like there's a different treatment just what i'm saying i think i think my understanding again i you know i think the process is sort of relatively new with regard to sort of sports wagering being identified of being notified of potential issue and then turning it to i e b depending on the severity of the issue so it may just have been that we didn't have this process in place in the first instance and it didn't go through a formal non-compliance process now that we have this process this issue has come to us so again you know happy for it to go to the commission happy to take into consideration how a previous one was handled um whatever the commission would like okay commissioners commissioner hill is saying option two mr skinner i'm still not clear on the backs um around the first incident how it differs from this one if at all so i'd be looking to get that information because i do i agree we we should stay consistent if we didn't treat um just we should take the system you know what i don't think it's a problem to roll this over to the 29th happily oh you're on mute everybody sorry um i'm happy we have the matter that that has it also involves a similar uh non-compliance where it was on wagering for after results were no but for the nfl not that table tennis which deandre presented but i'm happy to put it over given the nature it's a it's a regulation violation it's not a statutory violation but i'm happy to put it over for a different date and we can look into um you know what you were referring to commissioner bryan and see yeah past that precedent or practice is how that has been handled and then come back okay i would like that and you're hearing the reasoning is is that the commissioners have prioritized setting a tone so to the extent they've already given some direction that's really important to us so all right does that make sense everyone are we good on that okay thank you for um uh digging into that uh during of course the meeting and thank you for uh your work today uh attorney kramer and attorney mercer uh turning thanks and of course um nate has left i think he's left the room but we thank him as well all right so now we're going to turn to item number eight good afternoon chief delaney good afternoon thank you madam chair and commissioners so today we have a couple of items up in front of you today um we have the plane rich park casino quarterly report as well as the encore boston harvard quarterly report um we will be going into executive sessions to talk about uh capital expenditures for each of these uh like each of these licensees um so with that i will uh turn this over to ppc and for ppc we have with us uh north ground cell the general manager we have heidi uh yates akbaba who's uh vice president of finance and kathy lucas vice president of uh human resources and with that i will turn it over to north good afternoon north good afternoon just one minute let me get my screen share going okay good afternoon madam chair good afternoon commissioners uh plane rich park is pleased to present our update for q4 of 2023 joined today by heidi yates akbaba our vice president of finance as well as kathy lucas our vice president of human resources um i will hand it over heidi and she's going to walk you through the financials okay so you can see that uh we are very pleased with our first year of performance for sports wagering we ended the year at three million in taxable sports wagering uh with total taxes to pay to the commonwealth of 462 000 in gaming revenue we are also pleased with our performance in 2023 uh in q4 we had 37.9 excuse me 37.9 million in slot revenue versus the 36th in prior year state taxes of 15 one racing of 3.4 and total taxes in q4 of 18.4 this is a total of 931 000 in taxes over uh prior year quarter uh for the year uh what we've done is the 155 000 in total slot revenues total state taxes of 62 million raced uh taxes of 14 and total of 76 million 261 an increase of 6.1 million in year over year taxes paid to the state lottery sales so q4 we ended at 594 uh 279 q2 was five uh flashed year q4 uh 532 000 16 an improvement of 62 000 uh over prior year uh we did have one little thing that we did in q4 that improved sales a little bit uh we were able to upgrade five of the machines and reposition a couple machines on the floor and that led to improve sales um so these next couple of slides i'm going to talk about where we ended q4 and then where we ended the year as well in terms of uh some of our goals as well as performance in q4 our total qualified spend was 1.9 million 1 million 252 of that was spent in the state of massachusetts and 300 excuse me 655 794 was spent outside the state for the year our total qualified spend was 6 439 000 of which 3.8 million was spent in the state of massachusetts or about 59 percent and 2.6 was spent in states outside of massachusetts so our local spend so of the million two that i spoke about for q4 earlier uh 4 43 000 11 was spent in our host and surrounding communities and then for the year of the 3.8 that i referenced before that total for the year in spend was 339 355 so our vendor diversity so q4 we did meet our goal uh you can see that we missed in our women's spend and the minority spend and then surpassed in our veteran uh we do have a reason for that and that is that uh we lost a vendor right in the middle of q4 that um was both a wbe and an mbe the primary individual that owned that uh business uh retired and um some of this remaining family it was a family owned business some of the remaining family members chose not to re-register as an mbe so that certainly hurt us in q4 as it didn't give us a chance to recover any of that spend and then where we end the year is we end the year actually surpassing our goal so the annual goal is 21 percent of which uh we we hit that at 23 percent we beat that by 2 percent our wbe spend um was impacted a little bit by that q4 that number is actually 11.49 so about a half a percent off from that overall year uh goal for the year uh mbe we came in right where we were supposed to and vbe really helped us hit that 23 percent um by coming in at six percent on a goal of three and then here's where you can see the the hard numbers in terms of losing that vendor in q4 what that did to us uh you can see that we're down in the wbe and the mbe by 78 and 52 thousand respectively but the vbe uh we beat that spend related to a capital project we had going on in q4 and then the total qualified spend at 1,009 and then q3 of 2023 last year million seven so total qualified spend up 119,000 great thanks i appreciate it so on the compliance side for 2023 ppc prevented a total of 211 guests from entering the gaming establishment of that group 17 were minors 36 were underage and 158 had expired invalid or no identification there were two underage or minor patrons escorted from the gaming area and one underage patron found gaming at a slot machine there were no instances of underage patrons um found or wagering in the sports wagering area and there were no instances of underage alcohol service on the property with that i'll pass to kathy thank you north good afternoon madam chair and commissioners as we look at the employment side you'll see in q4 we had 438 team members that's a little less than last quarter primarily because of the end of racing season we continue to exceed our diversity goal of 15 percent in q4 with 29 percent of our team members being diverse we exceeded our veteran goal of two percent with three percent of our team members um acknowledging their veteran status which is slightly lower than last quarter in q4 47 percent of our team members were women still slightly under the goal of 50 but just wanted to make note that we are um getting back to where we plan to get back to we lost a little um in q4 due to across the close of racing season so as soon as um we pick up with racing season and also in the fall um in the spring i hope for us to to be at that 50 or better in q4 also 32 of our team members were local and that's also slightly under the goal of 35 percent uh 65 percent of our team members are full time with 35 being part time so we'll go to the next slide so with sportsbook the numbers kind of stayed the same in q4 as in q3 with 17 percent being diverse no veterans 22 percent uh women 17 local and 50 percent of that team being full time next slide north all right and then with our supervisors and above we have currently about or in the quarter we had 81 uh leadership team members 