There now I see we're on different different levels on my screen right now so I'm searching for my colleagues there we all are we can get started then. I'm going to fix my screen. Let's see. So good morning everyone. As you just heard this meeting is being recorded and we're using remote technology made available to us through Governor Baker's executive order that gave relief. Certain provisions of the open meeting law that's allowed us to convene remotely, almost a year. Governor Baker hasn't arrived until next month, but we've been appreciative of our ability to meet so nimbly given the pandemic and using this remote platform. We're going to get started but I need to take a roll call first. So Commissioner Cameron good morning. Good morning everyone I am here. Great thank you Commissioner Brian. Commissioner Zuniga. Good morning everyone here. Great, and I'm here so all four of us are here we can get started. Today is February 25. Calling to order public meeting number 337. I know that we have some at least one new base today I'm looking forward to the introduction, but we'll start with our minutes. And then turn to Karen for that introduction in just a few minutes so. Commissioner Brian. Certainly. Madam chair. I would move that the commission approved the meeting, the public meeting on November 3 2020 that are in the packet, subject to any corrections for typographical other errors or other non material matters. Everyone have a chance to review them. Yes, I second the motion. Any edits comments. All right, I'll take a roll call. Commissioner Cameron. Hi. Commissioner Brian. Hi. Commissioner Zuniga. Hi. Yes, four zero Tonya. Thank you. Moving on. Yeah, madam chair, as far as the November 5 meeting minutes, I know that you had expressed maybe wanting to take another look at these and putting some more summation of commissioner comments. And I know we're trying to find the right balance between time step, et cetera. I had called director Wells to let her know that may be my recommendation is on these we hold off on these. Just take one more look to see if we want to put any more detail in and then bring them forward for consideration at the next meeting. So maybe I should just elaborate. You know, we have We've got a new commissioners who's helping us in the interim. We bought and also show our left. There's an opportunity for us to think about how we do the minutes. And I know that Todd, you're trying to reach that happy medium. The one thing I noticed and I did. I mean, Offline to commissioner Brian is I noticed that there. None of the input or comments of my fellow commissioners were noted. And I use that in some ways as a reminder of the issues that they may have raised. And so I'm strike. I'm trying to strike the balance not to make them necessarily longer, but also not to take away maybe. What is an important piece, which is the commissioners interaction. So what was really clear was what was presented to us. And that's really helpful too. So I don't know if, if, if others felt that way. We can certainly vote on these. I thought they were certainly accurate, but they just might not reflect the complete context of our discussion. No, I think when I got your communication, I. I'd had sort of the similar reaction in terms of we're trying to pare it down. Maybe we went a little too far on that one. So I don't have a problem at all. Maybe, you know, just talking to Todd and going through seeing, you know, is there some way to even summarize the concept of the discussions that we as the commissioners had. And then just bring me it forward in two weeks. That would be great. And again, maybe it's bullets rather than. You know, complete sentence, whatever is helpful. So that the job isn't so grueling, but out. I mean, I, I really like being on time. That is an important piece because that is where we discuss the issue and decide how to move forward. Quite frankly, I can't remember what I said either. So it's a reminder. It may have been brilliant though. No doubt. I mean, I really like being able to look back, particularly on these meetings to say, oh yeah, commissioner Cameron raised that point though, you know, and that was a reminder for me on how the discussion went. So thanks. Yeah, I agree. That's that that is an important piece because that is where we discuss the issue and decide how to move forward. Yeah. No doubt. Thank you. Alrighty. So I appreciate that. And again, again, with the idea that I'm trying not to, to make it more, you know, more difficult. So thank you. So we'll table those. Is that the suggestion? Michelle Brian. Yeah. Yep. All right. Then I think we can move on to our next item. Director Wells. Good morning, Madam chair and members of the commission. I, before we get into the item regarding the update on the casino operations, I did have a couple of staffing updates that I wanted to give to you and to the members of the team and to the public. The first one is we are updating Jill Griffin's role and her title. So I wanted to make the formal announcement of that. So congratulations to Jill. Jill have done an incredible job during the building and construction phase. The casino, the three casinos that we have in Massachusetts right now, did a tremendous amount of work on workforce development, vendor development, diversity spend for the casinos. And, you know, as we're switching into a role where we have three existing casinos, Jill and I were talking about what sort of made sense for her skillset when made sense for going forward. And so what we've done is adjusted her title. So she is the director of diversity and legislative affairs. And I wanted to talk a little bit about sort of that also that slight shift in the diversity role, because a lot of what she was doing up until this point or earlier in part of last year, you know, had to do with what the casinos were doing with their own compliance and diversity efforts. We're also looking, so we're looking to turn that inward on ourselves and really look at what we're doing for diversity hiring, diversity spend, diversity initiatives, just for equity and inclusion for all our operations. So Jill has graciously agreed to sort of shift sort of purple and not only continuing to deal with compliance with our licensees, but also work with our internal team here, because we have great efforts that we've made in the past with diversity spend and diversity hiring, but just to refocus that, refocus that energy and have a point person that looks at that type of activity across the agency. And as you're aware, we do have the equity and inclusion working group and there is a work plan for that group. So she's tasked with a lot of work in that area and spear hearing some of those initiatives. So I think that's very exciting. The other piece that she's going to be taking on and has already started an unofficial capacity is legislative monitoring and policy. She'll be working particularly with the chair in consultation with her and the commissioners for research review, legislative tracking, legislative contacts, really working with the government and other aspects of what they're doing that affect our operations. So I wanted to thank Jill for taking on this new role, make the announcement. I'm thrilled. It's been a pleasure to work with her in these areas and it's worked out very well. So I'm very happy to continue that. And just wanted to make that announcement. So any commissioners have any comments, but just wanted to make sure that was, that was publicly out there, especially since she will be the legislative contact for the commission. If I may jump in. Thank you, Madam chair. Listen, I had the opportunity to work with Jill in a selection process recently. And I thought she added great value to the team, both with her work up front to make sure we had a first group of candidates to consider. And in her role as a questioner and team member in making a final decision, I thought the input was invaluable. So I think that's an excellent, an excellent role for Jill to fill. And secondly, as far as the legislative responsibilities come, you know, we're just, we're dealing with sports betting and, you know, we just received a work product that was just excellent. And that's still in Crystal's work. So I commend you executive director Wells for realizing her value to the team and elevating her into these new roles. Thank you. Yeah. Just, just to echo those, those remarks as well. Congratulations, Jill. I actually had planned, I'm planning on talking a little bit more about this aspect as part of your evaluation, Karen, but I think in this environment in which we've had a couple of vacancies, it's, it's a great opportunity to redefine roles and, you know, step up to the plate in the case of Jill. And we think continuously about how can we make our organization incrementally better and more focused on the things that, that come before us. So thank you for the, for that creativity, both Karen and Jill and, you know, I know you're going to do great. Commissioner O'Brien. Just to echo what's already been said that I've worked with Jill on some procurement projects as well and was very impressed with her knowledge and her instincts. And I also, also would want to log Karen in terms of, you know, we've had some departures and some restructuring. And I do think it's a really good fit in terms of skill set and then what we need going forward on both diversity and legislation. So the title definitely fits with what she's been doing lately. So it's, it's a good, it's a good change. And I'm, I'm very personally pleased. I had identified really two years ago, the need to have someone, a point person for our legislative affairs. And with all that has gone on over the last two years, I'm thrilled that now we've identified just the right person to fill that, that position. So Karen, thank you. And Jill, thank you for agreeing to take on that responsibility. Jill has an extensive, extensive experience working on thorny public issues and advancing important public interest. And she also has, you know, no, no secret, such a gracious manner that will be so helpful to us as she works with critical external stakeholders. And she also has living in the city and working in the city. You know, just an extensive network of relationships that, that they all admire her and, and support her. So that speaks volumes as to what I imagine will be her success in that legislative affairs position. And again, I echo the others with respect to the diversity work. Jill showed such success with her, she's still in partnership on holding our licensees accountable. And now I know that she will do the same for all of us. So we appreciate you taking on those two critical roles. Really exciting, isn't it? I just been very, very pleased for you, Jill, on sort of your professional. On platform, but very happy for the agency. So thank you. Jill, do you want to say, say anything or? You know, you're on mute now. There you go. Well, first I'd like to thank executive director Wells for letting me try out this new role first. I think I'm really going to love it. And I think it's a really good match for my skill set and experience. And I look forward to just contributing to the commission in this expanded role. So, so thank you all for your kind words. I appreciate it. Thanks so much, Jill. So along those lines of staff announcements, I have another introduction I would like to make today. I am thrilled to introduce everyone to attorney Caitlin Monahan, who was starting a start on Monday as associate general council in the legal division working for general council enforcement. I had experience working with Caitlin at the executive office of public safety and security. So I do know her intelligence and her work ethic are bar none. So she is an outstanding young woman. We're thrilled to have her on board. She comes to us. She's a graduate of Harvard college and Harvard law school before law school. She did work on the Murray governor, governor campaign working as a deputy press secretary. And then she also worked at the mouth. As I said, the Massachusetts office of public safety and security before going over to Harvard for law school. And then she did a couple of internships. One at the United States attorney's office and also at the middle sex district attorney's office. We have several procedures alumni here at the gaming commission. And then after law school, she spent over nine years working in the law firm of Wilmer public pickering panel and door. So she is a combination of public sector experience and big law firm experience. So she really is a huge addition to our staff. And we are thrilled to have her on board. I personally am thrilled not only because of all the sort of work things that she brings to the table. Experience and her work ethic, as I mentioned, and just she's highly intelligent, but she's also a wonderful person. And she is just a great addition to this team. And that's really important in our community to have these new hires be people that are people that we would like to work with. And I know everyone's going to enjoy working with her. And she's also, she's a, she really is at our heart of public servants. She has always wanted to come back into public service and work in government. So a thrill that she chose us. She made her transition back to public service. So welcome, Caitlin. I wish you could meet everyone in person and everyone can meet you, but at least now everyone's seeing your face. And we're sort of getting started that way, but welcome aboard. You're very lucky you have a wonderful boss and Todd Grossman. So we're, we know that you're going to enjoy that job. And there's never a dull moment at the gaming commission. So I think you're going to enjoy it. So welcome aboard. And I know that some of the commission, I don't think I've even met Caitlin at this point. So here they all are. And Karen, I think that you're, you may be setting up a meeting so that each of us can meet with Caitlin individually. We want to make sure to do that with this virtual. World that we're living in. Yes. Because we can't just hop into your office. I have a connection with Caitlin that she may not. Remember or no. But my husband and Caitlin work together until her joining us. And Caitlin. Made a bid on a silent auction. Item. And one it. And that was to get a tour. A kayak tour. From a home in Winchester down the Mystic River. By encore. All the way into the Boston Harbor. With a group of maybe six other kayaks. And my husband and I were to be her tour guide. So we still owe you a kayak. I think COVID got in the way, the pandemic got in the way. And that. That trip that a lot of people do. Just didn't happen. I had asked my husband, no, do you know, Caitlin? He said, yes, we offer a kayak trip. So there we go. Looking forward to working with you, Caitlin. And I know Todd. And Carrie are very happy to have you join. It's a busy legal office. And it's as much as they were doing everything. So well, the extra hands are really going to be appreciated, right? Todd. And Carrie is. Notting. Right. So commissioners. I assume that you, you would all like to have a, maybe Jamie could set it. I'm meeting up for each of you to, to meet Caitlin. Great. Thanks. Go forward to it. Yep. So Caitlin, welcome aboard. Okay. That's good. All right. So the next item, I'm going to turn it over to. Director Lilios and assistant director for band to go over the status of the operations at the casino during the pandemic. So I'll start with that. Okay. Thanks, Carrie. Good morning, chair. Good morning commissioners and Jill. Congratulations in Caitlin. Great to meet you and look forward to getting to know you in the days and weeks and months ahead. So since the 25% capacity limit was lifted on February 8th, the free licensees have been operating under the capacity limits of 40%. They continue to be open. On a 