Good morning. This is a convening of Massachusetts Game Commission, and we do not need to hold a real call because we are here in person at 1-1 Bello Street. It is Wednesday, January 31st, just a few minutes beyond our 9 a.m. start, and today is a special meeting that involves interviews with candidates of the IED director position. It is public meeting number 497, and before we get started, with our first candidate, I do want to note to my fellow commissioners that I did file a 23B3 disclosure. Today we have two candidates. One is an internal candidate. I filed the disclosure while I only know candidate Caitlin Mudd hand professionally, because that candidate must, that position must report to the chair by statute. I felt that I would take the extra precaution really out of an abundance of caution to file that disclosure with my appointing authority. Okay. Does anybody else have anything before we get started? Okay. Good. We're back on time. Today we'll get started with the review of the two candidates for the investigation enforcement bureau selection process. I want to thank the two commissioners who are part of that screening committee. That would be Commissioner Hill. Thank you very much. And then in your capacity as chairwoman, Commissioner Skinner, thank you for the screening process. And then, of course, that committee was rounded out with the addition of Chief David Muldrew, our chief people and diversity officer. Before we get started with the candidate, I think that you're just going to remind us of the process, Commissioner Skinner. Thank you, chair. I'll be brief, just brief enough to remind folks who are watching from the public that this commission convened the IEB director screening committee. And over the course of the past month, really, we started January 2nd. That committee has been hard at work interviewing candidates for the IEB director role. We said from the beginning that we did not have a set predetermined number of candidates that would result from that process. But we unanimously selected. Before we do that, I do want to take just another opportunity to thank my fellow committee members. Commissioner Hill and Chief Muldrew, chief people and diversity officer who is not here, but great work by all. Thank you. Chair, before we call candidates in, I had a process question. I don't know if this is the right time. Or we're going to have a discussion about that before we go. I think that we have, next on the agenda, is to interview our two candidates. But for me, this is also a question. So I just want to clarify when in this process reference checks and background checks are being conducted. So it's my understanding on the job description that you do make clear that the offers will be subject to a background check in terms of references. Commissioner Skinner. No, I think that's right. Obviously there was not a reference check conducted by the screening committee. So it's my understanding just as is done with all other employees. Once a job offer is made, it's at that point that the screening happens in terms of the background. So just so I can be clear, I normally would be at this stage having references done. So I may be reserving that request as we go through today, depending on how these interviews proceed. Oh, I see. Reference checks. Correct. Yeah. This committee did not conduct references. Okay. So we'll get started. We're very close to our timeframe. We'll get started then with the interview of candidate Caitlin Monahan. And thank you to our team for assisting. Say hi to everybody. So Ms. Monahan, Caitlin to us want to make sure the green light was on. I didn't do that at the beginning of the meeting. So here's to be on. Okay. Excellent. First off, welcome. Thank you. And it's nice to see you in person and not behind a screen. It is nice to see my fellow commissioners in person. And we are looking forward to a conversation today. First off, thank you for applying for this important position and congratulations to being one of the two finalists. We know it's difficult to have to do this process in public. Pretty much doesn't happen this way. So thank you again for being willing to be part of this public process. I'm going to turn to Commissioner Skinner who served as chairwoman of the screening committee for the first question. This is, this is, um, of course, you know, we had the opportunity commissioner Hill and I to talk to you extensively during your interview before the screening committee. I'll just ask my first question there, which is why are you interested in this position, Caitlin? You're currently deputy general counsel for the mass gaming commission. Why the shift? Absolutely. So three years ago I came to the commission to return to public service after having spent about a decade in a law firm. And I am incredibly proud of what we have accomplished in the time in that time here, not the least of which, of course, is bringing sports play during to life here in the Commonwealth. And one of the things that I learned about myself while I was at the law firm is that I really enjoy leading teams and managing. I love working with a group to, you know, complete a project with great results. And so this opportunity to lead the IEB at an agency that I care a lot about is a really compelling opportunity and one that I'm very excited to be applying for. Commissioner Hill. Thank you, Madam Chair. So let's talk about the management experience that you have with the law firm a little bit. Yes. Because in the resume it doesn't speak to it a lot. Okay. So this would be your opportunity to talk to us about how many people you have managed and actually as a follow up to that question, you know, your management style. Absolutely. So at the law firm, I, the last position I had at the law firm was out of council, and that is the management position, the associate level management position at the firm. And so in that role, I would manage three to four cases at a time, and that would have up to about 20 associates and staff members at a time. So I'd have three to four cases, about 20 associates and staff members underneath me. And I would be in charge of really all the day to day on goings of the case and making sure that again we were achieving great results for our clients. And that would include everything from figuring out what the strategy was for the case, signing out the work, making sure that it was done on time, making sure that it was done exceptionally well, and coordinating with the client to make sure everything was to their to their liking. And then of course I had much like the commission here, I had, you know, three to four different partners above me who were, you know, I was reporting up to and making sure that they were happy with how things were going on the cases. So I did that role for, I was in that role for about the last four years of my time at the firm.  So for those, you know, six years leading up to the last four that I was in the council role, I was managing discovery attorney. So those are the attorneys who are doing all the document review on big cases, making sure that was all getting done effectively and well. And then as I became a senior associate, I was managing associates and making sure that work was getting done well and guiding them and helping them to grow in their roles. So it was a process up to that point. And I think it's fair to say too here that at the commission, while I'm not in a managerial role as the deputy general counsel, I did take on a management type role in the promulgation, in guiding the promulgation of the sports wagering regulations. That was obviously a very big job. We had a lot of regulations to get through to get sports wagering up and running by this time last year actually, maybe even to the day. Yes, exactly to the day. And so that was a big job where we pulled our team together, we pulled outside council together, and you saw it, you know, we would we made a plan quickly what we had to do every week to get that up and done and we did it. So I was very proud of that too. Commissioner Bryan. So one of the follow questions Commissioner Hill had that I'll let you jump into in terms of this is is describing your management style. I have the same question that I throw out. So I just kind of put that in reserve, but the one I wanted to focus on more for you is your investigations experience in particular describing you described the law firm environment. You've had some time in the DA's office in turning US turns office. Describe for me in more detail the level of investigative experience that you would bring. Absolutely. So I think there's a lot. So at the law firm, I was a litigator. And so that meant that I dealt with large scale multi year multi million dollar litigations. We were usually the defense council. And as you probably know, any case like that starts with an allegation against your client, you know, that you are alleged to your client is alleged to have done something wrong. And then the investigation begins, right. And so what you have to do then it's your job to figure out what happened. And so I have extensive experience with discovery. So that means, you know, one of the things we would do is figure out what documents do we need to collect in review. And that could be in the hundreds of thousands to millions of pages of documents. So you'd collect it, figure out a plan for going through it, making your chronologies, figuring out what happened. Large, large scale document review with a lot of people working on it. That's one piece. Then you have depositions, which are very akin to the interviews we have here in the investigation and the IEB. So we would have certain cases with dozens of depositions across the country. And I'd have to make sure that we were, you know, the depositions were consistent. We were getting the right information that we needed from the right people that we were deposing the right people and that we were getting that all. And in a civil litigation, that discovery process is the bulk of the case. It's the years and years and years of the case. So really in my 10 years at the firm, probably 80 to 90% of my time was sort of in that discovery phase. And so I think that experience with large scale civil litigation discovery is directly applicable to the investigatory work that we do here in the IEB. And in the six or so weeks that you've been in the acting position, can you speak to the transferability of that law firm work to this? Yeah, absolutely. I think not specifically with regard to investigations at this point, although that has started. So we've been starting to see, again, without naming any names or anything like that, we're consistently getting reports of new developments, potential disciplinary actions and other jurisdictions. And so you have to figure out how are you going to deal with that, either in the context of suitability or in the context of ongoing suitability or just non-compliance. And so making sure that we understand what the issue is, again, having those initial calls with the operators of the licensees to make sure you understand what they're reporting to you. And then making sure that the appropriate team has that information to incorporate it into, you know, either final suitability or just ongoing suitability. And then keeping up on that to make sure it's all everything is getting accounted for. That's how I've seen it so far, and I would anticipate if I were to continue in this role, getting more involved with making sure, you know, taking a look at, you know, what are we asking? What are we finding here? And sort of getting more into the weeds on that. Thanks. I didn't complete your question before. Madam Chair, would you mind if she was done with that? Please. It's on my list, too. So here we go. Thank you. So management styles. Yes. So there are, I think, three things that are really important to me as a manager for my guiding principles as a manager. One is communication. I think when you're leading a large team and you have a lot of different tasks, it's critically important that everybody knows what's going on. And so that involves frequent communications with the staff to make sure things are going according to plan, going smoothly. And most importantly, perhaps, if there are any concerns or issues that those are identified quickly and resolved. Because, you know, I have had experiences in other situations, other positions where, you know, you're potentially not getting that quick feedback, or, you know, it's kind of getting pushed under the rug a little bit, and you're not learning that something is not going right, right? And if you don't tell someone that something is not going right, it is not going to magically start going right. So, again, having those constant conversations, providing feedback and constructive criticism so that things can keep going is important. And, of course, here with the commission, communication to the commission. You know, I think one of my goals would be no surprises, right? I don't want anything to happen that's serious or important or hits the press without the commission knowing about it. So, again, knowing what needs to go up is important, too. The second thing relates to relationships, and I think, you know, it's really important to relationships and culture. So it's really important to have a strong culture in your agency or in your division. And I think the previous IEB directors have absolutely created and fostered that. It's a great team. And so what I think that means is, again, you know, leading with kindness. You know, you can be straightforward and you can be honest, but kindness. And that's really important to fostering a team that wants to come to work every day and work together. So that's not something that just happens on its own. It has been created by the previous directors, and that needs to be maintained. And the other thing I am blanking on, but I think for now, you know, again, communication and sort of culture are very important. Madam Chair, I have a follow-up question. Sure. So thank you for the first two. Maybe the third one is this. I would like to know, are you a delegator? Are you somebody who's going to be looking over someone's shoulder day in and day out? How are you going to treat the employees under you to make sure that the work gets done? Yes. But in a way, that's comfortable as you have said. Absolutely. And you have led me back to the thought that I forgot. And that is trusting your staff and delegating is critical for a manager, especially for this role where there are so many staff and so many different divisions and tasks under, you know, in the IAB. So, yeah, absolutely. You have to trust your staff. And the way you get there is to, you know, build them up into the place where you can trust what they do and you don't have to check all their work. And obviously, you know, the IAB is running really smoothly right now. And it's great. So I've in this role, even in the last month, you know, going to the chiefs, getting their advice. And then ultimately, the decision does lie with me, right? The buck has to stop with the director, but knowing who you can go to to get that information and trust their work. So, yeah, that and of course delegation. You couldn't know everything about everything as the director. It's impossible. So you have to be able to sort of triage what's most important, you know, long-term and short-term, get that information to the level you need it, but not sort of be in the weeds, you know, checking every document, checking every, every decision that you do have to trust the staff. And then ultimately, again, I make the final decision and I'm responsible for those decisions. And if something doesn't go quite right, that's that's all me. But, you know, it's a team effort truly. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Thank you. Well, so we're all stealing each other's questions today. So I know this is probably your first public interview and it's mine too. So we can settle in together, right? Looking at 23K and any delegations under 23N, what do you think the role of the IEB director is? You've talked a lot about management and management of the team. But what do you think vis-a-vis the commission that role is? That's my first question. It's a two-parter and I can repeat it at any time. What do you want to get done in your first year as IEB director? That's great, both great questions. So with regard to the first question, you know, 23K and 23N are a little bit different. But I think they both envision roles for the Bureau, of course. You know, it's a little bit more explicit in 23K than 23N. But I think 23N, in a lot of ways, built on 23K. You know, it knew the commission that it was assigning sports wagering to and sort of the divisions within that agency. And so I feel like to the extent that... We're still developing that, I think. You know, it's new. It's only been a year. And so we're figuring out what is going to be the role of the IEB with regard to, you know, non-compliance events. How is that going to work? And I think we're figuring it out together. We're very flexible. You know, I think the commission will decide as we go what it wants to delegate, if anything, to the IEB. But we do stand ready to take on those tasks as necessary or as wanted. And I think there are a lot of similarities between the work of under 23K and 23N. So again, we stand ready to the extent the commission wants us to do that. The second question, oh, goals for the next few years. So I think one of the things that I was really struck by when I sort of came into this role was realizing that because of the overlays between 23K and 23N and the different timelines for suitability, licensing, all of these things, and renewals, of course, right? The work of the IEB looks a little bit like this right now, right? Because 23K and 23N don't necessarily coordinate with each other for the five-year timelines or the three-year timelines for renewals. And so one of the things that's really important that we look at is what does the next year, two years look like for the investigatory work and the licensing work for all those licenses and renewals? And is there a way that we can kind of smooth it out so the work is a little bit more level instead of going up and down? That's one thing. But along with that, sort of tied to that, is the staffing needs of the IEB. Again, now we have a whole new industry at a minimum investigating licensing, right? And then we may end up with some more work related to some of the noncompliance or enforcement matters. And so what do we need once we get through this, you know, initial hump of durable suitability, right? For all the CAT-1s and CAT-3s for tutoring licenses? What is our staffing needs? And that's something we need to start thinking about right now because that needs to be in the 2025 budget. So I've actually already started working with the team on what do the needs look like going forward? Should we be proposing for 2025? And how do we start onboarding people so that they can get up to speed by the time we need them in those roles? So that's sort of like really on the ground, hard tax things that need to happen in the next year. I think another thing, actually, I have to attribute this to Commissioner Hill. This came up in my first interview. Is a more proactive role for the IEB? I think to date, at least in the last year, my experience is that we have reacted to events, right? We've gotten new licensees, and we have had to investigate and do that. So we've reacted, and that's exactly appropriate in what we should be doing. But I think there is a real opportunity to sort of start looking forward in identifying issues that may arise or things that we should be monitoring in a different way or different information we should be bringing to the commission and being just a little bit more proactive. And again, I've even had a conversation, yes, I won't name names, but I had a conversation with one of the chiefs yesterday about some ideas for staffing going forward for sort of monitoring in a more proactive way. So you're not waiting for disclosures to come in, but you're maybe looking, you have someone in a role who's sort of monitoring SEC filings and things like that. So, yeah, I think those are two of the main things going forward. I yield. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you for the answers that you've given so far, Caitlin. So, building on Commissioner Maynard's question, can you elaborate on your answer around the 23K and 23N was sort of the distinction around perhaps the authority that 23K gives IEB versus the authority it gives IEB in 23N? Could you just elaborate on your understanding of the governance structure of this commission and how that governance structure will inform how you do your work on a daily basis? Absolutely. So, you know, the governance structure, my understanding of the governance structure per statute, is that the chair of the IEB doesn't report to the executive director, all the other directors report to the ED, but the chair reports to the chair, or the, sorry, the director reports to the chair. And so, you know, that's it. You report up to the chair. And then the commission is, of course, sort of at the top of everything. So, the five commissioners in their roles, commissioners make those final decisions about really everything that goes to the commission. So, that is, I think, you know, how 23K is set out and 23N would follow. So, one of the issues that we have to carefully balance, in fact, we'll be addressing this tomorrow is the idea that we serve as a regulatory body and then we also serve as an adjudicatory body. You were very helpful in your position as deputy general counsel, advising me on how to make sure I have proper guardrails about what I can inquire about in terms of facts, what I can inquire about in terms of what may be anticipated, because if I go too far, I could be putting myself in a position where I might have to recuse myself should there's be a potential for adjudicatory bias. I'm going to ask in my role as chair how you would deal with a tough scenario. You indicated to the commission that you feel that your job will be to make sure there are no surprises to this commission. If the chair were to say that further disclosure of certain facts to the commission could compromise all five of our ability to be neutral in a matter, how, and you felt differently, how would you handle that complex issue, given that you've just said no surprises? Yeah, and again, this is all case by case and I am very aware of... I'm sorry, it's all... Sorry, it's all case by case, I think. On that, just this fact-based, the idea that you say, I feel need to tell the commission these facts and the chair who you report to says, I think we have to be careful. It's really hard to answer that question sort of with... It's very, very hard to answer that question without specific facts, because again, I'm trying to answer your question, but it's very, very factual. And so I think, obviously, the chair has a lot of discretion to direct the director of the IEB to do or not do certain things, but I do believe, ultimately, that if it was something that I truly believed was very, very important to go to the commission and we had checked with the general counsel to make sure that there weren't any legal concerns about that, I think there may be things that do have to go to the full commission. But again, we'd want to have a really respectful conversation and do it the right way and make sure it was all legal, but I do think the commission is the ultimate body overseeing the whole agency in the IEB. So it's a difficult question and hard to answer without specific facts. Okay. Besides your work in discovery and the large law firm and the description you gave for that process is something I think most of us here are very familiar with. So we understand that besides that work in discovery, you did about 10 years at the large law firm. How else would your work here at IEB be informed by the work that you did during those 10 years? Sure. So we've already talked about management and discovery. I just think team relations and client relations is really important. So not everyone is always going to agree on a strategy or a path forward. And learning how to, one of the things I learned at the firm was how to really listen. You know, even if at first, the first time you hear an idea from someone, you really think that can't be right. Really taking a step back and saying, let me listen. These are smart people who know their jobs. And let me make sure I really understand what they're arguing because there are plenty of times at the firm where my first reaction was, I don't think that's right. And then you kind of come around. It's like, oh, thinking about that more, looking at from this angle. Okay, I can see that. So I guess one of the things I learned was to not get rooted in my first initial reaction, but to really listen. And again, rely on the staff and the expertise. And again, you do have to ultimately make that final decision. And it may have been what you thought it was first, but making sure you're listening. So that's something I really learned was listening. And then additionally, you know, when reporting to a lot of different people who may not always agree. And so again, that can be challenging. And what you just have to do is do your best to provide the information you have, the guidance you have, and give your best idea. And then the decisions from the council or from the partner are going to be what they are. And you go with it. And that's it. And so not getting too stuck in, you know, whether you agree necessarily with what the partner or the commissioners think. So yeah, I think those are some of the things I learned at the forum. Commissioner Skinner. Caitlin, my question is, how do you, what is your approach to resolving conflicts? And the chair and her questioning alluded to one such potential conflict, what would be your approach? Just, I mean, I don't want you to limit your answer to that context. But what would be your approach to resolving? Yeah, I think my general approach to resolving conflicts is, again, communication. You know, getting the people in the room, having the conversation, what is the issue here? What are the different positions? And what can we do to get through this in ideally an amicable way? And again, you know, have experienced that at the firm where you have two partners on the same case who have a different idea for the strategy going forward and working with them to try to figure out, okay, how are we going to do this, even if we all disagree? And just keeping it, keeping it friendly. I mean, I will tell you on the legal team, we do not always agree. And that's great because there's an airing of different opinions. And then at the end of the day, Todd makes a decision and we go with it. But I like that kind of discussion. I think if everyone agreed all the time or people didn't feel comfortable coming to you with differences of opinion, we wouldn't be doing our job. And so I'm very, I'm open to that and happy with it. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I know the answers to these questions and I think everybody on this commission will know that you know the answers to this next question. But I do want to publicly ask you to talk to us about your experience in front of a public board. Absolutely. And then after that, Madam Chair, I have two more follow-up questions to that. Great. Thank you. But do you have experience dealing with a public board? Yes. So for the last three years in my role as Associate and Deputy General Counsel, it has been my job to provide information analysis and when requested guidance to the commission in a public forum. So I am pretty comfortable in that public forum and providing guidance in those public meetings to the commission. So the follow-up would have been, you know, as the IEP director, you're going to have a lot more face time if you will than you would even in your current position. And you just said you feel very comfortable with that. And then, of course, we all have to adhere to the open meeting, Madam Chair. And it's something that we've all had to come to learn to understand and live by. Yeah. I know you know what the open meeting law is. Absolutely. But would you elaborate a little bit more about your experience with it and, more importantly, how you would deal with it? Absolutely. So again, I've dealt with this for the last three years in the context of providing guidance to the chair in her role of setting the agenda and the commission with regard to what needs to be done in the open and what can be done in a closed session or in an executive session. And we are very, very cognizant of the rules related to that, both stat— well, all statutory, honestly. And the limitations of that, which we see with sports wagering, where we don't have some of the same opportunities for executive session as we do with gaming. And so it's something that we always need to be very on top of. We need to be sure that we're getting it right, that we're putting the right information in the agenda, that we're doing it appropriately. And the commission is very comfortable with doing its work in public. So that is the default. But we're here to provide guidance or I've been here to provide guidance on when it can go into a closed session. Thank you. Caitlin, thank you, Madam Chair. Excellent. Thank you, Commissioner O'Brien. Sure. So, Caitlin, kind of a double question, which is what do you think the biggest challenge is for IEB in the last couple of years just in general as IEB? And then if you were to be the director, what would be your biggest challenge in stepping into that role? Yeah, I think the biggest challenge, honestly, is what I talked about before, which is trying to find a way to smooth this work out so that we're not having really steep highs. Really high, it's not a lot of lows, but really steep highs with regard to licensing and having tons of licenses become due at the same time. And so that's a really big challenge. And I think also I would anticipate that more staff will need to be onboarded, and so the ramping up process will be important, again, bringing people in, making sure that they're up to speed, you know, part of the culture, understand how we do things here in a public agency. That's a big job going forward. And then the second question was, Mom, for you. As to you in particular, what do you think your biggest challenge would be if you were to step into the director role and find a basis? Yeah, I think that, but I think again, well, I don't want to get into the weeds and get over people's shoulders. I think, you know, I do want to learn more about the day-to-day workings of some of the different operations. I was speaking with our director of licensing yesterday and saying that, you know, were I to stay in this role, I'd want to really sit down and start learning about the licensing system and sort of the different steps for licensing and the different levels of licenses and all of that, because I think without understanding that nitty-gritty information, while not trying to micromanage it, just understand it, that's the kind of detail you do need to understand in order to sort of smooth things out and work towards that. So I would have some real work to do in understanding some of the more day-to-day work of the IEV. And then one last follow-up question in terms of the investigative work at the law firm. If you had to quantify types of investigations, you know, white collar defense, maybe in traditional crime for lack of better description, can you break that down in terms of proportion of types? What I did. Yeah, most of my work, probably 80 to 90 percent was sort of civil litigation. So we would represent, you know, a Fortune 500 company in a litigation in federal court usually. I did do, you know, maybe 10, 15, these are issue, right? 