15 percent diverse five percent veterans and 35 percent women and then i'll just kind of share some highlights um of the q4 playing rich park casino and pen entertainment community and team member issue initiatives on this first uh slide you'll see that we continue to invest in creating outstanding leaders at the property you'll see some pictures showing the development we did around um our team members with special needs some safety trainings we did and also some guest service training at orientation helping our team members get better at their job we also recognized our aces of pen in q4 the recognition is for best of the best and then we also had some development with our women through the women's linked business network which is a partnership that we have with the uh chamber and also um Heidi and Jenny are running our pen women and we continue to to grow and develop our internal talent for opportunities there go to the next slide north and so you'll see some team member engagement activities we had so many holidays that we celebrated in q4 um not only were we able to delight our guests but really engage our team members with activities that inspired fun at work so you'll see um all the days chocolate day actually my favorite was national grilled cheese day and we continue to focus on hiring days and training managers with our hiring process so that we're getting that excellent talent and our last slide north shows our commitment to the organizations that we support and also we partner with meeting our local diversity um and women initiatives we continue to support um the american cancer society with making strides in q4 like uh filling out the end of the year with helping them get to their campaign numbers um we did some education and awareness in the community around those initiatives we also supported local community events um we partnered uh for some activities for the army and navy game out in the community we did some senior breakfast and we had some military events from a recruitment standpoint so our commitment to be um a good neighbor is is evident in in the activities that we did in q4 so with that north unless there's any questions i'll turn it back to you that concludes our presentation we're ready to take any questions you may have well thank you and people we ask some questions um i need to note in my calendar exactly what day national grilled cheese day commission for the record i was wondering what calendar day chocolate day was on i'll drop both in the chat that'll be great thank you cat the questioners questions if um we want to scroll back um if you need north uh to bring up a slide just let let us know um you have it in our packet as well any questions commissioners madam chair i just i just wanted to um ask uh we we did ask north for for an update on your impacted live entertainment venue agreements do you have anything to report to us on that uh so with regards to that one that will be happy to provide that information in our next quarterly update to you but we do not have any major changes to that so we're happy to remind you what our commitments have been as it relates to that we did um add one sponsorship this past year to the town of north atleboro they have a summer concert series on the lawn and so we were a significant sponsor of that activity for that event the summer other than that most of our other commitments remaining the same as they were thank you madam chair yes Heidi um i was actually having a difficult time hearing you uh there was something wrong with the volume could you elaborate a little bit more about the businesses that you lost in regards to woman-owned businesses and and things of that sort sure you hear me a little better now much better actually okay great i think you had a jet going through your office right then Heidi possibly uh so um it was just in q4 so yeah we lost a vendor uh that was had dual status it was a minority vendor that was owned by a woman it was a family-owned business the primary um stakeholder um decided to retire and and turn the business back over to the rest of her family which was not wbe but what it did remain as an mbe and they chose not to re-register with the commission and they moved the business out of state so and they did that sort of middle of the quarter it really gave us no chance to recover timely enough to hit the quarterly goal on those thank you for that uh further clarification do you mind explaining what the service was or the it was a food and beverage vendor that's what it's about there's an opportunity there there is and our team that manages that's already out on top of that and digging for that spend and i have they've always come through in the past i expect they will do the same this time okay other questions or comments madam chair just to just to thank you um to you north uh Heidi and Kathy for your presentation and madam chair to answer your question for me uh national grilled cheese day is once a week yeah i'm kidding um i just think that this is something that chief maldrew needs to put on a cultural events here at the gaming commission um the compliance record commissioners were pleased with that and the capture of 158 expired invalid for no ids right um folks are still trying thank you for for catching them so absolutely all right then and i um i know we all truly appreciate uh your commitment to community initiatives and the community's well being so thank you for that was that an excellent presentation we do have some more business though to attend to right uh joe uh because this is the fourth quarter yes we need to we'll need to go into executive session to discuss the the capital expenditure uh plan right so commissioners um in order to take care of that part of business we do have to consider going to the executive session i have to read this language the commission anticipates that it will meet an executive session in accordance with gl chapter 30a section 21 a subsection 7 to comply with gl chapter 23 k and interestingly enough also section 21 subsection 8 subsection 7 for the specific purpose of reviewing the proposed multi-year capital expenditure expenditure plan describing 205 cmr 139.09 and any corresponding materials submitted relative to claim rich car casino as discussion of this matter in public would frustrate the purpose of the statue and associated legal authorities where the capital expenditure plan issues covered by a non-disclosure agreement between the master's gaming commission and language car casino in this case the public session of the commission meeting would reconvene at the conclusion of the executive session do i have some old madam chair thank you so much do i have a second second thanks commissioner maynard um commissioner brian hi commissioner hill hi mr skinner i mr maynard hi and i vote yes thank you and thank you uh for the public presentation it's excellent and now we'll go into the executive session we'll just wait for tom to direct this but davis susan's inviting us yep there you go just hit join thank you so much again if anybody else needs to be added in please feel free to give me a holler and i can toss them in but invites should have gone out to everybody i have on my list thank you dave or else that you want to take down the screen thanks so much and i think i've got everyone so listen we can be in the beginning commission gotta do a quick world call commissioner brian hi mr hill i'm here thank you commissioner skinner i'm here mr maynard i'm here so we're all set and we um uh appreciate everybody's attention we just had an executive session now we're going to hear from uh chief delaney again with respect to on core good afternoon thank thank you madam chair commissioner so next up we have on course quarterly report um and i'll have update um as well and again similarly we will be going into executive session for uh the discussion of uh capital expenditures um and we have with us today jackie crumb senior vice president juliana catanzariti our executive director of legal and tom coffee executive director of security and investigations and with that i will turn it over to jackie unmute okay uh good afternoon madam chair commissioners um juliana do you want to put up the report and we can get started thank you i'm just going to share my screen everyone can see yeah it's on uh just so you know there it is they're full screen thanks perfect thank you good afternoon madam chair commissioners we appreciate the opportunity for you to present