24 seven basis and all of the COVID related health and safety measures remain in place. This has meant they have been able to bring some staff members from furloughs. It has meant the reopening of the hotel at on core. And the scheduled reopening of the MGM hotel next weekend on a limited basis. They have stayed within the 40% number and assistant director band will give you some details of operations. I did want to mention one aspect with the hotel at on core, that they have continued to monitor the actual occupancy of the hotel rooms themselves to make sure that guests are not misusing them for to congregate. A months ago, you may recall, we reported to you that they put in measures to monitor. The actual room occupancy start, starting with their communications to guests, the issuance of public services. And the use of security and surveillance measures to monitor. We expect that MGM will continue that type of monitoring when their hotel reopens next week. And to date, there have been no significant issues of concern to know on that score. I know Bruce has some prepared remarks. So I'd like to turn it over to him at this point, and then we can try to answer any questions that you might have. Thank you, Laura. Congratulations, Jill, and welcome to board. Caitlin. I'll start out with that. As far as the occupancy numbers. Since we've gone to 40%. And since I last reported to you, I would like to turn it over to you. Thank you, Laura. As far as the occupancy numbers since we've gone to 40%. And since I last reported last, during the last meeting. At MGM. They have a high occupancy of 1,533. And average high occupancy of 920 daily. Plain Ridge Park has had a high occupancy of 1,115. And an average high occupancy of 788. Encore has had a high occupancy of 3,192. And an average high occupancy of 2,306. They've had a great occupancy level on their hotel and on course, since opening other than that, the restaurants and stores have been busy. Nothing really significant to report as anything being really problematic at any of the three hotels. I'll address any questions or anything that anybody has. Director Bam, do you know what percentage of the 40% those numbers end up being? For instance, at Encore, their total level is 7,000 permissible. So the highest 3,100 and something to they're not even reaching, you know, 50% of their 40%. So there's well within the, in the numbers and actually that high level happened to be on their Lunar New Year celebration. So that was a Saturday when they had the traditional dragon dance. Thank you. You're welcome. Bruce, this is commissioner Brian. Do you, could you just comment too in terms of whether there's any concerns or anything you're seeing in terms of launching at elevators either to get to the parking areas or off into the hotel and on for. We have not had that problem with congregating around. They have kind of worked out that the problems mostly stemmed when we had the 930 closing and everybody had to exit the building at once. And now that we have the 24 seven people kind of exit at their own time, so to speak. So that really hasn't developed into a problem. Thank you. You're welcome. Commissioner Zeneca. Yeah, well, actually I was just, it was just going to be my question. As you look back on, on the period in which you are now. At 24 hour operation. Is it fair to say that, you know, those averages that you, that you've described are spread out. More throughout the day and. You know, I think that that's a good point. You know, that's a good point. I think that the concern for congregations. Yes. I think that the heavier numbers are more, of course. From 930 to, to, you know, one in the morning, which is always the busier hour at a casino hotel. You know, the numbers don't surprise me. We're actually trying to kind of spread out our number taking. So, you know, the numbers are going forward. Our numbers will. We'll look maybe a little bit different, but. The numbers don't surprise me with, with, I don't think that we'll really have any problems going forward. Right. And I remember you for a prior update mentioning that we'd have to monitor. You know, Promotions, et cetera, that tend to bring more people.  So we, we know when they are and everything. Like I say, this at encore happened to be during the, you know, the Chinese New Year. And. That didn't really cause us any, any problems. Like I say, they even had the traditional dragon dance. And. So, you know, they scaled that down for, for social distancing as well. They only had two people in the dragon, for instance, so they could stay six feet apart. And that didn't even come close to approaching occupancy levels. Plus, to be fair, they do the promotions at times that he's, you know, very low occupancy, exactly for that reason. So, you know, I think it's a good idea to try to bring them in this time. Overall, Bruce and, and Loretta. In terms of mask wearing, social distancing and all the other COVID restrictions, your compliance, you would say is continues to be very strong. Yes. Yes. If they have somebody that's non-compliant, they, they don't keep them in the building. You know, they're very stringent about that. I see all set. Excellent. Thank you. As always, Bruce, thank you so much. And Loretta. Loretta, do you have other points that you need to raise? Nope. That, that was it for me. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Then we're going to move on to item number four. Update from. Our community's fair division chief Joe Delaney. There you are. Good morning, Joe. Thank you, Madam chair and commissioners. So today we have for you the MGM Springfield fourth quarter report from MGM. We have Seth Stratton with us, Dan Miller, Arlen Carballo and Jason Randall. And I will turn it over. I think I saw Seth on here. So I'll turn it over to him for the fourth quarter report. Actually, Joe, it'll be down to me to start this off. And I do have one request of you. We did have some technical issues logging on this morning. You know, what kind of video meeting would it be without technical issues at this point in the game? We've come in through the application of our phones. So the one thing I cannot do is run through the slides of the presentation. So may I ask you to bring that up at all? Look at that.  Ask and now shall receive. Thank you, Joe. Appreciate that. Very impressive, Joe. Always planning for the, uh, Always planning for the, uh, technical difficulties. There you are. So, so just to begin as Joe said, we have four presenters for you today, much the same as it was for the last quarter report. Um, and, and we'll start off with Arlen and her, uh, revenue updates and the taxes into lottery. And then she'll hand it back to me from my, uh, Compliance site. Um, Arlen, are you on? Yes. Hi. Good morning. Um, I'll actually like to start by introducing myself last time with our technical difficulties. I don't think I did that. Um, so my name is Arlen Caballo. I'm the director of finance here in MGM Springfield. And it's really nice to virtually meet all of you this time around. Um, so go ahead and get started. Um, Our gaming revenues and taxes for the fourth quarter were as follows. In October, we generated a 17.5 million in gaming revenue and 4.4 million in gaming taxes. In November, our first month impacted by the curfew, we generated 10.5 million in gaming revenue and 2.6 million in gaming taxes. In December, we generated 11.8 million in gaming revenues and 2.8 million in gaming taxes. For the three months ending in December, we generated a total of 39.8 million in gaming taxes and 19.8 million in gaming revenues and 9.8 million in gaming taxes. For our lottery sales, our total sales for the fourth quarter were 204,712 dollars, about 48% decline compared to the same period last year. Any questions? Dan. Any questions commissioners before we move into the compliance? Okay. So as you can see with the slide, it's in front of you. I obviously would like to trend more towards all the zeroes that are there, but cannot shy away from the fact we have some items in the miners gaming and even one receiving alcohol during December. Of course that had to happen on Christmas day. You know what, what other day should that happen on? But we do take it seriously. We've gone ahead and in the last month, a small preview, more of this will be yet to come in our Q1 in the next presentation. With an initiative that Seth actually spearheaded company-wide, we rolled out instructor-led tips training for all security, table games, food and beverage, and that went from the middle of January to the middle of this month. So there's been a huge refresher and feedback to the departments and the officers to let them know, you know, we are serious about IDing, making sure that we prevent miners underage from getting on the floor. And then we will continue with that nationally accredited program going forward. And any questions on this at all? I'm sorry, Commissioner Brian, you first. If I could just quickly, I am curious going forward if we can delineate between underage and miners. And I'm assuming, but if you can clarify for me that the individual that got the alcohol was under the age of 21, but over the age of 18, can you break down those couple of numbers any more than that for me in terms of 18 versus 21? Yes. My knowledge of hand is that they were 18, that person in particular. And they were one of the people that gained. So it was, they did both in that one trip. Yes. And then the one other person was also either 18 or 19, one of those two. And they too just gained on a slot. Thank you, Commissioner Cameron. Yeah, thank you. Do you have any more details? Is this an individual that just may have looked older or the two individuals and someone failed to ID this individual? Or is, are there any other details? Certainly. So the one particular individual that both gained and drank, I would say once I saw the photograph of them at the very entrance where we do ask them to remove their mask, that there could have been a question as to whether this person was under the age of 21. Where that's a bit of a fault on us is that our company policy is if they look under 30, they should be identified. So that wasn't done. And that person then was allowed access. But this was a young man that did have facial hair. Like I say, I think even if I pass this person, at least passingly, I wouldn't have immediately thought, oh, that's under the age of 21. But that shouldn't stop us because our policy is 30. And that's, that's another part of what we're trying to instill more going forward. Also with the tips training is that it's, if they look under 30, don't even think about it, both ID them and use the Veridoc system as well. I have, I have a couple of questions, Dan. Yes. So on this graph says that there were two minors intercepted gaming and one intercepted consuming alcohol. Yes. Now, if I understand our rules, you can't consume alcohol unless you're gaming. So is the two. Minors intercepted gaming on one of them was consuming alcohol at the time. While gaming. Yes. So that was what one person managed to do both at the same time. And the other person just got to sit and gain. So in fact, when you see the two, it's two individuals as opposed to three individuals. Right. That's correct. Okay. Okay. And then if you could just, I just heard you starting to break down the tips program a little bit. And it was a little hard to hear you. Okay. Could just tell me sort of the main components of, of the tips program. Certainly. So the tips program itself is, is the nationally accredited alcohol awareness training program. There's a lot of facilities, both governmental and private that use this. And then also restaurants and regular bars that, you know, serve alcohol up until recently we had a corporate MGM program. It was very similar and drew a lot of its content from the tips program, but we weren't using the actual tips program. Like I said in the beginning, it was as initiative that Seth here at Springfield spearheaded that we should at Springfield at least move to tips. That way, not, not only is it nationally accredited, our employees get a certification out of it. So that helps them, even if they should choose to go elsewhere. So that was part of it. And he, he made a good enough case that they decided to adopt that company wide. So all of our MGM properties are now going to be using tips going forward as, as the training program. And what I was saying is up to this point, every employee that would be designated as, as a tips related employee. So mostly that would be, you know, it would be, you know, it would be, you know, a table games and that would be food and beverage. They will receive that training. They've passed it within the last month and certification cars are now on their way from the tips program to, to show that they're certified. And then going forward, either when we bring back employees or if we knew hire, they will go through this program as well. If in those departments or a role that we're going to do, we're going to do that. They will go through this program as well. If in those departments or a role that we feel should get tips programs, I went through the program myself in early February. And so if you had to say the top three skills that tips provides, that's going to address this issue that on compliance, what would you say, Dan? Certainly. So the first one is identification of underage and then therefore prevention of one alcohol service because that's what that is aimed toward. But doing it from that perspective, it helps us with prevention of also access to the gaming floor itself. There is one fun slide that maybe we can bring to your attention in the next meeting that is guest a person's age. There was either six or eight photographs of people and, and you get to guess, you know, are they under the age of 30? Because that's our policy. And then determine every one of these people should or should not have been ID'd at the very entrance and then also for a service of alcohol. One of the other techniques is learning to witness the both psychological and physical behaviors of people as they consume alcohol. And so therefore we know when to rescind serving alcohol or at least taper off that, provide other options to people to prevent any potential alcohol induced issues later on. And then the third one is also making sure that these people remain safe after that. If there is a chance that a person could in fact indulge too much.  Thanks. Other questions commissioners and I'm sorry because I couldn't see you. I may have missed that you wanted to speak. No, thank you. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions on that? I'll set on commissioner. Brian and commissioner Cameron. Okay. Thank you. Welcome and journey back over to our land now for our local and vendor spends. Thanks, Dan. Our total biddable spend for the fourth quarter was 5.7 million and 5% of that went to diverse suppliers. I would like to highlight that we did have one of our local woman owned businesses graduate from our MGM supplier diversity mentorship program. The program focuses on promoting relationships and inspiring diversity through the education where suppliers. The program was six months long and it provided professional business development through hands-on guidance, as well as developing a lasting relationship with the MGM family. Any questions? You want to move forward to the next slide. Our total spend for the fourth quarter was 6.2 million. Our total spend within the Commonwealth was 5.7%. 38.5% in springfield. 30.2% within surrounding communities and 0.4% in western mass. We have any questions about. Could everybody have a chance to look at the graphs carefully? You're all set. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Jason Randle here. I'll jump in on employment numbers. Great to see you again. As of 1231, our employment numbers included 891 total employees. Who broke down to 53.9% as minority. 