10 to 20 percent maybe of white collar type investigations. And so I did, they did work on that kind of thing where we would be meeting with the AG's office, things like that, or, you know, U.S. Attorney's offices.  So I did some work representing the BVO in one case, representing the Massage Use of the Boston Branch of the NAACP and MAMLEO in one case. So I tried to sort of keep things a little bit fresh and do some different things in my practice. And the defending the big clients, I guess I'm trying to get driven down. Oh, sorry. You're talking consumer protection.  Right, right, right. Yeah, you know, I get it. I was really all over the board. I sort of considered myself a generalist. I was in what was called our business trial group. And so we really took a lot of different things. And so I had one case that related to, you know, I think what would have been sort of equivalent to like 93A claims against an insurance company. I worked a lot for an automotive manufacturer in dealer litigation. And so they would be sued by their dealers for, you know, various alleged things. I worked for the state of Vermont in an issue in an administrative agency with regard to the nuclear power plant up there. So really sort of a diverse business practice. But I wasn't, so I wasn't in securities. I wasn't in our securities group, although I did do some of those cases. They kind of was all over the place. Okay, all right. Thank you. Mr. Maynard. Thank you, Madam Chair. So Caitlin, I think I just went on, watched a talk where they talked about leadership is getting more and more difficult because people really don't want to be led. They want to stand in the public square and shout, right? With that kind of lead up and wind up, what do you think is, this is different than management style to me, right? This is more aspirational. Sure.  It's an extremely good question. I have to say a leader that we would all know is Loretta, honestly. I didn't know Loretta before I got here. Loretta is our former director of the IEB. I found her style to be so effective, right? She was very bright and very calm and always knew the right time to bring advice and to give advice. And you could always go to her and know that you were getting good advice. It wasn't going anywhere else. You know, you were having those conversations. And so I really, I would seek to emulate someone like that who is just a steady force and is discreet and has, again, just bright and calm. I found her to be a great leader and from everything I've heard from being down in the IEB now, we know she's so well-respected as we all know. So that's what I think I would aim to do, sort of, to be in what can be a tumultuous environment to try to be the steady ship that people can go to for advice and that you ultimately make that final decision with your team's input. I have one follow-up if I may. So DEI is really important. Of course. And how, you know, in your role in the IEB, how do you promote DEI? How do we grow this ship? Absolutely. So yes, we talked about this in my first interview, too. DEI is extremely important and I know how important it is to the commission. It's something that we're constantly working on improving. And the IEB has a big role in that for the commission because my understanding is that the IEB represents about 75% of the staff of the commission. And so I think what we need to do is really think outside of the box for ways to expand our applicant pools because that's how you get there, right? That's how you start improving your numbers. So, you know, beyond, and I know, you know, Chief Muldrew and his team are working on all of this, too, and this would be a joint effort, but, you know, making sure that when you have a job posting, you're not just popping it up on the state website and indeed and sort of letting it go its merry way, right? Making sure that you're reaching out to those affinity organizations in the fields that the postings are related to to try to recruit new candidates and new folks into your pool. I think that's something that needs to be done actively and I think that can actually be done by not just HR, but by all the members of the staff, you know, reach out to those organizations, reach out to your friends, reach out to the people and try to recruit in. And I will say we did do that in my own department in my time there when we were seeking to recruit new associates. You know, I personally sort of reached out to some individuals who I know who are related to other affinity organizations, tried to get the word out there through listservs and, you know, took that proactive role. So I think that's something that's important and I'll keep my eye on. I actually had a conversation with one of the Chiefs about that for some postings we have the other day and I know it's important. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, may I ask a follow-up? Sure. Commissioner Mayer's question. In your, Commissioner Mayer just stated that diversity, equity and inclusion is extremely important to this commission, but not just within our four walls. In your role as IEB director, you may have the ability to impact individuals of color in your decision-making. How do you intend to mitigate any inadvertent negative impacts for people of color? I think that's really important and I think, you know, keeping that in mind and keeping in mind sort of historical injustices and issues with regard to people of color and just making sure that if decisions are being made, they're being made fairly across the board. So, you know, are we treating, let's use an example of the, you know, involuntary exclusionist, right? You know, are we treating people who are potentially going on the involuntary exclusion list the same way and making sure that color, race, you know, ethnicity, anything like that is not factoring in? And of course we would never do that, right? But I think it does, you want to keep an eye on it and make sure that something isn't going, you know, isn't unfair. And again, you're being consistent across the board and you can say, no, this is how we've treated these three people with these similar facts and you're not sort of doing things differently in one person or in another. Thank you. Can I just do a follow-up? Of course. And this is not a gut show, but it will be, if you haven't, the answer is no. I would ask that you read it this afternoon. Of course. Are you familiar with the statement of purpose with respect to the EI that was adopted by the commission and the five action items because it will implicate IEB? I think I read it at the time. It came through, but I haven't read it in a little while. So I will commit to reading that in a second. Commissioner Skinner's point, the IEB, we look at customer service and seller licensing and how we want to always ensure that we don't create unexpected barriers for hiring. And then, of course, the regulatory review, which Legal has engaged in, kind of got put us a little bit aside because there were some other regulations to promulgate. That's another area where we have found that, you know, with important tweaks, we can take down those barriers. So thank you, Commissioner Skinner, for the follow-up and for your question. It is critical work and, as you mentioned, with the Bureau having right now 75% of the staff. And that could be subject to change by statute. The chair could decide to shift those different segments. If you were divisions of the commission, I know at one point there were questions around Commissioner Bryan, whether licensing should be in or out. So it's interesting that you point out 75%. So I've got a couple of questions that are important for this role, too. Can you describe an operational challenge that you address through a technical solution to create an administrative efficiency? Sure. Just give me one second to think about that. So, I mean, two different things are sort of coming to mind with regard to the way I'm thinking about this is sort of like big amounts of data or information that kind of needs to be harnessed so that you can understand it and then sort of report it out. And so one of the things I'm thinking about, again, my work back at the firm with regard to large scale discovery. And so when you have quite literally millions of pages of documents sort of making sure that you get them into the document reviewed database and you get them organized and tagged in a way that makes them manageable so that you're identifying what's important. You're identifying what you need to review, what needs to be sent out. So I have a ton of experience doing that. So taking the facts of the case and figuring out the way to sort of get through those documents and make sure you're catching the right things and interviewing them. So I have that experience. What I'm thinking about is, again, the sports wagering regulations, taking all of the work that had to be done there, all of the different types of regs that we had to get into place and creating, it was a spreadsheet, but of what is the reg? Who is in charge? What are all the deadlines? When is it going to come to the commission? When was it voted on? What are the outstanding action items? And having that be sort of a living document that we used in the legal team to get our work done. And that was critical. Every meeting that we had on the regs, that was open in front of us sort of going through and making sure that we were on track and getting everything done. So I guess that would be how I would answer that. Okay. I'm going to do a follow-up to my own question. Great.  I always feel that everybody kind of understands and responsibilities that does make, you know, just a workplace, you know, kinder and smoother and more efficient, more operationally successful. You noted that under 23K and I'm actually very interested in your answer because it could help me. You noted that the director's role is the only role that reports to the chair rather than the executive director.  Why do you think the legislature made it that way? I have not looked into the legislative history of it. No. You wouldn't find it. Yeah. Trust me. You've looked. I think it's likely due to the potentially sort of, like you said, sort of some of the sensitive nature of the work and so that, you know, you wouldn't want to be reporting that all up in a public meeting to a five-member body, but you could sort of go to the chair and talk about those issues and those things, get input, guidance, you know, direction from the chair without sort of having to sort of go up to the five all the time in a public meeting. That might be why the legislature did that. Do you think the risk of adjudicatory bias plays into that at all? I do. I think it could. Absolutely. And that's, I think, sort of what I mean is, you know, worst case scenario you decide or the chair decides they need more information on a case and that may get the chair to a point where the chair has to recuse himself or herself from being in the adjudicatory body. But then again, you've only affected one commissioner and you still have the four who can then rule on the case. So yeah, I think that absolutely could be a part of it, a big part of it. Didn't mean to lead you, but I... No, the leading was helpful. Sort of clarification. We're not in court, so it's okay. Now I'm going to ask a question that I learned from a role in my past when I watched other very apt interviewers ask questions. It was one that was always interesting to me. In your role, so either at the firm or here, have you had someone who performs the role of administrative assistant or administrative ease? And if I were to call that person, what would they say about you? Yes. I have, I did have an assistant at the firm for my entire time at the firm. And if you call, and I had several over time as my roles changed, but if you called them, I would hope that they would say to you that I was always kind, always clear in my instructions and the deadlines that we had for the tasks that needed to be done that I understood when there were mitigating circumstances or something might not get to be done. And then again, that I was someone you could go to and not be concerned about, oh, I didn't do this right. My goodness, she's going to be so bad. Like, no, it's fine, we'll get through it together. It's not a big deal. And I will say that I think some of that, some of my work, again, the way I interact with people comes from both great mentors along the way, but also I was an assistant. That was one of my first jobs out of law school or out of college was as an assistant at the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security. So I've been on both sides of this and I think having that experience too is really important because I saw those people come in the door and ignore the admin. I didn't love it. You know, on the other hand, the very important people who came in and treated me like, you know, I had something to contribute, needs a lot to me. So I try to emulate that. Excellent, thank you. It's 10 o'clock and we have about another 10 minutes. So maybe everybody have one final question and we'll see how we do. Commissioner Skinner. I think I don't have any questions. I think I'm all set with this candidate. Okay. Commissioner Hill. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have thought all weekend how I would ask this question. Do it.  