this quarterly report to you today and thank you for your time um so to begin with q4 gaming revenues our total gross gaming revenue for table games was about 86 million dollars and about 104 million dollars for slots that was a total gross gaming revenue about 190 million dollars which resulted in about 47 million dollars and state taxes collected here's the year over year comparison and the q4 23 is the highlighted portion here we have the sports range during revenue and taxes for q4 the total monthly win was about 1.3 million dollars which resulted in about 187 thousand dollars and state retail taxes collected here we have our lottery sales for q q4 which sold about 1.4 million dollars this was a 31.4 percent increase over the same quarter of 2022 and then in this year over year comparison you can see that there was a 50 51 percent increase a year over year so moving on to workforce um if you recall during our last report we noted that there was a discrepancy that we found in a reporting of diversity statistics so that has been corrected um and then in effort to present the most accurate picture of our workforce we've also sort of reconsidered and revised our reporting for diversity statistics i'll go into detail explaining that um in this chart specifically details those employees who are not related to sports weight drawing so i just to make it easier for this explanation to start with the minority numbers first so we've revised this for every quarter so starting with q1 here these are all these will all be new numbers and we'll just use q4 as an example here so the issue generally is that there's a relatively large group of employees who do not specify whether or not they belong in any minority category so instead of just lumping these people in as non-diverse which doesn't really give us an accurate depiction of what our workforce looks like we've essentially removed them from the equation for the minority numbers so if we look at q4 as an example so we had a total here of 3,437 employees the footnote here number four tells us that 585 of those employees did not let us know whether or not they identified as a minority group so instead of just lumping them in there we actually subtracted that 585 from the 3,437 total so then if you when you do that math the total is 2852 so that's really the number that we're working from for purposes of minority statistics here so that's really the base so the total number of employees who self-identified is this minority number right here 2069 and 2069 is essentially 73% of that 347 minus the unidentified 585 it's a little bit hard to follow so I'm happy to answer questions or explain again if that would be helpful Julianne I just a quick question on that is that is that a standard practice in other industries is that something that you've run into before Joe I think I can answer that um I don't know if it's a standard practice but our concern was we were underestimating quite drastically the number of employees who may be diverse because if we were using the bigger number and those people hadn't specified we were essentially assuming that all those 600 people were not diverse that's what that's what we were struggling with so we thought this gave a more accurate picture and if you apply the same percentage perhaps to that remaining number the 600 or so who didn't specify it's it's most likely in the same range thank you and just to clarify we applied the same methodology when we did the calculation of managers above and supervisors and above I'll leave time for questions also at the end if this gets more confusing as we go but um additionally for Q4 we had 2% of employees that were veterans 45% women 88% local and the 91% from massachusetts and 73% were diverse when are well 73% of the reporting the reporting yes the employees who reported and what we're gonna it is and I think what we're gonna try to do too so that we lower that number of non-reportable is we're going to actually reach out to the employees who chose not to disclose the first time and see if they would like the opportunity we obviously are not going to force anyone to do anything but if they would like the opportunity to disclose hopefully we'll reduce that number of people who are unspecified this is a written explanation of what we just went through if that makes it any easier it's what I just explained but the math is here math is not my strong suit so I thought it was easier to put it here attorney president greedy you cannot ever say math is not your strong suit and then as Jackie mentioned these are the numbers for managers and above and to make this sort of a little bit easier we added this column at the end so this number is the number of employees who did not specify for each category so the math we did it's the same exercise in the formula is the same as just we added these smaller numbers here so you could see how many were subtracting to start it's the numbers are much smaller than the entire employee base but and here we have the breakdown for sports waging related employees these are obviously much smaller numbers but the same method of calculation have been applied so you can see that the total number of employees that engaged in sports waging related jobs was 46 um for cute force six of those didn't specify so that leaves you with 40 and then 25 percent I mean 25 62 percent is 25 of 40 if that makes sense it's a little easier to see with these smaller numbers juliana just a question madam chair if I may yes so you were under reporting in all of the categories that you report to us and so by how much is that easy to ascertain I mean I don't remember distinctly what your numbers were at least in the minority category which I'm particularly interested in do you give us a sense of you know what the the difference is how this has helped how how much this has increased your prior reporting I guess so juliana you want to handle this so you want me to respond no sure so they generally hovered around 50 ish before before this um we believe we were under reporting because presumably all of those people that didn't report are not don't don't not belong to minority category so the assumption is that we we'd be under reporting but we don't exactly know because we don't know how many of those unspecified employees would self-identify as belonging to minority group so like jeffy said the plan is to try to get some more of those people to report to have a more accurate representation but we we just don't know exactly what the percentage just looked like there presumably it is the it's similar to what um the percentages look like for those that reported but we we don't know for sure uh commissioner skater I just I just plants back at the quarter one report uh from 2023 and that was reporting 58 minority okay and so it's a pretty significant increase to 73 percent yeah and so do am I understanding it correctly you have 585 individuals that you have yet to account for at least in the minority category okay well for the fourth quarter well it's only up from here so yeah you can see you can see the numbers actually hover similarly around who had reported so q1 was 641 613 they're all in the high fives low low sixes so it seems to be a relatively stable trend I can't do the math fast enough but if we assumed that that large number 500 and whatever were all non minorities that would get you back to the 58 percent that's what we were doing essentially until we realized that it really didn't make much sense that's good clarification I was assuming that you know that they would belong to one category or another but you're right it could it could be the case that they are um not identifying with either of those categories yeah okay um so here we have the sports rated numbers that we were just briefly going over and then the same for um supervisory and above employees here we again pulled out the numbers who ever reported for managers and supervisors and above again the numbers are obviously much smaller but there was actually none that didn't work not to interrupt um your presentation but Joe this is something for us to think about with respect to the other operator something yeah yeah I think it might be worth having a conversation with all of our licensees so that everybody's reporting you know in a consistent fashion right and again before we move on from this point I'd like to thank Commissioner Skinner and the audit team because we wouldn't really have understood this issue had we not