7.5% as veteran. 41.9% women. And then there's a number of women. So we have a number of women who have gender identity. Um, we have a number of women who have gender identity breakdown. Um, as well as, um, a percentage of our HCA number. And happy to answer any questions. Madam chair. I have a quick question. Jason.  And this appears to be a drop. Is that. folks, why there are fewer women coming back into the workplace. Yeah, I mean, anecdotal and anecdotally, what we see is women are home with their their children really driven by that that homeschooling that's going on in the local communities and and not returning to the workplace when we're recalling. Okay, thank you. Can I just follow up on that in terms of recalling? And assuming there's seniority basis in which you start calling people back in? Yes, we do recall based on seniority for the position as well. And in terms of the women who because of schooling right now have to decline, do they continue to keep that seniority slot or they moved back on the list in terms of continuing recall? They're in our first round of recalls in the summer, they continue to keep that slot as we're recalling employees second time they're losing that position. They are. Yeah, I mean, the employees were at a stage of recalling employees that were part of the formal separations last summer. So we're approaching a point where if we recall and they're not returning, you know, we're inviting them to reapply to a position with us when they are ready to return to the workplace. Is that I guess that troubles me a little bit given what's going on, whether there can be any other comedies they do with tax-colleged children that are causing that? Sure, I mean, our employee relations team does take each employee through a process to determine if an accommodation is available for them. If it's an FMLA or whatever accommodation, you know, based on the person. It's not if they deny immediately that they lose that recall right. But we do have a process to discuss. So just to clarify for me, do they need to go through the process of reapplying or are they simply then put later on a list for recall? And each scenario would be really dependent on the person and where they stand in the process and how many recall attempts we've had with them. It's really dependent on cases by case. And if I could jump in, Jason, I think one important clarification is, you know, depending on position, there's different accommodations. Certainly, we're encouraging remote work and for folks whose job description allows them to be able to do that, we cannot offer such accommodations. As you're all aware, a very high percentage of our overall positions require in-person presence on property by shift on a regular basis. So it's the nature of the positions such as security dealers, EBS, et cetera, don't allow for the same flexibility for, for instance, remote working that other positions may. So with a very high percentage of in-person shift work, you know, it's obviously a challenge that our industry and many like ours have with respect to, you know, the challenges of flexibility that we've been discussing. May I jump in? Can you please? Oh, sorry. I'm just, I'm sure you'll probably pick up on this, but I guess my sort of lingering discomfort with that is my concern that it's one thing to then be put at the end of a list and say, you know, we've given you these accommodations, you put the end of the list versus having to go through the hiring process again or the application process again. I'm concerned people will be dissuaded in that scenario. Just my comment on that and then I defer to commissioner Cameron with her question. We can certainly take a look at that. And I think as a practical matter, someone who has has already successfully been licensed and has been employed by us and knows the property in this train would be a more attractive candidate for sure during the rehiring process. But I hear your question and concern around just that the incentive process or a disincentive, if they reapplication process could disincentivize someone from coming back. So, so we can, we can look at that. We're happy to perhaps our next presentation update update you on that with additional detail on what we're seeing and what can be done to certainly that, that women number has always been a focus of ours to try and get up to 50% and we don't want to do anything that would make that more challenging. In fact, we, we want to be continue to strive for success there. So, we'll look at that and follow up. Have a great day, Mr. Cameron. Yeah, so I actually had the same concern, which is, I think this is not a normal hiring process, right? This is not business as usual. I think this pandemic has really changed and, and, you know, the child care, the child homeschooling has, has been an issue. And if there's a way that you can look at this differently than your typical someone leaves the workforce and then they would have to reapply during COVID, I think that would be helpful, not only to the women who right now it's a double whammy, right? They weren't able to come back because of their responsibilities and B, they have to reapply to even come back and go to the bottom of the list. I just think if there's a way to look at it differently as a company, because your company does care about diversity. And you have been trying to make strides to have 50 percent of your workforce, but this is a such a unique situation. I'm wondering if you take a look and, you know, possibly they're, you know, they're unable to work during this period, but you understand they'll be back in the near future. They were valued in team members, as you call them. And, you know, if there's a way to take a look at that set, I think it would be really helpful to, you know, the company and to your goals of trying to achieve these diversity numbers. We certainly will. And we will, we will follow up before the, before the next meeting, offline with staff, but we will look at that. We're in agreement that, you know, it's an issue that we want to make sure we're addressing and not, and certainly not disincentivizing the success on that. So we will. Yeah, I think my fellow commissioners for raising and making these observations because, you know, it's a national story, right? The step back for women. I suspect to, it's a step back from minorities. So in your, in your review, this is, this is actually important work, not only for us, because, of course, part of the expanded Gaming X goals is jobs, jobs, jobs.  So it's, it is part of our review and part of our consideration, but it's also part of an important national story itself. So any, any insights would be really helpful. And I would ask too, if you could look at the minority hires too. One, one issue I just want to make sure I'm right on, and this might be a question for Loretta, if she's on or Karen and Seth, you just may know it off the top of your head. If they have to reapply, but they were licensed. Does that. License stay. Is there any. Karen, yeah, it stays active. It does stay active. I wanted to make sure of that. I thought that was the case. Thank you. So I think I'm happy to jump in here. We we this goes through Q4 of last year, some of the exciting events that we did to stay active in the community. There's a few different ones. They all appear to have the holiday theme, which is the case. You'll see looking at the slide on your the first large picture is a presentation of guests that we made to the Ronald McDonald House in Springfield. As those of you are familiar with Ronald McDonald House, their mission is to to have a safe and comfortable place for children and their families during the midst of medical experiences requiring them to be within the proximity of our local hospitals when they're there over the holidays, making that experience for them. You know, one that is celebratory is something that Ronald McDonald House strives for. And we assisted in that by collecting and donating a number of toys. You can see a few few bicycles. The fun story there, Jose Delgado, who was our director of government affairs, and I work very closely with who has since been stolen by the governor to run his Western Mass Office, which we're fine with, but we miss him. He he literally went to local stores buying, trying to find bicycles, which as you might imagine are hard to find. I'm sure you've heard there's like a COVID effect on bicycles. And so he he drove around Western Mass searching for bicycles and was able to find a few. So that was exciting for us to be able to present. You'll see as well, the pictures of a large Christmas tree. That's the Christmas tree. We moved it this year from our Plaza to our porkish area near the near the garage and we did a lighting ceremony. We couldn't have a lot of folks there, but we invited first responders and city officials to celebrate the beginning of the holiday season through that tree lighting. And then you'll also see the picture of Chris Kelly, our our property president with the God bless America sign behind it. That and the MGM sign in the far right corner. Those are both at the Bright Nights Forest Park holiday lighting extravaganza that happens in Springfield. And one of the things we did on on that day was we were able to provide several hundred tickets for AMR first responders and PBTA drivers, two groups that we felt were working hard to support the community during this time and wanted the opportunity for them and their families to be able to experience Bright Nights. And so we were able to make that distribution of of tickets through PBTA and AMR representatives and had an event announcing that at Bright Nights. So all of these things are more challenging to do in the COVID environment with the social distancing and the outdoor gathering indoor and outdoor gathering restrictions. But we as a company have committed to continue to do what we can in this environment and supporting the community. And these are a few examples of our ability to do that during the winter and holiday season. Any questions? Commissioner, not a not a question, but a comment. You you continue to do great work in the community. And this is just an example of that, in particular, really inviting the first responders was a was a really classy move. And I think I'm sure appreciated for all the work that they're doing out there. So good work. Thank you. Next slide, please. So as we typically do, wanted to provide an update on a few items that are close to our project, not necessarily. Well, one is directly a part of but the 31 Elm project, as well as I'll talk briefly about Walburgers and the Armory. So 31 Elm courts, former court square hotel in the heart of downtown Springfield, as I believe all of you are aware is has been a long focus of the company in connection with our residential development commitment. We are supporting that development financially, partnering with the developer, the city of Springfield, to bring that iconic property downtown Springfield back to life. As I reported in the last quarterly report, the city was nearing completion of its mitigation and demo and remediation work. The city has since completed that work. I believe is in the process of transferring, formally transferring the property to the developer. Parallel path, the developer is moving forward on construction, drawings, pricing and bidding. This project has, although the the work that the city has done has moved forward. I think on schedule, if not so a better than schedule, there has been there have been some delays in the financial close. We expected initially financial close to to occur this past fall, potentially early 2021. It's now expected from what I understand to happen in the spring or summer of 2021. And I do not have a, I believe the developer and they'd be able to speak to this more directly than us. But I don't know what the current, you know, full construction timeline is an expected completion, I believe as they move forward with drawings, pricing and bidding over the next month or two, they'll have a better sense of the exact timeline of the construction. But it's moving forward. No hiccups other than some COVID related delays. And Walbergers has the construction is completed. It's waiting. The building is currently waiting to be activated. We're in constant communication with the Walbergers team. They are in the process of figuring out when the right time to open for a successful opening is. We are on track for a opening at some point in the spring of 2021. It's my understanding that the goal of the Walbergers team is to be certainly be opened by Memorial Day weekend, which would be, you know, a big important event for and timing for the property to be open. So we're on track for that. In terms of the armory, as you're aware, where we have historically updated you on plans and programming of that facility, given the COVID restrictions, there have been been no activation. There has been no activation of that building. And we are waiting to see what, you know, what the timing is, the continued phases of reopening through the governor's office. And once we have a better sense of when we'll be able to reactivate that space, we'll be able to focus on what programming looks like moving forward. And I just to add one thing in on the 31 Elm Street development is we still are holding a bond from MGM for that amount of money that they owe to that project. So that was renewed back in the fall and is good through next fall. And obviously we will maintain that bond until such time as that project, you know, they go, they have their closing and transfer the property, and then MGM makes their payments. Thank you, Joe, for that. Questions for Seth on his development updates? Yes. Yes, Seth, just in general, when it comes to the 31 Elm property, have you seen any major changes because of COVID relative to the feasibility of the project or the pace, aside from, you know, restrictions of distancing and whatnot? I'm talking, you know, financing or for other major areas? You know, we get we get kept in the loop by the developer. I can't speak for the developer in terms of the overall financing and I mean, there have been there has been a time delay in terms of the financial close. It's my understanding that's more just logistics of general business slowdowns and meetings and things being more challenging to move forward in this environment. I don't, I'm not aware of any obstacles to continue progress that have been presented by COVID other than some slippage of the timeline. But again, the developers would be best situated to provide an additional detail on that. They keep us in the loop and we're ready and able to satisfy our financing obligation as soon as we're told that the close is going to occur. Okay, thank you. Seth, it's hard to believe that Walberg's has been built during COVID. I was at the groundbreaking, which I'm trying to remember what the date was for that and the year has gone by and it's ready to be open for customers. Yeah, it looks, it's beautiful inside the team from Walberg's loves the space. It's a great looking space. They're excited about it there. You know, just as any food and beverage operator, including ourselves with our venues that we run is, you know, nervous about when's their, you know, volumes on people's comfort level when's the right time to open and especially with a grand opening, I imagine starting out on the right foot and having that opening be successful is critically important for the future success. So we've been very understanding and cooperative with Walbergers in terms of scheduling that for the right time and deferring to their expertise on when that opening makes the most sense because we're mutually vested in good success. So, you know, my takeaway Seth, on this slide and on the prior slide where you showed the good work of charitable outreach something that I think of us appreciate but it's worth reiterating that MGM is truly a community partner and an important component of the revitalization of Springfield and this slide on the development update, particularly with respect to 31L, shows that that commitment and the important component of the city's vision for that revitalization and we are all distressed that the pandemic has interrupted that great progress and I'll hopeful that as all the metrics point to the right direction that that revitalization can start to hum again. So, thank you for this update. Any other comments or questions from my colleagues? Thank you and thank you for recognizing that Chair, that's a message that comes top down both from Las Vegas and locally from Chris as our local leader that is a community partner and standing by our obligations to the community is a top priority so that's why you see us continue to do that and we'll continue. So thank you very much. Appreciate the time today. Excellent. There are no further questions for Seth and his team and I want to make sure I have Ireland's first name correct. Is that right? Is it A-R-L-E-N? Excellent. Thank you so much for your presentations and Seth, thank you. All right. Moving on to item number five on the agenda. Good morning. First, I wanted to congratulate Jill and I look forward to working with her. Our first racing item today is an update of the harness horsemen's association of New England's pension plan. As you know, the Mass General Law 23K section 60 set up the racehorse development fund and 4% of that goes to benefits for the horsemen. For 2020 with the delay in racing opening due to COVID, we were only able to race in 10 days. So, managing director Alice Tisbert is here today to show how they updated their program for this. You know what? I'm going to interrupt our presentation for just one minute. I missed a message from one of my colleagues and we do need to take a five-minute break. I see you shaking your head. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. It is now 11.05. How about 10 minutes? 11.15. And we look forward to your presentation. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Leibnacht, for your understanding. 11.15. Thank you. Okay. I think we're all here. Thank you, everyone. For that brief break. I'll do a roll call. Commissioner Cameron. And commissioner Zanicka. Thank you. I'm here and we're going to return now to item number five on today's agenda. And Dr. Leibnacht, you nicely set the stage, but if you could reiterate that and then invite our guests again, please. Thank you. Sure. Briefly, the Gaming Statue 23K section 60 sets up the race horse development fund and 4% of that goes to the horseman's association. And the horsemen's association has set up a pension plan, which has been before the commission before. Due to the COVID delay of racing this past summer in 2020, we only were able to race 68 days instead of the 110 that were planned. So the horseman's association has changed the requirements for qualifying for this plan and managing director Alice Tisbert to describe that. And I'll turn it over to director Tisbert now. Good morning commissioners. Thank you and Dr. Leibnacht for allowing me time to give an update on the harness horseman's association of New England's retirement savings plan better known as the RSP. As we're all aware and as Dr. Leibnacht just stated the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted so many aspects of life included was the 2020 racing season. Along with the reduction in racing days several states and race tracks imposed travel restrictions and the RSP committee realized it was going to be difficult for an eligible participant to achieve a point or a portion thereof. With those concerns in mind the committee recommended in the board approved the revised requirements and allowances for the 2020 racing season which I hope you all have a copy of revised 2020 requirements and I also included a copy of the previous requirements. So the highlights and the changes basically were a waving of the minimum monthly starts due to the racing reduced racing days reduction in starts needed to obtain a point or a portion thereof no loss of invested contributions for the 2020 racing season and for those that didn't earn a point or a portion of the point as well as vesting your credit would be carried over to the next season without penalty. The only requirement that did not change was the membership requirement and as a note by making this change it prevented 13 participants from losing their unvested contributions which would have totaled around $150,000 so you can see needed to make this change and we were very happy to do it and I welcome any questions if anybody has any. Thank you Mr. Commissioner Cameron. Yes, hi Alice nice to see you. Good to see you too. I know how hard you worked on this plan and how successful it is and I think that the board acted quickly in recognizing that this year the changes all sound appropriate certainly protecting the members from losing if they were not able to participate is a really good thing. I'm sure your members are happy with these changes. Do you anticipate having to possibly adjust this year as well depending on depending on how quickly restrictions are lifted? Commissioner Cameron, I think I have to wait I've talked to Dr. Leitbaum to be in touch with her for whatever requirements are going to be needed and we made we saw it right up front when we knew we had a reduction in racing we were going to need a change and I think we'll do the same thing we're just going to have to watch and we're very conscious of what it's going to take to keep everybody in the loop and if we have to extend it you know adjustments based on what's happening great thank you for that update my pleasure any further questions for Dr. Leitbaum or Ms. Tisbert thank you thank you for coming in and it's nice to see you virtually we look forward to seeing you in real life hopefully sooner than later yes definitely thank you be safe be well everybody thank you Michael so our next item on the agenda also deals with benefits but this comes from a different part of the racing statute this is actually in the racing statute Mass General Law 128A and 128C describe how the mass gaming commission collects money from live simulcasts and account wagering and how that money is to be expended one way that that money is expended is through health and other welfare benefits for active disabled or retired jockeys this is 128A section 5H with Suffolk no longer racing last year there obviously isn't money coming in from live racing however there is still money they still are simulcasting and doing account wagering so there is still money coming in from those two sources this particular section mentions how all of the money comes in so it wasn't even though the statutes in 128A which is live racing it did mention in that statute the money coming from the other sources from 128C in the past the money that that the group that that money has gone out to has been the jockeys guild they're a national group well known and respected and if the commission decides that the money can still go out they are willing to disperse the money today I do have Mindy Coleman the in house council for the jockey guild with us and before if the commission has questions for her before that if Todd Grossman our general council has anything he would like to add he's looked at the commission as well perhaps if we could hear from Mr. Grossman first that might be helpful I see Commissioner Cameron nodding her head so Todd if you could go forward please thank you Madam Chair commissioners I think Dr. Leibhahn teed up the issue really nicely and pinpointed the area of the law that the commission needs to focus on here which is in Section 5 H4 of Chapter 128A as she mentioned it identifies a number of areas that the racing monies once collected including taxes and fees and all that those kind of items how the money should be spent and the statute identifies a large number of places the money should be spent and one of them subparagraph 4 says that $65,000 annually should be given to an organization determined by the commission that represent the majority of jockeys who are licensed by the commission and regularly ride in the commonwealth so the jockeys guild is not identified specifically by statute historically that has been identified for receipt of these funds but as Dr. Leibhahn mentioned now that there is no active third red racing in the commonwealth it was an issue that we believe needed to come before the commission to determine whether the jockeys guild still met the standard in the statute prior to release of those funds so that is the narrow issue that is before you right now whether the guild is still conforms with the requirements of the statute the statute also provides that the benefits once paid out the $65,000 are to be used for the purpose of providing health and other welfare benefits to active, disabled or retired jockeys so it is not limited to just active jockeys it is open to active, disabled or retired jockeys so the statute has a number of components that you should consider in making this determination if you are to conclude that the guild still meets the statutory requirement the money would be released to them as the statute directs to the commission in the commission's account and be expended otherwise with section 5H so that is the narrow issue that is before you at the moment questions or comments commissioner Cameron comments certainly I look at this and discuss this with the fact that it does talk about disabled jockeys and I am aware that there are a number of in particular disabled jockeys who are dependent on these funds I think that is an important factor as well so when I look at this I do look at it to include that statement about active, retired and disabled and I know the monies are there and there is great need for those monies but we can circle back to commissioner Cameron commissioner Zunagat commissioner O'Brien commissioner Zunagat you are leaning in yes thank you just to agree preliminarily I would love to hear from our guest if she has some prepared something but I understand the technical read but I think these extenuating circumstances we have seen warrant the attention into other areas like the disability or retire I don't think there was an implication that they had to be librating for these monies to be distributed thank you commissioner O'Brien I guess a question for you Todd in terms of statutory interpretation the language that talks about in 5-H the definition I can find it again jury of jockeys who are licensed by the commission and regularly ride in the Commonwealth does in the Commonwealth have to modify regularly ride or can it just go back to the entirety of that phrase the majority of jockeys who are licensed by the commission the question commissioner O'Brien is in the jockeys have to be riding in the Commonwealth can an interpretation be in the Commonwealth be modifying the entirety of that phrase that represent the majority of jockeys who are licensed and regularly ride in the Commonwealth I viewed it as two separate components one that the jockeys are licensed by the commission and secondly that they regularly ride in the Commonwealth that's how I read it not that they're licensed I mean if they're licensed presumably by the commission then they would be riding in the Commonwealth so the two may go hand in hand and then is there any sort of statutory that goes to whether it's an impossibility to satisfy anything I mean obviously there is no ability to regularly ride in the Commonwealth is there a statutory construct to enforce the intent of the statute which as everyone has commented goes to you know disabled and other jockeys even though there may be an impossibility of satisfying another part of the statute well I think that's a good way to look at it I haven't analyzed this for frustration of purpose or impossibility or anything like that which is certainly on the table here although I think those types of things typically apply to contracts as well so in any event I mean I think it's in the ballpark here when you read the statute holistically and provide if you so choose to go in this direction more of a kind of just reasonable read as to what was intended by the statute it doesn't in my estimation preclude that finding but it is one that I could see going in either direction which is why it was important that the commission weigh in on this but I don't see it completely frustrated based upon so I could weigh in on this because I think my briefing with Dr. Lightbound it helped shed light on this Commissioner Cameron these amounts have been helping jockeys who have been retired or not riding because of a disability and injury for a long time that has been the practice that we touched on that this is to benefit those who truly can't regularly ride anymore because of an injury so I understand that Dr. Lightbound you maintain and correct me if I misunderstood that you maintain a list of jockeys who regularly ride or have regularly ridden in commonwealth and from there you see a majority of that list belongs to a particular association and you've identified it as the guild still I think that's been pretty consistent is that there that's kind of been your practice you maintain that list of riders or those who have ridden and then you see if the guild is still the majority association the majority of them belong to yes that's true they're also the only jockeys organization there is no state organization of jockeys in massachusetts and I don't know of another national organization I defer to Mindy Coleman but I don't know of another one yeah and then I do want to hear from Ms. Coleman so I had to put in the context of what regularly rides means because otherwise we wouldn't be helping those who were disabled correct Commissioner O'Brien I think you're thinking the same way I am it doesn't to effectuate its purpose it would be counterintuitive to restrict it to the other interpretation to say you have to regularly ride to get the benefits it's inconsistent if you read it that way that's right and so I suppose this might be something for us to consider in the long term but right now this year we know there isn't any live racing in massachusetts there has been they've been able to sometimes ride outside of a commonwealth in the past and we can see if that happens again and then we have to figure out that interpretation but I'm really comfortable with today thinking about the list that's in front of you right now and I guess kind of worry about the future down the road where things get more complicated or perhaps simplified but because in the past that list included those jockeys who had retired or unfortunately could not ride again so that's my thinking but I do want to hear both again from Dr. Leipzig and of course if that's a good time Commissioner Cameron did you want to add in before we turn over to our guest no I don't have anything else thank you okay just the other comment I would put into is you could have a circumstance where you do have live racing but there may be more retired and disabled jockeys than actual licensed and regularly riding which would just be another example of you know looking to interpret the purpose and attend to the statute down the road yeah yeah if I may we sort of had that in the prior years certainly compared to the the normal years where the statute was first operating you know when we had three days etc but you're correct so Ms. Coleman would you like to add your thoughts and welcome thank you for coming today good morning chairman commissioners Dr. Leipzig thank you for having me again my name is Mendy Coleman and I am the counsel for the jockeys guild