I tried to think of a way to ask it. Sure. Just do it. I'm just going to do it. Something that has impressed me since the very first day that I got here is the longevity of the employees that are here, the loyalty that they have to the Mass Gaming Commission and the continuity in the leadership that we've had, whether it be Loretta, whether it was Karen, they were here for years and years. And I think because of that, the Mass Gaming Commission has run as well as it has because of the continuity and the longevity. So the shoot from the hip question, where do you see yourself in three to five years here at the Mass Gaming Commission? Yeah. I mean, if I were to get this role, I would be here, I think. Again, I'm really energized by this. It's, you know, I do think we all need advancement in our careers and new challenges and I am finding that in this interim role. It's exciting. It's challenging. It's sort of, I think something I needed that I maybe didn't even know I needed. And so, you know, if I were to stay in this role, I would be committed to the agency. I do recognize the importance of institutional memory and we have a lot of that and it's hard when you lose it. So I think that's important, but I am committed to the agency. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Well said, Commissioner Hill. Mr. O'Brien. So I usually end interviews with this question. I know it can be a little awkward in this setting. It's all good. But what is it, if anything, that you would want to ask of this body of five in terms of your consideration in applying for this role? I think I do have a question and it's a question that I actually asked in my first round, but I'd be interested to hear from all the commissioners. And so that is how you see the IED evolving, especially in the light of sports wagering in the next sort of year or two, because I think that's really important for how, again, we make our plan to staff up, smooth out all of those things is what you're thinking. Before anybody answers that, I was going to look at you. I'm going to say that seems to be a policy discussion. Before you even moved, I was like, well done candidate, monohand. But I'm going to say that's not marked up on the agenda. But I think all ears were listening for the answer just now. Love the question. Had the same thought. I have a replacement question. So is there anything else, so I can pivot. And if the burning question is not appropriate for this agenda, what else do you feel like you want to tell the five of us? I know we've worked with you, but is there anything else that you feel like you want to bring to our attention? I feel like I've covered everything that I wanted to tell you, especially about my time at the firm, because that's not something that we've talked about previously. My experience is there. But I just want you all to know that I appreciate this opportunity. I'm really excited about the role. And if chosen, I would be very honored to continue in this role in the IED. So thank you. Well, you don't have to make a concluding statement yet. Because I want to give Commissioner Maynard the opportunity to ask any other questions. Well, you hit my first negative of the day, which is she didn't answer that, Eileen, with she's a member of the Honorable Order of Kentucky Kernels, which I happen to have. It's not in my resume. And as a fellow Kentucky Colonel, I appreciate that. We're going to have to explore that. That would be all over Twitter now. We're talking about connection. It goes back to what Eileen was saying, Commissioner O'Brien. You're going down the elevator. You're pitching all five of us 30 seconds. Why are you the IED director? I think I'm the IED director because I have the knowledge of I've spent three years learning and sometimes drafting the regs and the statute. I have that knowledge right off the bat. I have relationships. In my role as Deputy GC, I've had the opportunity to work across the commission with people all across the divisions of the commission. So going in day one, I have those relationships that I can go to. And I've worked on the same vein outside, right? I have the outside relationships with sort of the operators, the licensees who need to be called sometimes on the short notice. And I have the interest. Like I want to do this. I think this is really exciting. It's a really exciting time for the IED in this moment of transition. And I think I'm up for the challenge. So that's my pitch. Thank you. Can we answer? So, Caitlin, I have no other questions, but I do want to say again a big thank you. We do have Chief Malju now here. We want to thank you, Dave, for your work on the screening committee. And we want to thank you, Caitlin, for applying. You know, you are in the interim position. It was not a given that you would apply. And we appreciate your application. We appreciate your candid answers today, your thorough answers today, and your willingness to do this in public. It is not easy. And to those who are watching, you know, this is an extraordinary process. And we just want to recognize that your work here, you know, regardless of the work that you've been doing for us, your work here today, it is a factor of the Open Meeting Law that we have to deal with. The Open Meeting Law, as you mentioned, it's not always easy for us. But I think, given that it is the state of the law, we navigate it pretty well. And to that, I'm going to conclude again. Thank you, Commissioner and Commissioner, for your work. Thank you so much. I appreciate the opportunity. Thank you, Caitlin. Thank you, Kayla. Good morning again. This is a reconvening of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission. We are live today. It is Wednesday, January 31, public meeting number 497. And at the beginning of the meeting that started at 9 a.m., there may have been a recording mishap. And so I want to just note for the record again that I did file with my appointing official, 23B3 disclosure out of a very much in abundance of caution to note that given we had one internal candidate today that we're interviewing for the IEB director position, Caitlin Monaghan, the fact that the IEB director reports to the chair, I thought was a notable distinction, although I only know Attorney Monaghan professionally that I should make that disclosure again out of an abundance of caution. So we have had our first interview and want to, again, thank the screening committee, chaired by Commissioner Skinner, and then also a member of the committee was Commissioner Hill, and now we do have Chief Mulgrew here. So again, thank you very much. And we are ready for our next candidate. Our next candidate is Robert Charette. Nice to see you in live instead of on a Hollywood square. This is much more preferable than the... Nice to meet you. Good morning. Yes, we work often virtually, and it's very participatory, and we really appreciate the opportunity to use it, but it is a delight to be here in person with you today. This is a much better dynamic. I didn't have to worry about whether I was going to be able to log on, whether the link was going to work. This is much less dangerous. The one thing that we have learned is to be very tolerant about any tech mishap, even if it takes an hour to fix. So anyway, welcome today to the Gaming Commission. First, I extend our apologies to you that you have to do this in public, but as you know, we're being streamed today. It's part of our obligation to ourselves to be fully transparent and to fully comply with the open meeting law. So we appreciate your being here under these really quite abnormal conditions. Not a problem. And we thank you for applying for this very important position and being part of the process. And congratulations for being one of our two finalists. Thank you, ma'am. Appreciate it. Okay, great. So we're going to start with some questions and I'm going to go in the same order. Commissioner Skinner. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Charette, it's nice to see you in person. And I echo everything that the chair said in terms of congrats to you for becoming a finalist in this process. My question, I'll start, it's a sort of a softball icebreaker type question. Tell us what you understand the IEB director job to be and explain to us why you're interested in the role. So to my understanding, the IEB director oversees the vendors, employees, background investigations that have to do with folks who are either working for or going to be participating in with the Mass Gaming Commission. I've been supervising folks for now 15 years. Much of that is compliance-based, audit-based, protocol-based, especially now when my current role is the chief of my agency. I establish protocols. I have to ensure that those protocols are enforced. That's a large part of my job right now. A follow-up, Madam Chair? Yes, please. You've had Mr. Charette quite an extensive and impressive career in law enforcement. And I kind of asked this question during the preliminary interview. What we do here as an agency is more civil in nature and nothing I wouldn't think that's quite as sexy as what you're used to handling in terms of investigations. And so how do you see that criminal background and criminal investigatory work transferable to this position here, to this role? I just think the skills that you learn as an investigator not only during my time as conducting the investigations for, I was in the field for about 15 years before I became in management in my agency. The last 15 years I've been out of management overseeing those investigations. You just develop a skill set on how to see things, how to ask questions, how to handle people, how to handle different types of personalities. I know that this job doesn't... the cases that we handle on a regular basis are dealing with volatile, violent individuals, the worst of the worst. And I think like I mentioned to you, those are sexy cases, but when you're in your 50s, it is time to dial it back a bit. And the skills that I've learned in the past I think absolutely would be transferable into dealing with folks having issues with a background or a vendor who may not be complying with their work order. So... Thank you. Commissioner Hill. Thank you, Madam Chair. And again, very nice to see you again. Thank you, sir. So could you explain to the full commission your managerial style, how you communicate with those that work for you or under you? You gave us a brief explanation during the first interview, but here's your opportunity to talk to all of us about your style. Sure. So I've always been a people person. I think managerial style is different. The way I had to manage the district four years ago when I took it over is much different than my managerial style now. Four years ago, I was abruptly put into place to take over a dysfunctional district that had been a toxic work environment and had been really muddled in chaos for years. So taking over that district, my demeanor, had to be much different than it is now after watching the district go through the hurt, the healing process, and now after full recovery I don't have to be the same manager as I was back then. My style has changed. It's evolved. Every manager needs to have certain principles that are unwavering and can't be compromised. You have to have honesty and you have to have integrity. If you don't have those two, nobody's going to follow you. Nobody's going to follow you. An effective leader also needs to have compassion, empathy, the ability to communicate. As much as we all think that it would like our folks to be robots and be able to show up to work every day and do their job, there are things in their lives that will impact their work performance. You've got to understand that. You've got to have empathy when it's warranted. You've got to show compassion when needed. Every manager needs to have those attributes or any effective manager should. And then based on the scenario, when I first got there, I needed to be more direct. This is what we are going to do, and this is the reason why. After seeing the district do a complete 180, we just recently received a federal employee viewpoint survey and back when I took over the district, our district was under a corrective action plan which was unheard of in the federal government. Out of the 94 districts and probably another 20 or so entities down at headquarters, we were dead last and we just got our results back in the surveys based on district morale, job satisfaction. We finished number four. My management style now is different. We have turned that aircraft carrier around. So much more collaborative. The people who work for me are tremendous. I have five direct reports. They are all excellent at what they do in their mission set. So now it's time to let them do their job. I'm not a micromanager. I can be if I have to, but fortunately the folks who work for me and the folks who report to me are tremendous at what they do. So in order to let, I need to let them do their jobs for us to succeed. It was a much different dynamic when I first took over, but I don't think you can have solely one type of leadership style because not every situation you walk into is going to be the same. I know we had some interaction during our first interview where you said that the family atmosphere that I now describe in my district is something that you all here at the Gaming Commission have developed. And so that would be welcomed. It's easy to maintain. It was not easy to take a dysfunctional situation and get it to the point where we are now. The maintenance, that's the easy part. Madam Chair, as well. Yes. So for the public and for my fellow commissioners, what I had said was that we have a very close-knit division down there in IEB. We have experts in their fields in the departments that they have and they work very, very well together. And I asked Mr. Charette, give us your management style like I have today, but can you elaborate a little bit more and you touched upon it briefly? Are you a hands-on type of manager? Are you someone who's going to delegate to the workers to like explain to us how you would work day to day? When you've got people working for you who you trust, delegation. If you trust who's working for you, there should be no need to be hands-on and micromanaging. So the folks at my managerial team, fortunately, I was able to cherry-pick them over the course of the last four years. It's a completely different managerial team than what I took over. These folks are experts in their mission, so there's no need for me to be hands-on. There's no need for me to micromanage. We have meetings once a month so that we can go over the state of the state for each mission group. Those meetings when I first took over were once a week. But if you've got competent people who are working for you, I think you need to trust that and delegate. And the last question I have is, so what is the highest amount of people that you've managed? Currently around 55. I'll yield at this time, Madam Chair. Thank you. Thanks, Commissioner. Commissioner O'Brien. Hi, how are you? How are you? It's nice to meet someone with a law enforcement background. Spent 16 years for working for a prosecutor's office and have a lot of respect for what the marshals do. I had the privilege of working with John Gibbons before he took over in Boston. Great, man. So I thank you. I know it's not easy work. I do have a question about exactly what the investigative experience is in terms of the topic areas. I know that the marshals are very much a lot of, as your resume says, like a lot of fugitive task force cases and protection details and those sorts of things in ops. Can you be a little more specific in terms of what types of investigations that you've worked on, if anything, outside of the fugitive tracking down? Were you writing 302s? Were you supervising and editing other people's 302s? The police reports, that sort of thing. Yeah, so those reports in the U.S. marshals, the USM11s, those are our field reports. So hopefully I understood your question correctly. Are you about my experience conducting fugitive investigations or anything outside of fugitive investigations? Sort of outside of the fugitive investigations. What can you talk to me about any other types of investigations besides the fugitive investigations? We do mission child cases, mission child investigations. We also now have, we can prosecute gun cases. If we come across a fugitive who has a gun in their possession, typically we would have to refer that over to the ATF. But recently we've now been delegated with that responsibility as well. Is that charging authority or investigative authority? Both. Yes, ma'am. But our bread and butter, as it has been for 235 years, are those complex, high profile fugitive investigations. We're not getting the folks that we're investigating, they don't want to be found, as you know.  