gone through the process of demonstrating our numbers to them so thank you I just have one question can in the future can we also see the raw numbers to do the calculation that the chair just did I mean I'm just thinking I'll just be honest with you this wouldn't have flown my time with the governor had I had I presented this way right uh when I was the head of boards and commissions I had to give you know what we had right and um I'm just sitting here thinking I just don't want to I'm happy to see it this way but I also want to see the raw numbers too sure okay so moving on to operating spend um during q4 we had discretionary spend of about 22 million dollars here's the q4 operating spend in each category and then we have a year over year comparison here it's very the numbers are very similar here's the same for local spending by community and then we have another year over year comparison so you can see again the numbers are relatively similar and then finally we have a year over year comparison of Massachusetts spending as a whole so with that I'm going to turn over to Tom our Tom coffee our director of security investigations and he'll go through some of our compliance numbers with you good afternoon madam chair and commissioners thank you for having me um just uh want to summarize uh our uh report on protection of underage miners we had 24 underage individuals on the floor during the fourth quarter of 2023 um we scanned 272,373 IDs and verodox and I like to break down these these uh underages sort of just yeah sorry sorry to interrupt you but uh you know the number that Tom just provided we he said we scanned that many IDs that does not account for all the patrons that came in and out of the casino we only scan IDs for people who appear to be below 35 is 35 thank you so there's a far greater number of people who are coming in and out thank you thank you thank you um so out of those 24 12 were either fake IDs or ID swaps um you know and and we addressed those accordingly with the officers if it's someone that didn't look like uh the individual they're presenting the ID just progressive disposition on those six of the individuals jumped over a railing and four of them went into a restroom and they were um so brought back to the garage and were instructed to leave um four of the individual made on the floor they were non-security employees who believed falsely that um underages could go to Shake Shack or and or ready um so we were able to uh to stop those individuals from gaming or drinking but they were they were going to Shake Shack and ready so um so that makes up for four of those two of the underages on the floor where security officers did not ask for any identification those were fails on our part they were issued a progressive discipline and remedial training on that we do an hour of remedial training with a supervisor present to make sure that uh hopefully it doesn't occur again um out of the 24 that made it on to the floor uh 10 gamed out of those 10 two consumed alcohol and then there were three that consumed alcohol only I will say just as a as a broader note I think we have all the policies procedures and practices in place um we pay a lot of attention to this and it you know usually comes down to human error um and we deal with that um and uh I personally I think those of you who have heard from me before I I view this as a partial mission as well so I look at every one of these and uh if one gets on the floor that's too many for me so um but that's sort of a summary of what we have here we did also um take away 27 fake IDs as well so we confiscated 27 fake identifications any questions so far either Tom or Juliana or Jackie Tom this is Krishna or Brian um this is sort of my my usual question which is can you talk about the what is it the four hours and something on the floor yeah that was a fake ID um obviously it was a uh I believe that one was a uh an individual who used the ID of another so those are IDs that pass in Verredocs so they're not going to flag hot in Verredocs and if you look somewhat or similar looking to the individual whether it's a sibling a sister or brother or whatever um those are pretty sometimes hard to detect so and is it identified when they order a drink or somebody took another look um that that I'm not sure of um I I know there was one I believe that one but the cocktail server did not ask for an ID and I know that that was passed on to human resources and she received a right a write-up as well so we sort of we stress this and we do go to the pre-shifts for the cocktail service um periodically and we stressed that it I look at it as a sort of a three-layered system you know security is the first level of ID check gaming and or cocktail servers of the second and third depending what order you're in so it's really up to every department so in a perfect world um you're going to have three departments IDing the same person if they look down right all right thanks thank you um moving on to human resources initiatives uh in the fall which feels like years ago now we invited all team members to bring their family and friends to the south lawn for a full celebration in our industry it's obviously quite difficult to celebrate bring your child to work day so we enjoy this time when team members can on the one hand uh show off their workplace and on the other hand show off their children to their colleagues um in december we expressed our gratitude to all team members with a gift giveaway in keeping with our hospitality culture everyone received a very special win carry-on suitcase and on november 11th veterans day we recognized our team members who have served uh we did a celebration or recognition in the heart of house uh we also set up a full and hero table in the staff cafe which is our employee dining room as a memorial uh also november we commemorated indigenous heritage month in an effort to highlight and celebrate the rich cultural heritage and experience of indigenous communities we invited team members who had a connection to indigenous heritage to participate in a panel which was aired online and in our heart of house moving on to special events at the end of the quarter we added an additional 4 000 employee volunteer hours for a total of over 11 000 for 2023 uh during the fourth quarter we collected over 300 toys for the city of everett over 100 employees participated in local nonprofit walks for bread of life northeast dark disabled american veterans and the walk to end all simris we also had a fabulous employee sale where employees were uh able to complete all their holiday shopping at ridiculously low prices that ended up raising over 60 000 and then corporate doubled that there's a corporate match so all that money was uh gifted to the win results community grant fund um and so that was a nice end of the year contribution to that and finally it wouldn't be november without feed the funnel uh so employees family members non-profit partners including uh game sense and mass council thank you uh help pack almost 560 000 meals um as an added benefit we also asked the chefs from each of our restaurants to prepare a unique meal using a few of the packages that we packed we had a tasting competition it was very fierce the competition and delicious and the winning recipe uh was featured in less staff cafe we met our goal of packing over 1 million meals in 2023 and finally um our tru donation program remains strong with over 33 000 donated by our guests in the fourth quarter this time we are open for any questions commission's questions jackie and team um jackie great presentation madam chair one commissioner hill i said great uh presentation thank you um jackie we did ask for uh an update on your i-web uh status is there anything that you can report to us on that sure um after we received um e-certificate in january i reached out to the mpac uh regarding the proposed theater the proposed theater for east of broadway to see if they were interested in discussing any initiatives uh choice cybles uh who runs the handover theater in worcester was kind enough to pass along my email to the other members of the coalition and i just recently in the last day or two heard back from the director of the lin auditorium and we're going to schedule a call um and continue discussions great thank you other questions nice nice presentation right um and thank you to tom for the uh compliance report for sure to be sure you're all set on the public piece and as you know