I'm gonna give you guys a little bit of background and some history and a little bit hopefully to kind of maybe answer some questions and I know there's some hopefully I can give you a little bit of information and then we can figure out how we can move forward first of all I want to tell you the jockeys guild we're a not-for-profit organization we represent jockeys as Dr. Lybound was saying throughout the country both quarter words and thoroughbred and we've been doing this since 1940 we have approximately 1250 active retired and permanently disabled jockeys and our purpose is to protect the riders we strive for safer racing environments to obtain improved insurance and other benefits to monitor developments in the local state and federal laws affecting the racing and in particular the jockeys and then the benefits that we provide to our members include temporary disability a life insurance accidental death and dismemberment for active retired and then benefits for our permanently disabled including reimbursements for their co-pays and durable medical goods now this is separate from what you hear about with the permanently disabled jockeys fund if you are familiar with that this is in addition to what they receive from the PDJF and then also reimbursements for the out-of-pocket health insurance for qualifying jockeys this is kind of where the Massachusetts money falls into place is this reimbursement for out-of-pocket health insurance now the current what we have been discussing today the guild had been recognized for many years as the majority representative and then there were some issues with the previous management and the guild reorganized in 2008 at that time we lost membership we did some things there was new management came in under the reorganize or under Terrence Meeks who is our current president CEO as well as the board changed then we worked very hard with our members rebuilding, regrowing our organization at that time in 2012 we then petitioned to the commission the Massachusetts commission to be recognized as the majority representative of the jockeys in Massachusetts at that time we then began receiving in 2013 the $65,000 annually for the guild to be expended for the health and welfare benefits for only jockeys in Massachusetts that money did not was not used for jockeys or general funding it was only for jockeys who qualified in Massachusetts through the input from the existing director of racing and representatives of the racetrack the guild then established a criteria to determine who would be eligible to receive a pro out of share of the funds including the jockeys who were regularly riding the active riders retired jockeys who had become permanently disabled as a result of an on-track accident in Massachusetts that's the eligible jockeys included both guild and non-guild members for active the retired and permanently disabled they were it was required that they had to be guild members at the time of retirement and or their permanent disability so when we went through that and we sent in annually when we changed the the those qualifications stayed in place until there was a change in the reduced number of days of live racing in 2017 we then changed what was happening for what qualifications were required for an active jockey and changed it instead of a set number or required number of mounts to a percentage of mounts that had to be required at that time it was changed to jockeys had to ride 15% of the mounts of live racing conducted in Massachusetts for the calendar year we also reduced the number of mounts considered for a retired jockey to 3,000 mounts and then there was other parameters it had to be within the last 10 years because we wanted to make sure that we were getting the true Massachusetts jockeys the people that had stayed in Massachusetts and were riding there annually or regularly and making sure that we were providing for them so over the last few years when we received those monies it was the intention of the guild that the monies be used to reimburse the riders for their medical expenses the jockeys had to show that if they had showed that they incurred medical expenses for which the money was reimbursed it would not be necessary for the guild to issue medical expenses for 1099 upon the distribution the jockeys are requested to submit any documentation for any out-of-pocket medical expenses that she has occurred in the calendar year to be submitted no lighter than December 31 of the year distribution this includes any payments for healthcare premiums any deductibles medical expenses and or prescription expenses dental expenses premiums in 2020 based on the qualifications and this was based on the monies received that were 2019 monies we received that in 2020 there were 27 Massachusetts jockeys who received $2,407.41 this included 19 active jockeys four retired jockeys and four permanently disabled jockeys in light of the fact that racing and live racing had ceased in Massachusetts we advised the jockeys at that time based on our interpretation of the legislation that would be final distribution of funds until live racing resumed in Massachusetts as far as the definition because we were under the same impression as far as having it would be difficult to have licensed jockeys in Massachusetts because as to answer the question earlier you're not going to have somebody licensed in Massachusetts if there's not racing normally if they have an annual or a three year license if that license expires if there's not racing they wouldn't have a license to participate as a jockey they may be as a trainer or an owner but again it relies on racing occurring for them to have their jockeys license so we appreciate and welcome this opportunity if we can figure out a way to do this because there are you know $2,407 or $2,500 is a substantial amount especially to our active excuse me our retired and permanently disabled jockeys and the reason I say that is especially for our permanently disabled jockeys there is no guaranteed funding for permanently disabled including the PDJF and the monies that we distribute to the guild they are limited in the amount of money they receive from the PDJF and it is a minimal amount in order to provide for their costs so this is something that I know that specifically our four disabled and again our four retired definitely rely on this money each year annually so if there's anything we can do to facilitate or assist in being able to distribute this money to them it would be greatly appreciated I'd also like to point out the guild does facilitate in distributing this money but we do not we do not take any of the $65,000 for administrative costs in any way it is we take with the $65,000 comes out and the $65,000 we are the ones that do all the qualifications and distributions at some time again mailing, all the accounting everything and again not that it is sort of what we do but we definitely there's costs that are incurred for it and we do not take anything out because it is something that we believe is important to be able to provide to the jockeys I know I provided you some history I don't know if I was able to answer all your questions but I do hope if there's anything that I can that you know there's 20 years I just tried to give you about four minutes so if there's any questions that I can can provide I would I'm here to answer anything Commissioner Zinica? Thank you for that summary Miss Coma it's really helpful if I may just build down a little bit in some of the numbers you provided you said 27 people 19 of them active at the time of last year when the monies were distributed for retired and for permanently disabled what would happen roughly to the 19 that were active last time this time around what would happen to those monies what is your your read of the situation and your process that is something that we've been trying to and that's what I had discussed with Dr. Leipan I am not sure how to we would have to re-evaluate the qualifications for the active what we had done leading up to this is we looked at in 2019 there was a total of 65 races based on the 15% that meant that a jockey had to have written 9.75 or 10 races during the festival or during that time in order to qualify of those jockeys that were regularly riding in Massachusetts I look and see the majority of those jockeys were regular Massachusetts riders that had been forced to move their tack or ride somewhere else a lot of them were either forced to move to Pennsylvania or New York some of those have residents from Massachusetts their families are still in Massachusetts they have just had to move their tack to other jurisdictions in order to continue to provide for their families so if we could get and again I don't want to go into a whole other tangent but if there's any way possible we get live racing back into Massachusetts obviously those jockeys are going to return to Massachusetts so I think that you know it's something I want to be able to still provide to in any way we can because they are Massachusetts that may be something we have to look at too if we provide it to the jockeys that are Massachusetts residents I don't know if I answered your question correctly but I think you're getting to the core of the issue here which is this uncertainty about the number of races in the future the anomaly of this year and the reality of those ties to these people that have had to you know race elsewhere to make ends meet perhaps it should not be go without saying that is it fair to say that perhaps there's still quite a bit of need for those monies however modest or a few in the number of people I do think that there is a substantial I mean as I said definitely for the retired and active there will be I will tell you of a couple actives and potentially there are possibly two other jockeys that would then move into the retired category that I also know one individual has been a life law or has been a regular writer in Massachusetts for many many years he suffered an injury didn't qualify last year on the active qualification per say but he's going to be qualified under the retired this year and he is somebody right now that I know due to his medical issues he's not going to qualify permanently disabled but would qualify as a retired individual and again he's a Massachusetts if I said the name and I don't want like you guys would know if you know racing you would know this as a Massachusetts jockey so I think that when we go back and look at the numbers there may be one or two that will be added under the retired that are standing again in light of COVID and writers we were under the same circumstances as you know was alluded to with other people because of the restrictions even the people that were able to go ride in other jurisdictions they took a substantial hit due to the COVID restrictions as well thank you thank you for that I wonder if a read of say you know being active writer in another state but with Massachusetts roots would that be enough for us you know from to be able to say or direct to disperse those monies I'm not as comfortable with that interpretation so much as you know if they qualify under the membership rules set forth by the guild and then looking at the statute itself in terms of what is the reality on the ground in Massachusetts and how do you effectuate the intent and purpose of the statute to have the disabled and retired jockeys wholly dependent upon the activity of the active jockeys could create an inequity and unfairness and could frustrate the purpose of the statute so I'm looking at it kind of it does sound like maybe you'd want to get more clarity depending if it's not a return to come home whether there's some clarity that needs to come to this but I think in the question before us I'm comfortable looking at it in terms of that in terms of looking at the purpose and the intent of the statute and effectuating that under the current circumstances that's where I'm coming from Commissioner Bryan can you just just expand a little bit how I think I was clearer until I'm learning more from this comment how do we deal with the active jockeys under the construct I guess I'm hearing that the guild attaches these criteria and so the active must be licensed and you can't be licensed in Massachusetts unless you are racing is that I didn't have that understanding is that right it does I mean that that is a nuance that yes until Ms. Coleman spoke I wasn't aware of it's not necessarily that you can't be licensed specifically and Dr. Lightbound can allude to this but if you don't have an operating race track and you're not in jockeys are not in Massachusetts when you come to the racetrack you will get licensed in order to engage or in order to race but the statute Dr. Lightbound are yours one year or three year licenses we do have three year licenses but with suffix uncertainty as to when they were racing none of the jockeys took out three year and basically I think we had maybe one person out of the last three or four years that took out a three year license in general so right now we don't have any jockeys that are licensed in Massachusetts so Todd is the stat does the statute speak to license or does it just say those who regularly rode or ride it says license but you know one read I think a fair read is that the language we've been talking about the representing the majority of jockeys who are licensed by the commission regular is included I believe to try to identify the organization that the money should go to it's not intended necessarily to be a prerequisite for everyone who receives the funds and so in this case given the circumstances you are able to identify the organization that was really the intended recipient of these monies even though you could argue that given the circumstances they may not fall neatly within the confines of the language but I think you are able to identify properly the organization so that's really an important distinction that it's about the organization and then can you just remind me of the language because I don't have it in front of me I'm sorry on the active disabled sure it's that $65,000 should go to the organization for the purpose of providing health and other welfare benefits to active disabled or retired jockeys I feel that's helpful but can I make up our emphasis here because I want to make sure I'm understanding one situation for Ms. Coleman were we to disperse the monies because we all agree that it's appropriate what would the guild do relative to those active in the past would they hold off those monies because you also have some sort of interpretation here or what would happen to that money so up until this year as I had explained up until the money that we received in 2020 was based on 2019's racing we had racing in 2019 so we had qualifications for active retired and disabled those monies were distributed based on the active retiring and permanently disabled qualifications when Dr. Leibhound and Mr. Meeks and I spoke two weeks ago we said that we would have to come up with qualifications for how would we distribute based on the active retires if it was something that we would look at based on again location previous qualification if they qualified based on 2019's racing and carry it over due to the COVID exception of 2020 and then obviously the retired and permanently disabled and then if those two other individuals would then fall under the qualifications we would add those to the list so those are the the other thing is is again the qualifications were not defined and legislation and the guild was the one and that was the thing there was nothing the money just say they would come to the guild and we could use it however we wanted but in order to be fair we thought that it needed to be for Massachusetts jockies specifically and then that's when we came up with these qualifications again based on the jockies