Hence the volatility, which is inherent to, with our job. It's a high risk, high reward type scenario. Last year, I think our agency arrested over 70,000 fugitives and, if I could believe, 5,700 were murder cases. So you do the math, that's a lot per day. And things do go wrong. They've gone wrong in our district. But our bread and butter are the fugitive cases. We're in the infancy with doing the gun cases and the missing child cases we've done for a while. But we've found narcotics and have been allowed to kind of just, upon the arrest, been involved in the prosecution for that, for guns. Can you talk a little bit in terms of the fugitive cases, in terms of use of financial records? Tracking people down, what kind of work that entails? I was fortunate enough back almost 20 years ago. There was a subject up here in Boston who him and his two brothers were involved in a large narcotics ring. And you may be familiar with this case. Two of the brothers had an issue with one of the brothers.  One of them was immediately apprehended. The other one was gone. That individual, Robert Gunn, stored down in Providence, left there with several high-capacity weapons. So he had been a fugitive for about four or five years. And I sat back, I talked with my partner and we didn't have a nexus to kind of get involved with that at the time. But I said this is, you know, he's doable if we can somehow get access to this case. So we spoke with the U.S. Attorney's Office. The plan was that we were going to get a UFAP warrant, an unlawful flight to avoid prosecution, and it's really just a warrant on the body. It's really, nobody ever charges that statute afterwards, but it did allow us to get in the door. After that there was, we had a meeting down in our office with all the stakeholders. The Boston PD, Massachusetts State Police, the AG's office up in Massey AG's office down in Rhode Island, the Rhode Island State Police, the Providence PD, the ATF, the FBI. And the plan was to get everybody around a table so that we could, you know, everybody get on the same page, information sharing. I had a feeling it worked out the way I thought it was going to is after a couple weeks all those different departments and agencies have other responsibilities. I was going to apprehend fugitives, so it solely fell on our lap. And, you know, four months later there are certain, I'd love to be more direct and I'm not trying to skirt around the book where this is a public hearing. I can't really get into some of what it took to eventually locate him in the Bronx. But, you know, he was apprehended, but we utilized that. Our technological operations group is the best in the country. We have a financial surveillance unit that deals with credit cards. Any financial data that a fugitive may have and oftentimes that they don't, a lot of the people that we typically looking for don't have financial backgrounds. They don't have financial records, but at times there are times they do or their spouses may. So, there are a lot of tricks to the trade and I've employed every one of them over the past 28 years. And is that one of the units, is that one of your reports when you're talking about the different units that report up to you? No. Okay. So those are, we have a unit up here in Boston that deals with a lot of our technical operations. Our financial surveillance unit, kind of a better term, is a deputy down in Connecticut who's had the training, is one of the few in the country. And off the record I could go into kind of greater detail on what that all encompasses. I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be a baseman. No, I totally get it. My apologies. Yep. And this is somewhat following up on Commissioner Skinner's question earlier in terms of transferability of those scales. You know, a lot of what IEB looks into is background in one sense that you're talking about and then background in a different sense in terms of suitability for the vendors and qualifiers and the licensees. True. And I guess looking for whatever else you could add to what you think your skill set would bring to those types of investigation. I think if you're a good investigator those skill sets are transferable. Whether you're pursuing a fugitive, whether you're investigating a homicide, whether you're investigating possible indiscretions in someone's background, I've had extensive knowledge hands-on and overseeing of using every tool possible to get the desired result. It would be no different taking a look at the background, a background check for a vendor or a background investigation for an employee. Certainly a much different level but the importance of this to the Gaming Commission is you need to ensure that the people who are working for the Gaming Commission are above board. They have nothing in their past that is going to embarrass the system. I'm not sure whether I've articulated myself well enough but in my opinion if the case I was discussing ended up being a top 15 case in the District of Rhode Island the first case ever either apprehended in Rhode Island or a top 15 that was originated in the 235-year history of our district if we could figure that out then I'll certainly be able to figure out and tackle any issues with background and discrepancies. Thank you. Commissioner Maynard. Thank you Madam Chair. So I'm sorry, just to expound a bit I'm clearly an outsider I would be better able to answer that question having been in the position for a while and once I had a better idea of the type of investigations that would and I think I know but I don't want to be presumptuous enough to state with certainty that I absolutely know what type of investigations the IEB are diving into and what you were talking about the skills are transferable. A follow-up question please. That is a really fair observation and I'm glad that you've added that. So you're not going to be as familiar with all of the work that would be right before you so what would be the first steps you would take? Let's say the first month if you were hired as IEB director. Listen to people. Listen and learn. If I was to step in here and be selected as the director of the IEB and come in here professing that I know what's going on that's not the case. We have a political appointee in every district in the Marshall Service and I believe we may have discussed this at the first interview. The political appointees who come in and look, listen and learn are the most effective. The ones who come in with an agenda and on day one want to start re-establishing policies and protocols for an agency that they have no experience in and have no idea what we actually do. It's a path that is not a prudent one to take. I would, from what I've been told by Commissioner Hill, you all have surrounded yourselves with good people. This role would mean I am surrounded by good people. I would trust it. I'm going to learn from them long before they're ever going to learn from me.  My entire life has been figuring things out. First generation college had no guidance. Both my parents were too busy working. Somehow I figured that out. Once I got to college, five foot five athlete, clearly at a competitive disadvantage, just time to figure that out and grind through it, get out of college and within a year lost my father. There's no textbook on how to be a man. It's never mind, at that point in time, the head of a household. So I had to figure it out. Shortly thereafter, I lost my mother three weeks after my daughter was born. There's no textbook on how to be a parent. Well, they probably are, but I lost that potential guide to get me through, through some of these scenarios. Just have to figure it out. This job as a chief, when I got dropped in there four years ago, abruptly, I was told by the director, you and I are the chief, fix this place. Nobody groomed me for that position. I had to figure it out on my own. And this, you know, this would be a similar scenario. If I was fortunate enough, you thought my skill set, my personality would be a good fit for the gaming commission. And for that unit, I would figure it out. And I would rely heavily on the people who have the institutional knowledge to guide me to a point where I've got institutional knowledge. Thank you for that. Thank you, Commissioner Bryant. Thank you for yielding to me. No, thank you, Madam Chair. So chief, you're very interesting, these public interviews, and this is my first, I don't know if it's yours. But I was thinking about your extensive background. Let's take it to its basic. You're putting together a report. How do you make a decision on what goes in that report and what goes out of that report when it comes, let's say, to the full commission, right? What information goes in, what information goes out, I'm asking you the question, right? It's because I read these reports all the time. And I know that whoever's putting these together is making a judgment call on what needs to go up and what needs to go down. And you alluded to it earlier. Things are changing. Things are changing the last five years, 10 years. So tell me a little bit about your decision-making and how you present information. All pertinent information should be put in a report. Good or bad. Sure, Commissioner O'Brien would agree. Those who withhold information are going to get burned and they're going to burn other people. All pertinent information should be in a report. You shouldn't have an agenda when submitting such a report. Collect the facts. Here are the facts. Push it to the folks who need to review it and let them make that determination. I think we discussed this in our first interview with the gaming commission in particular. Transparency is vital. There were a large percentage of opponents to having wagering legalized gaming legalized in Massachusetts. The gaming commission has to be locked in 100% of the time. There can never be a slip-up. Everything has to be transparent. We're here for a public hearing and I understand why. There can never be a point in time where the gaming commission makes a mistake and the opponents can say, they shouldn't have never been allowed. That's a tough bar to have to get over every day. You need to be 100%. You can't make a mistake. Personally, I thought it was a prudent move for the politicians in the Commonwealth to bring gaming to the state. Folks who want a wager, they're going to. Whether they have to travel to Connecticut or Rhode Island or Vegas, they're going to always use them for noble purposes. That's what's being done here. As far as information gathering, that's exactly what it should be. Information gathering, putting it in a report, moving it forward and let people make determinations based on that. There's never been in the business of withholding information. There's never been in the business to ruin your career. You drew a distinction which I appreciate and was glad to hear between management and leadership. Big difference. You're part of the oldest federal law enforcement agency in the country. What's leadership mean to you? Who's a leader you look up to? What leadership are you talking about? I worked for someone for the better part of 15 years, my predecessor, who the folks he supervised, they had to respect the title with professionals. They had to respect the title but they did not respect the person who held that title. It's more important for me as a leader to have people respect the individual first. If you're in a position as a leader where you're forcing them to respect the title then you've done something wrong. That doesn't work. It'll move the ball down the field amidst chaos, turbulence, toxicity. I would prefer that people who I manage respect me as the individual first they do that then clearly you're going to respect the title. My folks who work for me they don't think that I care about them, they know. They know. You need to be sincere. I'm not doing it because I need to check that box so that I can curry favor with whoever in my office.  