we um are expecting as just we did with um pc to hear about the capital expenditure plan but to do so we've got to go into executive sessions so bear with me as i read the language into the record the commission anticipates that it will meet an executive session in accordance with gl chapter 30a section 21a subsection 7 to comply with gl chapter 23k section 21a subsection 7 for the specific purpose of reviewing the proposed multi-year capital expenditure plan described in 205 cmr 139.09 and any corresponding materials submitted relative to anchor boston harvard as discussion of this matter in public would freshly the purpose of the statute and associated legal authorities where the capital expenditure plan issue is covered by a non-disclosure agreement between the master's gaming commission and on core boston harvard the public session of the commission meeting will be convened to conclusions of the executive session we have one business to do do i have a motion so moved thank you commissioner maynard second thank you for the second commissioner bryan i mr hill i mr skinner i mr maynard all right and i vote yes well we will go into executive session and then um return for the never not on our agenda the legal component with the attorney general i think we just get moved now thank you so much just one second you should see something right now we have it thank you thanks i have a little trouble there technically my apologies okay um this is a reconvening after another executive session um thank you to on core boston harvard of the master's gaming commission do i roll call mr bryan are you still here i am still here right mr hill still here great thank you precious skinner i'm here okay commissioner maynard i'm here all right and we'll get started we are turning back now to public meeting 501 still February 15th and we are turning to item number nine on our agenda it will be our last item um unless we have commissioner updates and we're going to turn to legal good afternoon taz thank you la for sending us up here on a few items absolutely good afternoon again madam chair i just i would just note where um i just notified our colleagues from the attorney general's office that we're ready to jump on i see kathleen is here uh we're just waiting i think for uh one or two other folks um so i i can certainly um set the stage but it might be helpful if we just give them a minute to jump on right and we can turn um to our our um packet it's the last item in our packet uh commissioners if you want to have that document ready so page 249 specifically yeah we've used bookmarked it for us and a big thank you to trudy for everything she does so we have kathleen in two places good afternoon kathleen how are you i think um you're on mute but i certainly know i need to get out of two places so do you have your phone also again i'm the last person to give technical advice to but anybody help me out here we see her in two spots and we're getting a feedback up there we just lost her visual thing uh we can uh figure it out you hear me yeah we're good kathleen i was having trouble like the last time i'm not getting my video on so i tried multiple ways so thank you it worked and and i know this is not a problem that's used very frequently so thank you we use it really frequently but our guests don't so hi i assume pat should be on shortly so and then we'll get started thank you for your patience today it's kind of productive day for us but i know a long day for you folks to wait for us uh chair i'm gonna throw a screen up here for just a moment okay thank you hi you can just alert us when pat i think actually everyone's here now uh so whenever we're ready thank you i'm happy to uh good afternoon first assistant lower how are you good afternoon chair i'm well it's nice to see everyone glad to uh have connected successfully this time good well i figured there might have been a little challenge here so i'm going to turn it right over to uh joe at counsel broson yeah thank you uh madam chair commissioners uh first off a pleasure to welcome our colleagues from the attorney general's office pat more the first assistant attorney general kathleen celio the chief of the gaming enforcement division jared rinheim or the chief of the data privacy and security division um and we'll uh we'll be hearing from them shortly but i just wanted to uh tee up the issue for you if i may um and i by the way i should note that i'd also like to welcome katelyn monahan the director of our i e b as well as derek lennon who is our our co who will contribute to this discussion as well so before we turn to um our friends in the attorney general's office i just wanted to set the stage and you'll all recall that when the gaming laws were enacted in massachusetts in 2011 in addition to the creation of the commission itself a division within the attorney general's office which as i mentioned is known as the gaming enforcement division was also created and this is codified in section 11 m of chapter 12 of the general laws and i know of course that we've enjoyed an overwhelmingly positive relationship with the attorney general's office in this space over the years up to and including today and hopefully well into the future section 11 m sets out some of the duties of the division related to casino gaming including things like investigating and prosecuting allegations of criminal activity related to the operation of the gaming establishments taking appropriate action on referrals for criminal prosecution from the commission and providing assistance upon request to the commission amongst other things that the statute describes the law also included a funding source for the division which directs that the division submit quarterly requests to the gaming commission for expenses associated with operating the division up to three million dollars notably when chapter 23 and establishing the oversight of sports wagering was enacted no such language addressing the division was included so in an effort to ensure that the attorney general's office is able to perform in a similar fashion the concept of this isa or interdepartmental service agreement was born the draft document before you which is in the packet as we just mentioned was negotiated by our respective teams and is being presented to you for review and approval if you are so inclined by its terms the isa would make up to five hundred thousand dollars available for the purposes i'll get into momentarily the proposed budget and intended uses of funding are included on page 253 of the packet otherwise the highlights of the document include a description of the purpose of the isa and that's identified on page 251 of the packet which relates to enforcing the sports wagering laws pursuant to chapter 23n to chapter 93a and other relevant statutes it's also a notation that the attorney general's office may seek enforcement against both unlicensed and licensed operators that are engaging in unlawful conduct but then notably there will not be any duplication of efforts between the commission and the attorney general's office further the isa like section 11m itself sets out some of the ways the attorney general's office will enforce the laws including but not limited to taking appropriate action on referrals for enforcement from the commission investigating and or prosecuting allegations of unlawful activity but both licensed and unlicensed operators including fantasy sports operators under chapter 12 section 11m and a half that are maybe engaging in sports wagering related activities and communicating with the commission regarding specific operators who are suspected of engaging in unlawful sports wagering activities so as i mentioned mr. Moore is here to offer further insight and address any questions about this particular approval excuse me proposal and subject to any questions you may have for me or or our gaming commission team i'd certainly like to invite mr. Moore to address the commission and of course we will all be standing by to address any questions so madam chair i'll go back to you and commissioners otherwise we can invite pat and his team to discuss the isa ministers i think we can turn right for pat correct thank you and thank you to your colleagues for joining us today i'm chair commissioners mr. grossman appreciate all that background appreciate the opportunity to join you today as mr. grossman mentioned at that outset joined by kathleen celia and jared ronheimer my valued colleagues from the office