that we thought usually and regularly wrote in Massachusetts I have a question Commissioner Cameron Council Coleman it sounds like you and the board are willing to take a second look at this and as you framed it as a COVID exception is that by hearing that accurately yes we are I mean we were willing to do whatever recommendations and we want to work with the gaming commission here to make that determination I mean we're not going to just throw off the money but it's definitely something we would take into consideration and we would present it to our board for their approval and my second question is are there for these active writers are there similar um similar monies from other states they may be writing in that they would have they would have the ability to apply for similar to our program but it's just somewhat unique so Massachusetts is somewhat unique there are health benefits that are provided in New York New Jersey California I'm missing one in Delaware and Pennsylvania as well they are all set up differently and how the monies where the monies come from whether it's a taxation on California's for example is on cash tickets New York is a taxation on the casinos and it's a substantial amount of money that comes in and they actually pay for a health I mean they have a health insurance plan that the jockeys enroll in that health insurance plan it is not set up this way what this is more similar to is in certain jurisdictions or certain the jockeys guild has an industry partnership agreement with certain race tracks and that is at Naira the strone group tracks and in those tracks we restrict part of the 50% of the monies that we receive under those agreements to the jockeys that ride at those race tracks and it's under the qualifications or similar so no but yes I guess is the answer to they can but it has to be again at qualifying race tracks and my last question is a process question we need to be comfortable obviously agreeing to the methodology here making sure it's in compliance with our law which we see and I think it's pretty clear with retired and disabled but would you would it make sense because you are looking for some kind of an approval from us I think I'm hearing that would it make some sense for you to maybe in conjunction with Dr. Leipholm take a look at language that may you'd be comfortable with and we can decide if we're comfortable with that may address the active piece just trying to how do we move forward with a process that we're each comfortable with that addresses the need absolutely over the years that's exactly what we've done with the qualifications we didn't have to do that but we had sent it in to the commission and again Jennifer Durenberger previously and then we went through the race tracks also with Suffolk making sure and the horseman showed these qualifications on how we did it we didn't do a formal commission approval it was not presented but I believe there was submitted and reviewed so we absolutely we can we'd be more than comfortable to show you what we have again for the retired and the permanently disabled some review of the retired qualifications too just because there are going to be certain people right now it currently was they had to have retired from racing honor after January 1st 2008 because that was when the legislation they must have written at least 3,000 career amounts in legal paramutual races conducted in the state of Massachusetts or 10 years as a licensed Massachusetts jockey and must have written in the state of Massachusetts for five consecutive years before retirement that last one may need to be tweaked again now it's going to have to be considered because we didn't have racing these last two years for the purpose of the section any individual who meets the afford mentioned qualification shall be considered retired from racing if they've written fewer than 50 races at any race track in the United States licensed to conduct paramutual wagering and this is similar to what we have in other jurisdictions what are we thinking about process would we like to see something that would take all of these new factors into consideration and maybe come back at another meeting and address it what are we thinking what I'm thinking to the discussion that you just had is when you look at the statute and it talks about the money going annually to an organization comma as determined by the commission comma that represents the active disabled or retired right now I think we're all in agreement that disabled or retired would absolutely be represented by the guild and then the question that you point out is does there need to be a clarification in terms of active and do we as a commission feel comfortable that it represents the majority with a connection to the Commonwealth such that the monies could also go out to the active and so the as determined by the commission could include your what you're talking about which is board approval on further clarifying what the requirements are to address two things one the lack of live racing right now and then the COVID situation this year in terms of to your point there may be retirees who couldn't become retirees if you stick with this meaning because we've had the lack of racing for my comfort level and statutory interpretation that would make me comfortable to then make a determination as a member of the commission that the guild represents that body of people such that 65,000 could go out consistent with both active and disabled and retired if I may point out one of the issues so if it's determined that the guild is the organization representing the majority of the jockeys the monies it says to be distributed it actually is an or it says active disabled or retired or disabled jockeys so it not that I am trying to take away from active jockeys but there also could be a determination because of the way we've done with the community it has been pro-rata share based on the number of jockeys who have qualified so if it is determined that there is not an active eligibility the other possibility is to do that pro-rata share for the active and right active and disabled qualifications at this point I'm sorry retire excuse me disabled until live racing resumes in the Commonwealth until active riders return to the Commonwealth if it is determined that the guild is represented if it's determined that the guild will be responsible for distributing the 65,000 or you're willing to allow that the other option is do the pro-rata share of the 65,000 to only the retired and disabled because it does say or yeah Alex help us out here on next steps please it sounds like the commissioners might want to hear I guess what the new qualifications would be for these different groups and that can certainly I can work with Mindy and we can come back to the commission with whatever we come up with and then the commission could look at that and see if it made sense to them we did bring back one of the times when they made a change to the requirements that did come up to the commission I don't remember off the top of my head if it was voted on or if it was just presented in a commission meeting that you know due to the reduced number of days of racing at Suffolk they were changing their qualifications so it has been you know brought the qualifications have been brought up before so it's perfectly reasonable to do that again if that's what the commission would like to see yeah I'd be okay with that there seems to be brought agreement relative to the retired and permanently disabled and I think you know maybe speaking for myself I think that my read of our obligation is mostly to disperse and identify the one organization that has done this both historically and pragmatically has the only one who has done it and frankly I'm comfortable either way if this ends up going into a revised criteria that exclusively focuses on permanently and disabled and retired or a criteria that includes it by some other measure because prior ties or current ties to Massachusetts I think the way is common just broadly articulated what could be that criteria I'm comfortable we could get more details and then go from there but I think our obligation about the disbursement to the one organization is straightforward. I have one concern I think we're all in agreement that we need to have some more information before we can vote because we can't disperse the money without knowing how it's going to be further dispersed and Commissioner Zuniga asked that important question and then so I think we do need further information I am concerned about delay when would we normally when would the particularly disabled retired jockeys expect to receive their disbursement it has varied a little bit over the years if there hasn't been any changes to the requirements the money usually goes out around this time to them but there have been times when we were changing the requirements that the money didn't go out till like May so I certainly would hope we could come back well before that I would like to ask given particularly the difficulties of the last year that this is expedited right Commissioner Cameron you're agreeing with that absolutely agreeing Council Coleman it would seem to me that you already have some ideas formulated as to what may be acceptable here what might make sense so are you I'm just asking you and Dr. Leipam could do this in a way that wouldn't take a long long time is that accurate absolutely I think it's up to the commission if you're going to want me to consider active or not I think that's up to the commission and that would be based on how we would come up with those qualifications so and that would then determine the amount that would be distributed to each individual well I would be interested personally in seeing language that includes active language that would include maybe those new folks who are excuse me who are retiring and I don't think there has to be any changes to those who are already retired and those who are disabled is that correct correct okay so I would be and then at that time when we look at that language then we could decide is it only disabled and retired or is it to include active and Todd you're you feel comfortable with that we don't have to automatically exclude active language I don't think you do but I think this is a good sound approach though okay I like Commissioner Cameron's suggestion too Commissioner Bryan no I think that's the way to go because while in theory we don't have to you know exclude active and I think given the circumstances that we should include them at this point the further definition of what we are determining this agency represents I think does beg the question of active and the definition of active which I think they can address right now but you know years forward from now that may change in terms of how this comes right I think it's it's kind of an unusual we're at an unusual juncture in terms of timing and expectations probably haven't been clear to the jockey so I think we have an obligation to clarify and sooner than later sorry Councillor I apologize there was a delay one thing I guess I have a clarification on and this is where I think maybe we want to make sure we're all clear the definition of the active where it's concerns about the active and the definition in the legislation that is for you to determine the quality of the money not for the qualifications of disbursement so I think the commission has to determine if we are the organization first before the guild can determine the qualifications for disbursement so back to Dr. Leibbrand's list you have a list if I understand correctly of all the jockeys who up until the closure of the Massachusetts were regularly riding or had been regular riders and now they were either retired or disabled is that there that list stands that you have that yeah well it was a list of all the jockeys that were licensed by us and if the guild represented the majority of those jockeys so it didn't take into account what the state of the jockeys was so in 2019 the majority of the jockeys that raced at Suffolk Downs were represented by the jockey guild and you don't have to maintain your license after you retire right yeah and obviously a permanently disabled jockey wouldn't have a license they don't have a license Madam chair could we authorize now make a motion to authorize the guild as the required as the authorized organization but not take the second part of the motion which would authorize the 65,000 I think it sounds like we're prepared to just make the first part of that motion which is authorizing the guild as the as the organization Commissioner O'Brien questions I'm not hearing a second so I'm a little hesitant with that but some of what we are talking about does speak to the determination of representing the majority who are licensed in a regular ride so I would rather do this all in one fell swoop with more clear definitions myself rather than bifurcated it just sounding to me that council Coleman was looking for us to determine they in fact were the organization before their work can be completed yeah if I may there seems to be a bit of a chicken and egg here as if we understand that you need the determination but we're asking you for a criteria relative to the active people and I seem to be hearing Miss Coleman tell me if I'm wrong that you would not want to do that until you are the one designated organization is that the first statement in response to Commissioner O'Brien I think there was what I was trying to get was clarification as Dr. Lightbound had alluded currently there are zero licensed jockeys in Massachusetts to date there are not any licensed jockeys in Massachusetts she is referring to the 2019 list which is what I was relying on as well yes we would did represent the majority at that time but because there was zero license and this was responding to Commissioner O'Brien in her question with regards to the definition of active that is what I cannot provide the definition of active even if we put the qualifications it still won't answer the question to the definition of the active as far as the legislation and I would refer to your counsel Grossman as to maybe that needs to be addressed well separately from the qualifications I'm more than willing to come up with qualifications and we have several variations that we're willing to do so let's let's think about this commissioners what I'm hearing is that because of the shutdown of the track and perhaps because of other intervening factors there are no Massachusetts active license jockeys right now in this year there was a list in 2019 of licensed jockeys they do not include disabled or retired because they don't have to maintain a license but yet the statute definitely contemplated giving benefits to those who are disabled or retired so we still have that $65,000 coming in seems to me terms of figuring out the organization is only one organization it's like this and I'm not hearing that there's even another national organization or one that we could turn to outside of the organization and there aren't any licensed jockeys in Massachusetts to belong to an organization so we have a threshold issue do we just decide not to use those dollars because it doesn't fit into the license component as opposed to the regular road arrived provision and authorized distribution the money to the guild and then we'd want to know if the guild is going to distribute those dollars what I'm hearing is if they're identified as the regardless of maybe councilor Coleman's interpretation if they're identified as the qualified organization she would work with us on the criteria for at least the disabled and the retired jockeys so it does look like we have a clear now that I understand that they are licensed which I don't think I understood coming into the meeting we have a threshold challenge councilor Grossman am I right