An effective leader cares about their people. Period. When you do that you're going to get that in return. You had another portion of your question that I think I've lost my train of thought. It was really just what are you going to bring it up to? I mentioned about the scenario with my mother. I worked for the supervisor at the time. I'll give him a shout out on public hearing, Billy Fallon. Great guy. He was the chief up in Boston for a period of time. When I first I started off in New York City for a few years as a young deputy in my late 20s and got transferred up to Providence. Billy Fallon was my supervisor and we had a like I had mentioned my daughter was born, was my first born three weeks later my mother was diagnosed with a terminal brain tumor. Six weeks later she dies. During that span of time it was September 11th. So I automatically got the call to go down to New York for the search and recovery mission because I just worked down there. I knew the area, I knew the people I knew the personalities I knew the topography I knew everything. I had spent a few years down there and I remember reaching out to supervisor Fallon at the time saying listen Billy you know under any other circumstance I'd throw the gear in my back and I would march down to New York City but you know my mother's not doing well I can't go up you know and he said to me don't worry about it man take care of business at home and we'll get someone else down there I'll never forget that. Thank you. And you had mentioned empathy earlier as a characteristic that you value. So thank you for that answer. I learned a lot from Billy that day. Say again? Yeah. From Bill Fallon that day. I walked the wall for him and I still would to this day. Yeah. On a follow up to Commissioner Maynard's earlier you know question on information and I really appreciate your answer that you wouldn't withhold anything would be you know for our decision making and I suspect that your work and your record reflects that you also mentioned understanding of protocols and internal controls and those requirements we're challenged here because we do most of our work in public and we have some flexibility to do things in executive session and we utilize that appropriately and carefully. The challenge is also that you may have information that you want to share but there's no clear path for sharing it. I don't know if you've had a chance in your earlier screening interview but have you had a chance to and this is a complex question if you don't have an answer that's fine because I think all of us are still we still turn back to the statute to understand our governance structure have you had a chance to see that we deal with five commissioners and the structure of the organization have you had a did anybody go through that what is your sense and maybe we could fill in to help I know the structure of the commission I do know five of us. Correct. I'm not sure I'm understanding your question I know part of it may be what we just addressed here where I've got some sensitive information that I'm obligated not to make put on a public record it would compromise my agency would compromise ongoing investigations I'm not sure if it's a similar scenario. So our legal team would be able to help you with are there mechanisms like the executive session under the statute uniquely this position reports to the chair and you know the rest of the division leaders report to the executive director so one of the challenges is that the chair may receive information and there's a challenge as to what do we do with that have you had any situation where you're addressing the person to whom you report and you're trying to figure out how you're going to move things forward and also stay within the policies within bounds of policies and procedures make it tricky and probably the follow up question is good one is if you disagree how do you resolve that I think when we argue the relationship between a federal prosecutor and myself or one of my deputies is organic it's fluid they're not always going to agree on a path to take I'll always defer to someone who's got their JD as opposed to someone who's only got their bachelor's degree can I just note that sorry Brad if I feel strongly about you like that answer I'll keep all my comments sorry Commissioner Hill no you're having you're having a moment together if I feel strongly about something I would do my best to attempt to cajole or persuade or influence you know you or anyone else to see things the way I do but that can be done in a professional manner that can be done with diplomacy there may be times where we agree to disagree and that's okay too but as long as whatever decision you would be making based on information you're receiving from me receiving all that information just like when we're prosecuting and I'm dealing with a federal prosecutor here's everything we got I'm not sure you should want to exclude all this here I just had disagreement not too long ago with a federal prosecutor and ultimately she chose to go down a path that I was hoping she didn't go down but that's the way things go and respect for her I believe she does for me and we just had a professional disagreement that's the way it is you move on but that's a very helpful answer so if you're wondering it's exactly what I was hoping to hear so thank you I was going to come out and just say you will always be right but I didn't know no exactly all of that you require an order that would be interesting I wondered with your law enforcement background might you and I'm not hearing that at all and I'm the law enforcement field is filled with alphas and for some reason these alphas believe that butting heads like rams is more productive than sitting down and kind of discussing things in a diplomatic manner I don't get it I have this issue constantly down with the Rhode Island State Police and the Providence Police Department are in that small sandbox that's Rhode Island those two just have a difficult time playing nice together and they have the two biggest kids in that sandbox so I am constantly in a mediation role because on our Rhode Island I'm the fugitive task force we have state troopers on that task force we're the Providence PD we rely on the Providence PD for a lot of those sexy cases that we were discussing earlier and it's weird I've never been able to kind of it will always be befuddling to me how the Providence PD made this like the Rhode Island State Police in the abstract it's not like the Providence PD in the abstract but when I get the command staff in a room because we have to work through an issue it never seems to be a problem that guy on that side of the table doesn't dislike that guy on the side of the table it's like that it gets its human nature where it's it's easier to dislike a group or an entity in the abstract where you're dealing with someone from that group or entity and you realize this is they're good people so fortunately I do have a good friend over at the Providence PD he was ascended to a deputy commander level same thing over at the Rhode Island State Police so when we do have issues I'm typically the mediator but it's always been fascinating how folks who should have a certain level of diplomacy and intellect just dislike another agency in the abstract it's bizarre to me but you've it's not exclusive to Rhode Island I know the dynamic up here between some of the major stakeholders as well so on that note I'm just going to ask another question before I go back to Commissioner Skinner you know Rhode Island ties your New York ties we're in Massachusetts and I thought about that when I read your resume and first off it's such a commendable resume your service is so appreciated I just want to thank you for that tell me how you navigated learning the differences in laws regulations, policies where you shifted from New York to Rhode Island and how you'd apply that here in Massachusetts so federally I'm not a complete outsider I was born and raised in Taunton, Massachusetts I currently reside in Massachusetts I'm a copper bagger I run down there and make my money in Rhode Island I bring it up here to the Commonwealth and I constantly remind my folks who I collaborate with in Rhode Island that they're a glorified county that we should absorb but you can take a lot of grief for that so we federal statutes are the same whether they're in New York whether they're in Massachusetts, Boston so that's always been an easy transition it's the dynamics at the state level which are different in New York than they are than there are in Providence than they are here in Massachusetts and that's just another scenario where as they as they're applicable to anything here with the gaming commission that would be something that I would figure out and I would ask questions I would learn state crimes outside of what the gaming commission is dealing with I've got a pretty good grasp of that in Massachusetts we had I know I was assigned to the district of Rhode Island but back when I was in the field there was a black hole down in southeastern Mass and I had a meeting in Brockton, Taunton, Fall River, New Bedford for a Marshall service presence and there was none down there and it was based on manpower issues the Boston office did not have the manpower to assign someone down there in Rhode Island both my partner and I were assigned to the Violent Fugitive Task Force in Rhode Island so I talked about it and said you know something why don't you talk about it so I had a meeting with the chief up in Boston at the time who was Billy Fallon so I went up and I met with him and I spoke with him about it I said listen I don't want to be jumping over the fence and poaching cases here but you know I'm trying to think of the star the agency as a whole as opposed to our little kind of 94 little districts here and we're doing a disservice to the taxpayers and the citizens a Marshall service presence down there we have resources we have financial resources, technological resources we have a skill set that's different and that's valuable we are experts in that field that's what we've done, that's what I've done for almost three decades now folks who work for the Mass State Police may be assigned to that unit you know several years and then leave same thing with detectives within agencies and the State Police has more resources than the locals do we have more resources than them and it'd be nice to be able to collaborate so I went up and then I had to go and sell sell the idea to the locals and what I've learned and I'm sure Commissioner O'Brien will back me up on it he wants to listen to a Fed when they're a local police officer they just think that you're coming in and you've got all the answers and I went down my old neighbor who got me interested in law enforcement was a lieutenant with the police department so I reached out to him and I asked him if he could just get me through the door they had a meeting for a detectives meeting down in southeastern Mass with all the different agencies I went in there and the first thing I said was I'm a Fed and I disparaged one of our fellow agencies I said but unlike the FBI I'm not here to look to take credit for your cases he had to work them he had to apprehend them he had to step aside so you can step in front of a podium and talk about the arrest if you want to throw you know throw some credit our way I greatly appreciated but that's not what this is about I wound up spending the next eight years working amongst those four cities as a deputy in Rhode Island in Massachusetts it was unprecedented in the country it didn't have not happened anywhere else in the relationships that I developed with the members of the Mass State Police VFAS unit and the locals down there have helped me and will help me in this role I've got connections with the Mass State Police if I don't know someone in particular I need to talk to I know I know somebody who's going to know that person it's about networking and often times I rely on that to get things done and I will hear especially if I'm selected for this position as a newbie I'm going to rely on the folks here networking from to accomplish the mission of the IEV Mr. Skinner Thank you Madam Chair I have what is a follow up really to the chair's question relative to how you would approach the work that we do here and really just stepping in as an outsider as you say to really get an understanding of the kinds of work we do here and really the overall operations of the IEV the three prior IEV directors including the interim were attorneys there is a division within the IEV comprised of pretty much all attorneys and how I guess would you go about preparing yourself and these folks I can tell you will know more than you do just in terms of the institutional knowledge and my question is specifically how would you go about what would be your approach to understanding some of the procedures that we undertake here that the IEV undertakes relative to adjudicatory hearings or just the entire adjudicatory process how would you go about understanding those concepts that will likely be brand new to you things like standards of review because you would really be responsible for presenting or with legal counsel the IEV's case so that's how you would go about establishing yourself and integrating those concepts ask ask questions learn do the research ask more questions the relationship you're describing it will be it's clearly selfish of me to say I don't necessarily believe that you an attorney having a law background is a prerequisite for this position I think I would be able to manage just fine without a law degree but it's like a relationship that any lawyer has or I've had with any attorney over the past 30 years you work together when we're building cases they're the legal experts um I'm the investigator they're the legal experts I rely on their counsel just as I would rely on the counsel of the lawyers who work at the gaming commission I'm never going to profess to know anything I'll learn something every single day and typically I'll learn from someone different every single day but that relationship it's no different than the relationship I've had with assistant U.S. attorneys over the past quarter century three decades I've worked with lawyers in the past daily regularly I'm in communication on a regular basis with attorneys I'm learning something every day about federal statutes in laws I think when you think you've got all the answers that's when you stop developing probably very naive if you ever get to that point where you think you know it all and I look forward to I look forward if this committee thought that I was the right fit for the job I look forward to that challenge I look forward to the next step in my career my my development I would embrace I'd embrace the challenge I would ask the people who have the answers that's who I'd be making my inquiries with and I would listen and learn and hopefully I don't I wouldn't have to ask the same question twice but if I needed to then I'll ask it twice I'll ask it three times I do it all the time hopefully that addresses what you were you were inquiring about Commissioner Hill so something that's impressed me here at the Mass Gaming Commission is the longevity of our employees and our directors and the continuity and the leadership of the Mass Gaming Commission people don't leave here our past Executive Director and IEB Director they were here about ten years so I have to ask you where do you see yourself in five years here at Mass Gaming Commission should you get this job? here I'm in it for the long haul I'm no spring chicken anymore but I just for the interest of candor I just turned 55 I'm not going anywhere I still have a lot to give I can't sit at home my wife retired from her job as a U.S. Probation Officer I have to go to the beach down the Cape and never leave I can't sit still and she knows it I'm always going to want to work it's just an eight in me I need to have that type of stimulation every day I need to collaborate with people I just can't sit at home and go through some mundane routine if what you were wanted to get from me is I'm here for the long haul if I get this position you're not going to be sitting here having another public hearing in five years thank you thank you Madam Chair one question each I'm going to cheat I get two but I think one can be short I noticed that you have union experience in your time down in Red Island are you a member of the union can you just no so I'm not a member of the union but we have so we have a group what they call detention enforcement officers in our deputy U.S. Marshals but they have they're part of the union it's not the auto workers it's not the teamsters it's a small union but you had experience in your experiences absolutely