i think mr. grossman gave a very effective overview of what we're trying to accomplish here if i could add just a couple of minutes of additional color the goal in our view is to spend better and not necessarily spend more and one thing that i think is an important data point the gaming enforcement division which is created by chapter 12 section 11 m mr. grossman mentioned is financed by the commission through the gaming operators the traditional casino gaming operators to a limit of three million dollars a year the current isa between our agencies is for about 2.9 million and we spend about 2.3 or half in recent years i think that that's somewhat deflated in light of covet i think a more accurate amount might be in the 2.5 range and so when we came into office and were engaged in dialogue with the commission one of the issues that continued to arise is an issue that we discussed a couple of weeks ago which is what are we going to do about the operators that are engaged in illegal sports gaming how can we address that and i looked around the office and said what's the answer to that and the answer was the office is not really set up to address that that i think is appropriately a responsibility of our office but the gaming enforcement division was set up to address the criminal activity attendant to brick and mortar casinos or otherwise flatly illegal and often organized crime associated gaming not to say that we had in place addressed that and also expressly limited our activity to criminal enforcement i think for any number of reasons that is not a tool that is most useful in the context of impermissible sports gaming we have illegal operators who have websites that should be impermissible we have illegal offerings by fantasy sports operators the answer to that conduct at least in the first instance and i hope the only instance is civil enforcement we would like that behavior to stop i don't intend to put the executives at prize picks in jail right and so we would like to explore civil enforcement in this area to see if it can be effective the purpose of the isa is to achieve that when we began this discussion it was nearer to the beginning of the fiscal year the amount that mr grossman mentioned really had in mind a complete fiscal year we're obviously happy to prorate that for what remains of this fiscal year and intend for it to operate just as the other isa does which is spent as needed and refunded as not or not spent as not needed and we intend to hire two ag's whose entire responsibility will be in this area and to supplement them as needed with investigatory staff and resources and want to be very crystal clear on the following point which is that we do not intend as mr grossman noted to duplicate efforts i think that where investigators investigatory activity is needed in this space it will be of of unlicensed i.e illegal operators we do not intend to deploy these resources against license holders there may come a time and it certainly would first be preceded by a number of discussions with the commission of course where we think that for some reason a licensed operator is undertaking behavior that for whatever reason does not comport with our state consumer protection law that is not work that we would be doing from this isa and it has been our intent thus far and i think the commission's intent as well to make sure in any event that our consumer protection law mirrors to the greatest extent possible the commission's regulation so that's not something that we envision but if that does happen it's not envisioned that that would and i don't think it would be consistent with the terms of the isa that we put together for that work to be funded out of out of this bucket of resources so i perhaps exceeded the couple of minutes by a bit here i know it's late in the day let me pause there but before doing so just once again emphasize our appreciation for the partnership for your willingness to consider this i think that it benefits both agencies when we obviously stand ready to address any questions you may have thank you pat this has been a priority that the commissioners has um have voiced individually in a collective group starting you know formally back in may where we reached out to the dlj to to uh indicate that we hoped that illegal activities gaming activities would be addressed so that our group could create a level playing field for our regulated licenses so this is initiative when i think we've learned of it uh generally uh it's one that we support uh but i know now where that juncture commissioners where we can ask questions about the isa in particular and uh if we decide we can move on it today so questions for both Todd and pat i do madam chair uh good afternoon um pat and kathleen and jarrod um i love the idea of doing this i know we've had some conversations with your office in terms of community mitigation funding and human trafficking and this is another avenue of enforcement um a couple of questions that i have about the isa itself and then the funding mechanism the the conversation today makes it seem like the isa is going to be for civil enforcement only but having been an investigator i can see circumstances coming where you're going to cross pollinate and you're going to have something that starts that way and then it might be integrally intertwined with the facts that then you also have criminal charges that could come out of it and so the funding that you're talking about comes from assessments on the brick and mortar uh licensees that we have and i know that there are cost of prosecution recovering mechanisms on the criminal side like 280 section 6 that if you resolved something and you were going particularly after businesses that you could attempt to recoup some of those costs by doing that as a condition of probation let's say on a criminal case and so i'm curious if you guys have thought about um whether it needs to be incorporated or in the isa or just as a practical matter trying to recoup some of the cost of the bad actors since you're probably talking about a lot of money being made illegally so that the assessments that are put on our licensees can be offset to the extent that there is success in capturing some of this illegal market. Mr. O'Brien thank you for that question let me uh address only that part of what part of it which i'm qualified to address so i'll turn it over to my colleague Kathleen uh in one moment i think to address the the scope of the isa question um i think that the goal here is to loosen up what currently is a criminal only restriction on our ability to deploy those resources so not be that uh civil enforcement would be the exclusive remedy but that it would be in addition to whatever criminal remedies are uh are implicated or appropriate as we uh as we determine so this is not at all meant to suggest that if we see a basis for uh for criminal prosecution that meets our enforcement standards that we would somehow forego that i think quite the opposite let me turn it though to Kathleen to address the the recovery question yeah yeah thank you very much especially for the commission to to have us today um i i think that there is obviously when you see get to the point of egregious conduct or something that would um make us um interested in pursuing a criminal um in uh kind of indictment against a company i've also seen um when we've pursued this uh you know an agreement for dissolution of the company as well like so and also recouping money so um if we were to see that and and obviously our our office um deals a lot with um you know setting up the barriers of civil investigation and what to do when it um it becomes a criminal um in investigation and enforcement and we obviously will adhere to those um kind of already set up principles and our colleagues that are doing that um but i think it is something that we would um comp contemplate i know that um this just seemed in general based on the um statutes of 23 n that are not so robust uh for criminal prosecutions as um it may you um it may have wanted as me as a criminal prosecutor but it is a scene that um you know kind of using our efforts then with civil enforcement as a primary means and then if it were to bleed into the the criminal aspect we would we would certainly consider um forceful criminal remedies of companies that we've used prior thanks because just in terms of the assessment on the licensees who are paying the hefty licensing fees and funding for the assessment