is that that very narrow issue and can then council Cameron yeah I think that is an issue for sure they're not licensed but again I don't think there's a statutory mandate that everyone who gets money be presently licensed no I don't think we're saying that we're talking just about the guilt now can I ask Alex on your list they truly are none of them are licensed do we have any that had the three-year license still no grasping here sorry we could achieve a majority with a few Karen yeah I I think councilor Coleman's comments clarified things for me that their decision is really criteria our decision is active and I'm finding it a stretch to consider those who aren't licensed and haven't don't ride in Massachusetts as active I clearly see the retired and the disabled yeah but even there's even one more threshold I think you're right because on that criteria kind of okay with another meeting I think the threshold problem for us is how do we choose the guilt to receive the $65,000 because we don't have any licensed jockeys to determine that they are the majority representative because they still represent the disabled and the retired they're the same organization that presents any time or as councilor Coleman said well but that's for the person that's not as that's the trouble it's the licensed language is on the identification of the guilt it's troubling right there is a fair interpretation and Todd tell me if I'm based in this interpretation that the money is to be distributed annually to the organization that we determine that represents the majority of jockeys who are licensed by the commissions in regularly right is there doesn't seem to be a prohibition for us to take the snapshot of 2019 and use that and say this continues to be the organization that represents the majority of people that were on that list and you may run into a problem when the retired and disabled pass on and maybe you don't have that majority anymore but you could determine as a commission we as a commission could determine whether or not it's consistent with the statute now to your point the active becomes the true bright line would be saying there are no active only retired and disabled can get money at this point because it doesn't exist I think you quite comfortable with that snapshot of using Alex's list in 2019 for the licensed so that it shows that the guilt has been the player is the only player but the one that represents their interest and it's the vehicle to getting to the disabled so we have a reason to change the determination that they are the organization again there are issues with distribution going forward in terms of this and I would have to be a legislative change on the road or a new track or something because I think those folks who did race in Massachusetts who became injured or retired you know had an expectation of getting coverage do you see the threshold issue now Commissioner Cameron it's just about that I understand but I am very comfortable with Commissioner O'Brien's snapshot yeah I am too Commissioner Zuniga yeah same here so then that takes care of Commissioner Cameron's if we had that motion that was actually had never been seconded but that's identifying the guilt as the appropriate depository for the 65,000 I don't think we disperse that until we know the criteria but I think we're hearing that the active might be trickier than the other two are you comfortable with us asking them to come back with consultation with Dr. Leibman come back with the criteria and maybe make a do we want to say two weeks do we want to say four weeks I am and at that point we can decide if for all intents and purposes the money would go to a small number of people those that are only active permanently disabled and retired however you know even if there's a new number of retired people or whether it applies more broadly but I'm comfortable with what you suggest Commissioner Cameron what do you think I'm trying to understand this now so we will make the motion as is with the 65,000 or no what do you suggest I like what you started with okay so we'll start the motion I see so you were just waiting for that clarification on how to get to that first part of the motion we'll hold off on the dollar amount because we're still unclear as to active versus retired versus disabled and I think that solves Councillor Coleman's problem are we in fact the right entity to receive it and then she'll go forward on the criteria with Dr. Leibman I think that's excellent and I think it's completely reasonable given all the circumstances for us to rely on that 2019 snapshot with respect to identifying the entity that represents their interests Madam Chair I'm happy to make that motion Excellent thanks and we don't usually have a motion sort of hanging out there but if you could reiterate it This one was a little more complicated I move that the commission that the Jockeys Guild meets the requirements in Section 5 H4 of Chapter 128A is discussed here today Second then Any further questions Commissioner O'Brien Nope Okay I'm all set too Commissioner Cameron Commissioner O'Brien Aye Commissioner Zuniga Yes Great In terms of Dr. Leibman completing the next steps Does four weeks seem reasonable and if it could be resolved in the next two weeks even better but I think could be at least asked for no later than four weeks Dr. Leibman Yes Mindy Do you think does that sound reasonable to you as well Absolutely Good I think we're pretty close on Good and as an entity we could be nimble too in between so thank you it's really important to meet expectations if this is how it's going to if we're able to distribute those dollars And thank you again I was not trying to talk you out I just wanted clarification I appreciate the opportunity to be the organization I was confused and wanted to make sure I know that I couldn't provide you that clarification that Commissioner O'Brien was asking No you weren't confused at all You really helped us along Thank you so much Thank you for having me Thank you Great Dr. Leibman are you all set then I am thank you very much Okay So my computer has I'm going to sleep just one second There So I'm not sure where we are in terms of our timeline because I happen to have the other agenda up but are we comfortable now going forward with we do have I know Director Ortiz waiting so I'd like to go forward with the responsible gaming piece now are folks comfortable Yes Right and I see Teresa joining us so moving on then to Director Vandalinden please and responsible gaming and problem gambling ones thank you so much Good afternoon Madam Chair and commissioners So National Problem Gambling Awareness Month is just around the corner it starts next Monday March 1st and each year the gaming commission in its own particular way finds a way to honor this month honor its meaning in different ways and this month or next month is going to be no exception I will ask Teresa who is really spearheading this effort to describe what the gaming commission is leading and the partnerships that we've developed along the way to recognize National Problem Gambling Awareness Month following Teresa's presentation we have Victor Ortiz Director of Problem Gambling Services for the Department of Public Health Victor is going to talk to us about the DPH's work and specifically focusing on a transition and work they're doing to advance the home gambling helpline So with that Teresa I'm going to just turn it right over to you and then following that Victor you can pick that up Thank you Thanks Mark Good morning commissioners I prepared a memo this morning would you all like me to share my screen or would you prefer I just speak through it Would you like the memo or do you want the screen commissioners either way it's fine for me because I have it open but I'd love to see them There we go We love seeing each other but it's helpful to have the memo thank you so much Is that okay? And of course we've had the benefit of seeing it too so thank you Teresa You're very welcome and thank you Director Vanderlinden for the introduction to Problem Gambling Awareness Month I'd also like to add that this is actually an anniversary year for us so 2021 marks the fifth year in which the Game Commission is recognizing and participating in Problem Gambling Awareness Month and as in previous years the MDC will carry out most of our activities related to PGAM through the Game Sense Program this is you know a natural sort of transition for us given that Game Sense is the resource dedicated to ensuring that gambling remains on and safe for all casino guests and staff members alike so specific initiatives this year include weekly digitized educational quizzes and raffles which are designed for casino staffing guests casino staff outreach via Game Sense branded items and brochures in casino digital signage overhead announcements at Plain Ridge Park casino promotional event partnerships with MGM Springfield and Encore Boston Harbor Game Sense digital advertising campaign including retargeting and geotensing strategies so I'm going to advance down a bit and you can see I included some examples of the ads which will be going out this month so on the left is our standard ad it's one of three message categories that we'll be putting out this month you would be able to find this on Instagram on Facebook on Google or any website served after Google or Bing search engines to the right are what we call retargeting and ads so these will be served up to individuals after they visit and engage with the Game Sense website they have a more specific indirect call to action and so it sort of assumes that the user already has somewhat of an understanding of what the Game Sense program is we have we're hoping to launch an enhanced training on Asian and Pacific Islander community gambling risk factors and resources for Encore Boston Harbor staff the mass counseling gaming and health has so they're doing a lot of work putting together those trainings launch of a live chat feature on GameSenseMA.com this is something that we're really excited about particularly since Encore Boston Harbor Game Sense is back to being 24-7 this will allow people the opportunity to connect with the Game Sense Advisor at any time participation in the Cambridge Health Alliance gambling disorder screening day which we have done for the past couple of years and I'm also happy to announce the March 2021 Problem Gambling Awareness Month proclamation which was issued by Governor Baker, Lieutenant Governor Polito and Secretary Galvin which I included a copy at the end of this memo for you all to see I do have the hard copy of that as well I will certainly bring that into the office to display once we are back in the office and I would just like to thank Encore Boston Harbor I'm Jim Springfield and Plainer to Park Casino for their contributions to Problem Gambling Awareness Month which helps to underscore the importance of collaboration in mitigating gambling related harms within the Commonwealth and as always a special thanks to the GameSense advisors for their passionate enthusiasm in bringing these activities to the forefront and so to close out the month on March 31st we plan to release preliminary belts from five waves of the Massachusetts Gaming Impact cohort study better known as MAGIC the study is led by a team of UMass Amherst School of Public Health and Health Science researchers MAGIC is the first major longitudinal cohort study of gambling behavior in the U.S. it provides information on how problem gambling develops, progresses and remits. Finding from the study can be used to inform the development of programs and services and finally increased attention awareness of gambling related harms during PM presents an ideal time to highlight an important initiative led by our partner at the Department of Public Health so Mark introduced Victor Ortiz who's the Director of Problem Gambling Services and he'll present information about the new statewide problem gambling helpline. Now before I pass it over to him I also want to acknowledge Rachel Cain and Lorena Lama who are on this call. They have been excellent partners to us and really instrumental in launching this new helpline so I thank both of them for their work. So at this point before I turn it over to Director Ortiz I'm wondering if there are any questions or comments about some of the activities we have lined up for the month. Commissioner? Just a comment Madam Chair I love the proclamation I think you know kind of awareness and from the highest levels of state government really add something to this and a new connect at any time with a game sense advisors a terrific feature as well so really good work keeping it fresh every year. Other comments for Teresa? No Teresa thank you very holistic and I know that you'll be working with our communications team to keep this very much in the news throughout the month of March so thank you very exciting. If I could just chime in please Teresa has been great and it is a challenge to keep it fresh every year and whether it's problem gambling awareness month or responsible gaming education week Teresa takes it seriously and rolls this out so thank you Teresa for your work on this and I know Teresa you're thanking the licensees for their ongoing partnership too takes a village right thank you any other comments or questions for Teresa? So I stopped sharing my screen so director Ortiz if you want to hit the green share button at the bottom you will be able to do your deck that way. And Victor you're on you just so you know but first I want to thank director Ortiz for his patience today we've run a little bit long and he's coming from a very busy agency so we appreciate your patience and today's appearance thank you so much. Let me see if I can know how to work this technology and share my screen just give me one moment so we're seeing your screen there we go I'm getting better at this practice makes perfect good afternoon everyone nice to be back madam chair commissioners grateful for the opportunity to present on this new new and evolving program on helpline services and I believe I'm probably the person that's standing between you and lunch so I'll try to be really brief in some sync one of the things that I want to just start with you know I now serving as the director of the office of problem gambling services department of public health now five years I can't believe that it's been that long and always like to start with framing of who we are because I think it really sets the stage for what I'm about to share with you in regards to the helpline at the department of public health it's critical to us that our vision and our mission is grounded in the belief that everyone deserves the the right to optimal health and well-being but we understand that although we desire that not everyone's journey to reach the highest level of health is the same for everyone it's in order to achieve our mission and our vision there are three pillars that you see in these blocks here that are critical to our work that really informs our work and we start with data it is data that is like the compass and guides us to make decisions and how we think critically about how to disperse resources how do we think about you know critically think about responses to public health issues the second block is the social determinants of health and these are the conditions where people where they live, where they grow, where they worship and it's where we see the greatest levels of inequities that exist for individuals research estimates that about 95% of individual health outcomes is rooted in these social determinants of health and so it's important for us and critically about our approaches and that in those social determinants and lastly is the disparities and I believe that we have a moral and ethical obligation to eradicate health disparities it's this house we