my substantive question is a little bit following up on what Commissioner Skinner said you talked a little bit about you'd have to present cases to AOSAs I'm sure you've had other experiences where you've made presentations of cases beyond that can you talk a little bit about your experience either testifying in court or presenting in that regard I've testified on occasions not as an expert witness you know those are typically utilize to in gun cases in drug cases the times that I have testified have been times when we've stumbled upon narcotics illegal weapons and they're being they're being charged with that on top of you know they're they're originating case I've testified in federal court several times it's nothing I'm uncomfortable with it's nothing that is unusual to me we have testified on I got assaulted during a arrest at one point in time I had to testify on that because the U.S. Attorney's Office I didn't necessarily need them to bring the charge but they wanted to bring the charge which knowing that we have their support is why do we do a lot for them they recognize it but I had to testify in that matter I've testified several times in the past 28 years but it's always typically been case related great thank you Commissioner Boehner so first a clarifying question not really two questions but you talked a lot about your direct your direct reports can you give me a dotted line like view of the agency too how many people report up and into your tree you have the political appointee who is the U.S. Marshal he's technically number one I am the chief deputy U.S. Marshal I am number two in the last career position that you can achieve in the district underneath that I have my administrative officer who I rely on heavily for all our budget issues she is fantastic I have my supervisor down at the violent fugitive task force I have a supervisor general operations which takes care of everything else outside of the fugitive investigations and most recently because of the violence that's been perpetrated upon judges around the country we now have a judicial security unit where before I used to just have a judicial security inspector who handled any needs of our district judges we now have an entire unit where we have a supervisor who reports to me and a JSI and a threat investigator so those are the folks who report to me and we have these contractors court security officers which if you come into our federal building you'll see them in the blue coats they're all retired state troopers typically those folks had high rank in whatever local municipality they work for federal agencies the lead the supervisory CSO reports to me as well so you want me to go further down the umbrella or is that I'm really looking for a number he did say I thought 55 did I miss that earlier I just wanted to make sure I got those five but under them is another it sounds like I was the one who misheard so it's not on you don't apologize five division had sorry I didn't understand my problem so here's my real question did you like that turn so it was your question thank you for the clarifier diversity equity inclusion is really important to us and I heard you say it and it caught my attention it's really important to us that you learn from people different people all the time tell me something about promoting that and that's a mission of ours and how you'll step into that I have two examples for you if I can give one and if you want to hear about the second I one I told you commissioner Hill commissioner Skinner hold that one in the event that you don't want to hear about it but our political appointee our marshal now is Wing Chow Chinese American and he was appointed by Donald Trump and marshal chow was the marshal only for a couple years when president Biden got elected typically they just went to a clean house get rid of the old put in their name and it was bothersome to me marshal chow had done a good job in his two years there not that his predecessor didn't or the person who would have taken his place wouldn't but marshal chow was the first Chinese American marshal in the history of our agency not in Rhode Island not in New England in the entire 235 a history of our agency he was the first one and it was at a time where anti-Asian settlement was running rampant it was an epidemic in this country Asian Americans were being brutally assaulted around the country so I spoke with it and I knew that they had two other people in mind that they wanted to Senator Reed and Senator Whitehouse wanted to nominate for that position one of them's a good friend of mine and I hope he's not listening but I just figured we need to get this story out here because this isn't fair it's not right I issued an executive order and I stood 14031 specifically dealing he issued to one with an executive order to recruit and retain minorities executive order 14031 even narrowed that down to recruit and retain Asian Americans so the fact that we had the only Asian American ever to be appointed to the position at US Marshall and they were going to look to remove him to put someone else here that was not you know a minority class it was something that I didn't think was right or justified so I did create a somewhat of an information campaign and I reached out to the Providence Journal someone over there that I know and have dealt with for years it's been a mutually beneficial relationship and she did a big expose on him we then had members of the Asian American community come into the US Attorney's Office for a big meeting so that Marshall Chow and the US Attorney at the time chaired which was extremely productive and that made it out into the media there was like a subtle mass media campaign to make let people know in the district of Rhode Island that there's something unique here something special the only Chinese American US Marshall period out of 94 districts for 235 years so it wound up being a successful campaign I was speaking to one of the judges in our district who I have a good relationship with who happens to be best friends with one of the senators and the senator told him that you know there was no way that he could ever remove Marshall Chow now and place him in and I I remember speaking with the judge and the judge had told me I don't know how you did it but you well politicized the politicians it was the right thing to do it shouldn't have taken that for them to realize what they had here and oh by the way they would have been in I don't know violations is the correct word but they would have been certainly contradicting President Biden's executive order to retain and recruit Asian Americans but more recently I had a if you want me to continue or feel free more recently my administrative officer who I've already mentioned is someone I lean on heavily I trust implicitly always make sure you trust the person who's handling your budget because if you can't trust that person then you're in trouble I know is another Marshall who's a good friend of mine who doesn't have an administrative officer who's locked in and it's very problematic for him but her name's Linda Ramos and she's a Colombian and prior to me becoming the chief the administrative officer position and it's it's a convoluted kind of scale we have so I'll try to articulate myself well enough to kind of simplify it and break it down her position was a budget analyst at a GS level 9 at the time back in 2017-2018 the administrative officer position was a GS 11 or 12 which meant she could from a GS 9 to an 11-12 position she put in her application for the vacant AO position she was granted an interview and at the time the chief selected someone from the outside which I certainly didn't agree with he visited my office and I asked him why she got overpassed he made a disparaging comment about her ethnicity which was just what we had been dealing with for a decade so I became the chief the administrative officer that they had selected needed to be near her folks out on the west coast so I helped her get a position there so now the administrative officer position once again but between the time where Linda applied for it the first time and this newly created vacancy the position had been elevated from an 11-12 to a 13 and you're prohibited from competing for a GS 13 position if you're a GS level 9 you've got to go from 9 to 11 11 to 13 the only reason why she was able to compete for it was because she announces an 11-12 so I told her to apply for it she did and was told that she wasn't eligible to compete so I reached out to the headquarters human resources and I said this makes zero sense Linda was eligible to compete for the administrative office vacancy four years ago she made a surplist she was granted an interview for whatever reason I wasn't in the room they selected from someone on the outside in those four years she essentially had to groom the new administrative officer who didn't have the institutional knowledge that Linda did so during that time I wouldn't argue I knew she even was more qualified now to be the district's administrative officer and the fact that she wasn't allowed to because it was a numbers game was appalling and it was a hill I would have died on and what they what they did is they knocked it back down to an 11-12 oh I'm sorry she was allowed to compete for it but only at the grade 12 level so I would pick one battle at a time let's get her in the position first so she she competed for the position I selected Linda for the position at the GS-12 level and then it was now time to to bother and fight to get her the GS-13 position which other AOs enjoyed around the country and once again that was it took me writing a lot of paperwork a lot of time speaking with folks sending emails trying to justify this ascension to that level and they finally I think it was persistence and they just finally wanted to shut the little man up in Rhode Island and give her that pay scale so she went from a GS-9 to a GS-13 which I'm not sure has ever happened in the federal government but she deserved that position she deserved it four years earlier it was overlooked she deserved it we promoted her into that role and she is crushing it she is tremendous at what she does thriving in that role and like I had mentioned I know other chiefs who aren't as fortunate to have someone who does such a good job she's professional there's no drama she comes in, she gets her job done she does it remarkably well and she goes home and then I've never had an issue with her it was a shame she got overlooked for that position four years ago and we were able thankfully to kind of write that wrong but those are the two instances that I've been involved with and I'm sure you'll carry that same thing over so thank you you identified interestingly enough in the grading that how those can create a barrier and we are dedicated to trying to really think about how our own policies, procedures around hiring procurement, customer service can often inadvertently create a barrier to making sure we have diverse so now that that situation was rectified here in Rhode Island it's something that I'm working on with human resources as well because I'm not sure we're a small district so that scenario is relatively unique in bigger districts there is a lot more administrative personnel so you will have 11's, 12's, 13's in Rhode Island it was two GS9's and a 13 well how will you ever promote from within someone who's deserving if they can't leap over that hurdle that barrier that we've set in front of them so it's something that has been successfully worked on after I wish you in Rhode Island I'd like to kind of fight those battles once at one at a time if you go at headquarters with all three at once you get a single one we got her in the position first we got her the pay that she deserved and now it's we're in the process of kind of rectifying that scenario around other districts in the country that face the similar challenges that we did so I'm going to ask a question and that will be the last question then I want to give you the opportunity to ask questions or make a closing statement I it's not a question I devise but a question I've heard other interviewers ask and I thought it was always a really telling and could be a fun question so this isn't going to be the softball question that Commissioner Skinner started off with no no this is a different one it's probably a softball I'm guessing from your answers today it's a softball it sounds as though you have had an administrative assistant at some point during your long career and if I were to call them today how would they describe you I'd implore you to call them not just not just call my administrative assistant call the people who work for me it's always interesting to me when you know your people are hiring for a position and they want recommendations and I could give you the U.S. Attorney for the District of Rhode Island the Chief Judge for the District of Rhode Island the Chief Judge in the First Circuit Court of Appeals I think you're going to get a better glimpse of who I am and what type of leader I am by speaking to the people who work for me speak to my reports speak to the people who they report to because every day I go downstairs once a day and speak to whoever chain of command is important it's vital I mean if you don't have a chain of command then you've got a dysfunctional scenario but every one of those folks know that if they're having an issue professionally personally having an entrepreneurial policy I don't wait for them to come up I go down every day make it a point to go in check in with them how things going typically it's not even work related I'm more concerned about how's your son's football game this weekend how's your mother feeling every day I'll go and make the rounds not even beyond the people who work for me treat everybody the same my son came in to work with me at one point in time he was applying to colleges last year he needed some help getting through the standardized form it was such a nightmare to get through thank you I've done I've done one my daughter was an athlete she went in a different way but I did it once I'm glad I don't have a third child or he wouldn't be going he'd be picking up a trade but Brenny who's a Puerto Rican she works with a custodial team and I'll do it you don't need to clean my bathroom you don't need to empty my bin I'll do it had her come in, introduced her to my son sat there and spoke with her for like 5-10 minutes and my son was privy to other interactions I was having through the day and what struck him was the interaction you had with her was the same as you were having I'm glad you picked up on that I I'd implore you to visit Rhode Island and speak with anyone from the chief judge to the maintenance staff down there and ask them who I am, what type of leader I am what type of chief I am what type of employee I was now that would be something that you know sounds like you can add the word person chief with that I ask if you have any questions for us I don't, I would be interested and I don't know whether this is a question that could be answered what could be expected what's the day in the life of the