i'd love to see that as part of the resolutions and when you're going after the illegal market thank you madam chair yes which is good thank you good afternoon pat cathleen and jarrod my question is relative to staffing i think you indicated you were intending to bring on an additional two aag's um to conduct the civil work and we have the dfs matter that we'll be talking about also i think in this session but that's pending right now what other civil types of matters do you envision falling within the um specifications of this isa and as the question really specifically to staff um you know should there is is there a i guess a contingency plan should you we perhaps find ourselves in the position where there's just not a lot happening on the civil side along the lines of what we're seeing with prize picks and and other dfs operators thank you commissioner skinner um for that question i i think the short answer is is yes i think that this is iterative we're going to need to assess um what the needs are and whether uh this amount of resources are needed year after year to address them and it's tough to predict on the front end um there is a world in which we're having to litigate against prize picks for example and that's something that um two aag's by themselves are going to have a considerable uh time keeping up with without any additional support within the office um there is a world in which we tell the fantasy operators that um what they're doing is impermissible and they stop doing it and then we need a next step for this group of individuals to do i think that there are ready next steps that are available i note in particular the chair mentioned um a request to the department of justice to uh enforce um the internet game gambling enforcement act against some of the illegal operators that are more black market than the daily fantasy sports operators they're the illegal offshore market that we're all hearing i'm certain the commission is hearing our office is certainly hearing about it from the licensed operators and asking can we not do something about those operators and czar intent firmly to do something um the internet gambling enforcement act is a relatively unique federal law that actually expressly gives state attorneys general the ability to bring causes of action under it we can bring those causes of action against internet service providers to get the websites taken down um and we intend to do that i think that will be labor intensive on the front end because there are not a lot of states doing it and we're going to need to lead and we're going to need to develop those muscles once we do that it should be pretty routine i would love that the isp start to know who we are know that these requests are coming and have them be a routine thing for us to be able to do and encourage our state counterparts to do as well that's going to it's going to be labor intensive on the front end and should be less so on the back end i think that in terms of what then next i don't know the answer to that and it depends of course on the commission's enforcement priorities and what those look like and whether there is a need to take civil enforcement action beyond the administrative remedies uh that the uh that the commission has at hand through its own commission proceedings the isi anticipates of course and we commit in any event uh that we're not going to do anything there without a request for you all to do it so that is a long answer to arrive back where i started which is i think there's work i i do i think that there's considerable work on the front end and whether that work becomes less going forward that's something that the isa is built to deal with because we're not spending resources on the front end and then uh and and wasting them we're spending resources and effectively seeking reimbursement if it's not spent it's not spent and and it's not going to be assessed on the operators and it's not coming out of the commission so um this is a it's a ceiling rather than a appropriation if you will um and i want to make sure that uh that taw agrees with that characterization but that's that's certainly my understanding yeah i think i think that's absolutely fair i i completely agree with that i would just note to one of the points pat just made this isa on its face is uh set to terminate if it were executed um at the end of the fiscal year uh uh june 30th of this year at which point we can revisit um these principles but um yeah as pat described the idea is that we'll we'll be constantly evaluating um the the efficacy of this and there seems to be plenty of work to be done yeah thank you thank you pat for your comprehensive response we could um just explore that a little bit taw and we've got derrick uh here derrick the um taw just mentioned the termation date i presume this would be something that could be extended easily so that it's seamless in terms of the amount is there um could they spend the entire amount between now in the term in the and in the end there's no necessarily there's not a mandate for pro rate is there there's no mandate for pro rating i'm usually with isa as you allocate the whole ceiling we can do allotments if we'd like to do that we did that at the beginning of the year with the um attorney general's isa just because it was uh 2.9 million and we only had a quarter's worth of funding in under the gaming side one um but under this one pat's already offered to pro rate it down from the 500 000 which he didn't have to right the request came in at 500 so um i don't see a need to put an allotment schedule on it i don't see i mean they will be able to pull reports um to see what it's being spent on because it's one under our appropriation we won't get the details but we'll be able to see that it it's generally tracking where they have it on their isa thank you that's that's helpful so um you know i think we appreciate pat you saying that because it is a short window right that it could be pro rated but to the extent you need to get something stood up um i think we would i'd recommend that we defer to our legal team and and the finance team to figure that out if we execute it unless i'm missing something commissioners no i agree with that chair i i just i i think it's still i mean on the one hand it's late in terms of the fiscal year but on the other hand it's early in the sense that we are just beginning to wrap our uh manpower if you will around this um prize fix issue and uh other other uh dfs operators so i i think you're right i'm totally fine with totally fine with deferring to uh the ag's office and our legal and and finance teams to determine what the amount should be for this fiscal year notwithstanding the fact that we're are probably by the time it's executed will be more than three quarters through visual brand any concerns with that no it's just point of clarification that we are being asked to vote on an isa which is drafted is 500 000 we're not putting caps we're not putting restrictions on that but i just wanted to make clear that that's that amount is not changing even though it's a portion of the fiscal year left right right i would say for the purposes i would say for the purposes of this to not confuse things not to change it even though right has offered to even though right has offered to that's what i would say that yeah we're gonna be the 500 000 to give for this roll forward right okay okay um so questions any other questions on the isa particular and if not are we in a position to move on this i'm happy to offer a motion if i tell commissioners are ready for it i'm not hearing any other questions i'll check in with you pat anything else you want to that you want clarified or um any any questions that you have or anything else you want to add pat cathleen and share a good afternoon no i don't think so i um i just want to express our appreciation to the commission and um note the following just by way of expectation um as we'll talk about i think in a moment um and we're prepared to send a cease and assist letter to the daily currency sports operators we think we have enough uh within the office to staff any litigation that comes out of that for an interim period and we'll be posting these positions as soon as we can it still takes about a month to fill a position so we couldn't spend the 500 000 even if we wanted to by the end of this fiscal year i think um more more important to us is to just set the expectation that um we we will be seeking at least to