refer to this framing as the DPH house and I like to always say publicly that the office of problem gambling services is a room in this house and it's this is really the foundation that we build programs and services for problem gambling from this house and that same spirit familiarized to us all when we think about data we understand critically that people with substance use disorders and mental health disorders are disproportionately impacted by gambling we also understand that people of color are also disproportionately impacted by by problem gambling and also additionally we understand that about over close to 97% of people who have a gambling disorder have a pre-existing mental health and substance use disorder the evidence is clear and the data has been consistent on these facts and Massachusetts as far as background we previously funded two separate helplines one helpline for substance abuse and one for problem gambling and after a series of looking at data looking at evidence we decided to explore this deeper and so based on evidence based on data and also in evaluation that we conducted in 2019 where we added gambling questions to the substance abuse helpline and vice versa added substance abuse questions to the problem gambling helpline made some determinations that really set a new set of goals for us and that is that we wanted to integrate these services in order to improve alignment, efficiency color's experience and effectiveness so it is in that same spirit with those goals in mind after doing a rigorous sort of review of the evidence the data that we set forward on this process to integrate the helplines and again the key here was to think about enhancing and optimizing the color experience maximize the cost effectiveness and expand our reach two things that I want to mention on these sort of goals one we determined that it was costing us for the problem gambling helpline about $400 per call previously on average where the substance abuse helpline was costing us about $100 per call so one then can then make assume that with the integration there will be significant cost savings that we can deploy to other areas and expand the services in regards to expanding reach you'll see here that one of the things we were getting and receiving on the problem gambling helpline somewhere around around somewhere about $500 per year on average with that being said the outcome of these integration and the advantages results in the following one currently as we speak the official helpline that we launched on July 1st that's being now managed by human resources in action is now providing a 24-7 bilingual service fully bilingual in Spanish most times when we think about language services it's a third party that sort of plays a role and you have to activate that here we have it fully bilingual English and Spanish in a looking at ways to add Asian language and other languages as part of that as a way to depend less on the on the service on the language service of format one of the critical things about that I'm really excited about is that we now will be able in Massachusetts July 1st we will be screening between 15 to 20,000 individuals and all the substance abuse helpline we will be screening them for problem gambling hence our expanded reach as we know that this is highly comod issues and that provides phenomenal opportunity to tap into individuals that are struggling with substance abuse and to screen them for problem gambling additionally one of the things that's another benefit here is that in Massachusetts there are 92 outpatient treatment sites who are referral ready who are active and able to take referrals for individuals who are struggling with gambling disorders and so the old practice would be if somebody with call you would you know given the information given the number you'll hang up with that person and that person would have to then call that place and you know and so if we think about it from a caller experience it takes a lot of courage for people to call a helpline to ask for help and probably at their greatest moment of stress in this new format we will be able not only to receive that call but transfer them directly to a treatment program instantaneously without having them to sort of muster up the call again the other thing is that we because of the dynamic of gambling as it is with substance abuse we also would have not only helpline specialists will answer the calls but on every shift there is a helpline clinician who's a licensed clinician who would always be on shift in the case that there are some matters that need clinical intervention one of the things that we know about gambling is that there's a high rate of suicidal ideation and so having that extra component of a clinical specialist on site is critical to make sure that people get the help and the care that they deserve and the last thing I want to share that is that we have a robust quality assurance every phone call that comes in so when people call in you call the 1-800 number you can press one for substance abuse to for gambling and it would triage based on what you press to that specialist we record all the calls all the calls are recorded this was never this was not part of the practice in the past and this is very significant as an advancement for us because it allows us to be able to not only monitor the calls but to utilize that for quality assurance to ensure that folks are trained, folks are triaging, screening making the proper referrals proper engagements, things of that nature this these points that I highlighted with you puts us in Massachusetts on a path to have the best problem of gambling helpline in the country no helpline no problem gambling helpline current practice I should say of helpline service in this country is that either they're segregated independently or if they are part of other health issues they're just a part of it's just one grouping but the fact that we are now moved into screening substance abuse callers for gambling really takes it to another level that doesn't exist in this country and I believe that to be the case because we've done an environmental scan so this puts us on a path to have the most robust and best gambling helpline service in this country this was a significant heavy lift and we're proud of the outcome it really required a lot of individuals to contribute to the support to get us to this point we are actively engaged in a robust transitional plan that started with both working with the mass gaming commission but also with the lottery transitioning the numbers that exist on a variety of different points of context whether they're websites, lottery tickets and kiosks making those transitions and so we want to say that we're like 80% there there is still quite a bit to go in some areas because of printed materials but we have been working very diligently with Teresa who's been phenomenal and thank you Teresa for all your support I know working with Rachel and Lorena and you guys have been doing a phenomenal job addressing that and making that happen as well as our contracts and partners at the lottery the other piece that I also want to extend that thanks to Teresa is that one of the things that we notice and these are some of the things where the website the magic happens right and one of the things that was brought to my attention is that we want to make sure that our helpline specialist understand, know and are familiar with the resources that are provided through our responsible gaming efforts and so Teresa led an effort to ensure that Game Sense advisors and there was a training with our helpline specialist to ensure that they are aware of those resources including things like voluntary self exclusion and things of that nature and we're committed to those trainings being ongoing because it takes more than just one training for people to get it and we'll be monitoring that through our quality assurance so it's not picking it up where it's like they're missing it in regards to voluntary self exclusion or they're not making the right referrals is that an individual issue with professional development or do we need to have a refresher or whatever the case that is something that we're obviously committed to the other two phases provided that we have a website that's dedicated to the helpline we developed a new logo as you can see here on the slide a data dashboard is also something that we're developing as well that gives us data on the demographics and information that we're collecting and lastly on our third phase is about promotion and Teresa covered some of this and that is that as part of problem downing awareness month in partnership with the mass gaming commission and the lottery would be our central activity our key activities to promote the new helpline we're excited about this as I mentioned as I mentioned this puts us on a path to have the most robust and best helpline in this country and we know that it is not just one person or two individuals or one entity it takes us all collectively and so I'm really grateful for the opportunity to present and share that with you this afternoon and I'm also grateful for all the work that has led to this point so thank you. Thank you Victor and there you are Teresa if we take down the screen it's easier to predict there now we've had we've heard both presentations commissioners comments questions commissioner Cameron yeah director Ortiz very nice to see you thanks for coming in to present to us this does sound exciting what I see I think is a really good point is whether it be the website or the hotline both have the name problem gaming so the user experience is seamless with this new transition is that correct yes ma'am yeah excellent so folks are used to calling maybe they won't have a different name that they're not accustomed to they'll they'll get to the right folks that they're very accustomed to using the problem gaming with the hotline correct yes yeah thank you thanks for that yeah thank you if I may thank you Victor for the presentation if I may now that there's one there will be one one line one one agency I guess that that gets all these calls just from a user perspective can you understand how does anybody get let's say to the appropriate help and how specifically also how are people screen you see it's like a recording that says press one if your problem is you want to talk about problem gambling or press two if you want to talk about substance abuse how is that first user experience now that there's different many many more people calling for many more reasons so the way that it operates is that the folks that are the helpline specialists are the same group of individuals they're taking both gambling calls and they're taking both substance abuse calls they're the same group of individuals they're cross trained for both subjects it's just that when it comes in there's an alert that the call is for gambling so that the person who is all knows I have somebody for gambling who's coming in for the call on the beginning stages if you're the caller it just allows you it eliminates this awkwardness where if you just call directly in where the person doesn't know what your primary issue is like that would not be optimal so the person will say press one for gambling and then the person will be alerted on the other side and then they start the process okay so it's a user it's not that the number alerts the recipient of the call to know that it's for gambling it's the user that says I want help on gambling let's say and press S2 or 3 or whatever the case may be yeah I mean there's the same number for the helpline for gambling the same number for substance abuse okay it's the same number it says that the activation for that individual is different okay now on the other side on people that and this goes to the comorbidity on people that don't press gambling perhaps they're thinking about their anxious or whatever the case may be you know and they have other issues how is that screen done I know it's the three questions screen but how is that what is that introduced or how is that administered you know now that you have somebody presumably not calling about gambling but being screened for it so there are two different ways that that happen one we do have the screen but I think beyond that it's important for people to be trained about gambling because you know and just in my clinical experience if you ask if my primary reason for calling you ask me hey do you gamble like I don't I mean I'm calling you about substance abuse while you're asking about gambling right and so but we are we have created a really robust training on gambling for helpline specialist as part of their professional development that allows to build their capacity specific to gambling so for example so when you're in conversations you can pick something up and say wait a minute you at the casino and you were drinking and so if you have a drinking problem and you at the casino and it's so it has a way of teasing out some of that element and the hope is to optimize it that that we're not segregated these services that these are one individuals and a lot of these issues run together so that in the case that you didn't screen you didn't screen positive gambling but we see it we might say you know if you at the casino you might want to think about you know these things you know gamesense advice whatever that those resources can be to support that person or even talk more about that person about their gambling yeah you touched on that my last question and that was the referral and the you know and the warm handoff which is from what I understand I really sort of promising and an optimal down the road you know from somebody getting a help line how what else can you expand a little bit on those referrals specifically to the voluntary self-exclusion program that we know is tremendously helpful in the casino for when it comes to problem gambling in casino venues yeah I would say that Mark and I are working towards finding out a path to make that happen not just in that experience but this is part of an ecosystem of service so if you think about it the help line is just one piece and we have our outpatient services I believe the voluntary self-exclusion is an important tool in the toolbox and so I think the warm handoff opportunities there we're working through those logistics like how do you how do we make that happen and then I'm also I think as a thing was last week Mark and I were just having some preliminary conversations which we're having for quite some time about how to include that within the treatment aspect as well ultimately what we want to do is best for people it's not helpful at least in my opinion in 30 years of clinical practice of segregating services for people so in other words if you're one person and you have to refer people to five different places it's just not optimal you know people are struggling if we can be able and sort of one stop shop meet their needs whether it's voluntary self-exclusion versus you know referral or whatever this is why we have a clinical person on site who also is trained around gambling and some of these services so I would just say that there's still a lot of runway here but I think the building blocks are there for us to enhance what we already have by bringing in some of these other additional resources like voluntary self-exclusion thank you thank you for that it's really helpful other questions or comments Commissioner O'Brien are you all set or do you I'm all set just thank you and Director Ortiz for their time and for laying that out for us today I'm really pleased with the despite all the challenges of a pandemic which has really been this has really taken over the Department of Public Health and commands its attention appropriately and in so many of its resources that the level of collaboration between our