re-up this for the next next fiscal year um again with the same arrangement that Todd and i discussed of you know we're not taking the money and uh unless we're actually spending it on this it's it's a drawdown arrangement but more important to us is to be able to hire people with the expectation that they will in fact be here for a period of time and develop the skills that we want them to use then to spend money on the front end over the next four months because that that's going to be tough for us to do um but with that i just thank the commission again and i think what you're hearing is we're giving you the flexibility while we appreciate your rating you know we want we want you to be able to achieve the the intent of this isa so commissioners um if we have a motion on the um first part of today's business on the adoption of the isa executional thank you madam chair i move that the commission adopt the uh inter-service agreement or isa as we've been referring to it with the office of the attorney general for certain enforcement and investigatory matters related to sports wagering as included in the commissioner's packet and further discussed here today second and second commissioner skinner thank you um all right any questions or edits okay commissioner bayon hi commissioner hill hi commissioner skinner hi commissioner maynard and i vote yes five zero so that piece of work is complete um thank you and now um we're going to um get a really an update to a report that we had two weeks ago from the attorney general's office um really some of which it's um requires executive session in order to protect the integrity of the um investigation and enforcement so uh read into the record the language that we need to comply with the open meeting law the commission anticipates that it will meet an executive session in accordance with general laws chapter 30a section 21 section a subsection 3 to discuss with attorney general's office strategy with respect to enforcement or litigation concerning the illegal sports wagering market and again the public uh session of the commission meeting will reconvene at the conclusion of this executive session we thank the public for its patience do i have a motion and madam chair i move that the commission go into executive session on the matter and for the reasons just stated by the chair second thank you thank you commissioner brian hi commissioner hill hi mr skinner hi commissioner maynard i i vote yes five zero so we will um now go into a breakout room yep day we'll send you there thank you so much all right i bad at everybody that i've got on my list if anybody else needs to be included please feel free to let me know i think jared ryanheimer will probably need to get tossed in as well just because i see he's with the a g o i'm here thanks no problem the david is just uh seven c um i can look that up bruce um and see what specific number we're in yeah or excuse me not seven c i lost the page got the agenda open in front of me no i believe this is nine b yeah i i think i'd like to be in on this uh thing that has to do with fantasy sports okay i'll toss you in and if there's any issue tom is in there and he can sort it out as well okay thanks okay okay we're all back this is again um i'm meeting with each other several in and out sessions and we appreciate the public's patience we are holding this being virtually being efficient and so on to our last roll call of the day commissioner brian i am here click commissioner i'm here thank you commissioner skinner i'm here commissioner maynard so this is here thank you commissioner maynard and this is a public session um and we are turning back to our agenda um to item nine c and i just want to thank the attorney general's office for its briefing um at the executive session we of course have executed is a and um now um from uh really the the work that we've done today uh commissioners we may want to move ahead on the item which is really to discuss whether or not the attorney generally we should request the attorney general to bring an action pursuant to uh chapter 23 and to enforce uh that statute or any rule of regulation of a commission by civil action very consistent um with the purpose of the isa or also our petition bring junk really relative to the offering of impermissal sports wagers as i've mentioned this is an area of great interest um for this commission it's great importance to make sure that the um we support creating uh a level field um a playing field for our regulated licensees and also to safeguard the interests of the commonwealth and those who are betting you know we continuously uh uh explain to the public who the licensed parties are for online sports betting and information is always available on our online on our our website and uh commend our communication division for constantly pushing out material to remind those who are betting to use our regulated um operators they're providing important important uh responsible gaming tools consumer protections and they have met the standards of this commission which are rigorous and fair um however it's not lost on us that there's illegal activity going on and we have some tools to turn to commissioners any discussion and we have of course uh attorney monahan a director monahan my apologies and interim executive director grossman as well as general counsel grossman here and we also have um members of the attorney general's office still with us any discussion to um action that we might want to take todd anything that you need to remind us of i i would just draw your attention to as you referenced madam chair section four of chapter 23 and there's a provision it's a subsection g that provides that the commission shall have the authority to enforce chapter 23 and and any rule or regulation of the commission and may request that the attorney general bring an action to enforce chapter 23 and or any rule or regulation of the commission by civil action or petition for injunctive relief so the commission has the ability to request the attorney general to take action to enforce the law um in the event that um there is a perceived violation or potential violation um so that's that's what section four provides um we obviously discussed um as you mentioned the illegal sports wagering market um and so the matter is now before the commission so any comments or questions or um that you'd like to make at this juncture okay um i just want to thank the attorney general's office uh you know we have been really fortunate to have the attorney general's office um a critical partner and the collaborator with us as we stand up this uh as we stood up this new industry and continue to regulate it and uh it's a valued partnership and we appreciate today's work including the um adoption of the isa commissioner brian uh madam chair i'm happy to move if my fellow commissioners are ready madam chair i move that in accordance with chapter 23 and section four g that the commission requests that the attorney general bring actions to enforce chapter 23 and any rules and regulations of the commission by civil action or petition for injunctive relief relative to the offering of impermissible sports wagering in the commonwealth as set forth in the agenda and as further discussed here today most specifically in the executive session that preceded this motion second any questions or edits to that motion with that commissioner brian i commissioner hill i commissioner skinner i commissioner mayard i and i vote that's five zero thank everybody our legal team i e b and uh sports wagering division and of course the attorney general's office for today's good guidance and the great work up to it okay commissioners it's been um a long day for all of us we started our work at 9 30 and had a half hour break um for that i am so very grateful to you for um your diligence your collaboration and most of all your commitment um do we have any commissioner updates or other business that we need to attend to i'm going to just remind folks that uh we have a holiday on monday when we have three public meetings on wednesday one agenda setting and two public meetings so the agendas for those will be posted tomorrow you'll start getting information on that uh so we have in other words good work i had a bus for today thank you so much i'll take the motion to adjourn to adjourn thank you commissioner hill again okay commissioner brian i mr hill hi mr skinner i commissioner mayard i and i vote that's five zero thank you