director the IEB like does he report here every day does he have interactions at Encore, MGM Plain Ridge, Suffolk what's the routine what's the day kind of embody I think I would just say every day is different you could be on Encore today and then you could be at MGM tomorrow and then you'd be here for the next three days every day and every week is different depends on the issue of the day but there are a lot of really important relationships internally which you've addressed today and there's also really important relationships externally that you would have and those stretch not only across the Commonwealth but across the nation and around the world so you're prepared for that given your job absolutely would embrace it, love it create a new network in a new field the next phase of my life I'd be humbled if you all thought that I was the right fit for this position so Commissioner, is anything else no, not for me, just a big thank you for your time here today thank you for your interest in this position and your service we thank you primarily for doing this in public I'm not I just want to say one last thing to Commissioner I don't have 20 applications out there I'm not flooding corporate entities with applications I applied for this position because it would integrate my experience three decades worth of experience in law enforcement investigations, compliance audits with the passion I have for gaming in college I worked at the Rainham Taunton dog track so I'm an outsider but I do know what paramutual betting is, what simulcasting is chariot racing this job when it was brought to my attention combines a passion in my experience I don't have dozens of resumes floating out there, I applied for this position for a reason because it's a combination of an interest and a passion and I think I'd be a director that you all would be proud of and that future directors would want emulate if you come across the position if you don't mind me asking a friend of mine who works for the commonwealth sent it over to me and said this has got you written all over it so I took a look I couldn't have I said it to my wife the other day I said if I love my agency I love it always will I told her if I could have designed a position for myself this would be it this would be it be remiss if I didn't I guess conclude on that note thank you thank you very much I hope you don't get with traffic on the way sorry that would be the one adjustment we wouldn't want you to have it unusual it's early enough that going from my driveway to provenance is 30 minutes and ironically enough the court house in Boston is equal distance almost to the mind it doesn't take me 30 minutes when I need to go to the Boston office yeah thank you so much for hosting I appreciate it oh that feels good thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you you can go out this door thank you everyone this is a reconvening of the Massachusetts gaming commission thank you for joining us it is Wednesday January 31st 2024 and we are holding this meeting live it's been a productive morning this is public meeting number 497 we've heard from our two the finalists for the IEB director position and we again express our appreciation and gratitude for their application and their participation today in this public forum so returning now commissioners to 2B the discussion and selection of IEB director again through the open meeting we are lucky enough to be able to conduct this process in public as we consider the two applications and the applicants interviews today I think everyone has the job description and the two resumes we all said on that alright commissioners I'm just going to see who would like to express their view first I'll start with both candidates I I'm sure they'll watch as soon as they get home both of them for putting in this is a very uncomfortable situation to have to come out in front of everybody publicly I thought they both didn't exempt their job answering the questions they both have excellent skill sets albeit different neither of them has the skill sets that we've had historically in the position to directors that's just the reality of you know the pool and the candidates who were at the top of the process for me there is a distinction between the management experience and the length of experience that Mr. Sharet has in his career who's obviously much further along than Caitlin Monaghan I can say that from my investigative and law enforcement background however the type of investigations that the marshals do are not as transferable as what you would think of from FBI, DEA a detective unit and a CPAC unit and a DEA's office I did want to drill down on that because I do know they do do other things they assist in other cases, they assist in the child protection unit but the and I don't want any of this to be taken in any way to meaning his experience in this regard but I did ask about specifics in terms of using financial information to track down the fugitives which I knew was done it sounds like that's primarily done from an individual in Connecticut and then passed along don't have any issue about the ability to sort of talk in front of a group etc but I don't think has quite the level of experience I might have been hoping for in terms of sort of presenting case strategies case postponements that sort of thing after a case I found them both to be very credible I think Caitlin does not have the length of the number of investigative experiences that Mr. Sharet has what she does have is nor does she have the level of management experience that he has in terms of the people the five direct reports and the body of 55 he has been supervising I liked his answers about management style my concern is it's not a requirement to have a JD for this job could you say that one more time please? it's not a requirement to have a JD for this job I do think it's a challenge to not have a JD for this job and I do feel that the lack of Massachusetts regulatory legal OML experience there's a lot to learn coming in to a group that I think needs stability to do and we have lost two females at the helm of that and in terms of diversity she is a female candidate I honestly was looking at it thinking we've talked about having succession planning in second and command structurally for that unit we don't have that at present but I do feel like jumping into that role with the type of investigative background and the lack of the Massachusetts and the legal experience the gaming law experience is troubling to me in that regard so I have concerns about the two people who departed and we're looking at the internal candidate and it is not at the same level as the people who left but I am leaning toward Caitlin Monaghan as the more seamless transition into continuing to lead that group with the knowledge of the agency the law, the scheming and the relationships can I just say ditto this is you know an awkward process Madam Chair may I yes please and I feel similar to Commissioner O'Brien which is why I tried to draw out from Mr. Charette how he might be feeling about you know as a non attorney stepping into this role that has been historically filled by attorneys and you know the JD is a preferred degree though I don't think it is absolutely required I think that with Mr. Charette's background however really exclusively law enforcement I do see his ability to come in and understand you know the civil side of things I know you know he considers his work transferable his investigatory work transferable I do think that there's a good piece of this job on the civil side that is going to be challenging for him to come in and be comfortable with right off the bat to the point that was made in terms of stability, historical institutional knowledge I think we have that in Caitlyn and she would be able to step right in I don't know in this time of transition whether we have the luxury of allowing Mr. Charette to I don't want to say leisurely because that's definitely not going to be an option but to you know take his time really because that's to really understand it he will need to take his time to learn and understand a lot of our processes and I spoke in the interview about the adjudicatory hearing and presenting the IAB's case and really understanding the concepts and the legal nuances to a lot of the things we do here adjudicatory bias was raised at the meeting as well I do think that both candidates could do the job I think one could step right in the other would require a lot of lead time in order to really get himself comfortable as comfortable as we need the IAB director to be not only to carry out the IAB's work but to instill confidence in the team and support in the team I think she's indicated that she's established relationships throughout the agency across divisions including the ones she's overseeing now and I think that we should leverage that I thought you were going to go on I think you're going to hear the same theme here from all of us to be honest with you I really liked what Mr. Sharet had to say in regards to his management style the fact that he was able to turn an agency around that was not looked upon favorably in a very short amount of time because of his management style he was able to turn it around and go from what I think he said was twentieth to number four in the country in regards to the agency I loved hearing his DEI stories he really cares about that issue which is something that we all do care about not only does he care about it but he was able to give two examples of where he really put his heart and soul into what he deserved who were minorities my biggest issue however and it's again the theme that we're all going to be talking about is the learning curve in this position he doesn't have the experience in licensing he doesn't have really the experience in suitability that we would want to have right now as we know this agency is doing yeoman's work to license our folks and to do suitability background checks and I think his lack of knowledge of the agency and the regulations and the laws that's a key piece for me here and madam chair you asked him directly about how he was able to adhere to the federal laws here our laws are very unique and we're known for that throughout the united states massachusetts when it comes to our laws and our regulations when you look at katelyn and take her out of the interim position for a moment let's talk about her experience at the mgc she has a knowledge of the agency and I think right now is timely we need somebody who has that knowledge she absolutely has the knowledge of our regulations and our laws she's implemented them she's written some of them moving forward her institutional knowledge her relationships with the people who she's worked with and will be working with i think gives her a leg up over mr. charrette i think they are two very very good candidates and commissioner skinner you said it and i'll repeat it either one of them would have done a very good job i truly believe that but i think with what's already been said by commissioner albright and commissioner skinner and to me to a point i think katelyn really has the experience that we need right now we really need somebody in place who has knowledge of the suitability background checks of licensing which she has now gained over the last few weeks so i too would be leaning toward at this point madam chair katelyn monahan for this position with the knowledge that i'm very fond of mr. charrette i think what he's done has been great his experience is top notch but i think for what we are looking for katelyn may have a little bit more knowledge at this time than mr. charrette does thank you madam chair the framework of which i try to make every decision is what is in the best interest of the commonwealth and it kind of drives everything that i do i think that chief charrette was extremely strong on his management background he showed a lot of vulnerability in his answers and what he said and i really think that it doesn't shock me that he took a district in receivership and turned it around because i can see at his core his leadership abilities and his ability to motivate people and i think he's right on the nose when he talks about you gotta treat everybody the same you gotta give people respect there's gotta be more us versus them and i just really appreciated i mean really appreciated his take on that i think with katelyn i've had the opportunity to see her take on very complex tasks and issues they're not always easy the personalities both on the commission and in the commission are always the easiest personalities to deal with and i've seen her navigate that you know to commissioner o'brien's point and i've heard it reiterated by my fellow commissioners you know i don't think anyone would expect the same level of investigatory background but i also think that we gotta look at the opportunity and the opportunity to grow i think both candidates have an opportunity and an opportunity to grow but at the end of the day you know chief suret actually talked about a situation where there was someone skipped over in his line and as he was talking about it i thought about the fact that i didn't want to skip over potentially katelyn and the work she's put in it um and you know i think that she's doing a fantastic job as interim i think it's tough i think that her talking about smoothing the hills moving forward was important to me um i think she understands that the commission doesn't want to just um turn 23 into 23k which i think is important to know um and so you know for those reasons i'm leaning towards katelyn but uh man i wonder if we can get chief suret in here somehow at the mgc that was what i was thinking the whole time yeah that was Jim here sorry are you calling on me? no no no thank you so you know i echo my fellow commissioners thoughts about how appreciative we are for these two candidates two exceptional candidates to come forward in this public forum they are distinctly different and for that i appreciate the work of the committee i know there was a third candidate that probably would have provided even more diversity but the two candidates were very different but equally strong in their own right and committed to their mission um you know we've had the benefit of working with katelyn katelyn has been in the public for the last three years really navigating our regulatory promulgation process instrumental i know and i know that our outside council who worked so closely with her would give her full credit in terms of devising the system that would actually turn out to be the framework that we were able to adopt it's not lost on me at all in terms of what katelyn navigated and at the same time advised us thoroughly on a slew of legal questions out of the regulatory issues um i was pleased that she shows pride about her work in the sports wagering and she should be really proud of that i've had the chance now you know she's been in this position since her note and it reminded me it was december 22nd i think it was our holiday party that she took on the new role of interim and over the course of the holidays and into january i've had the privilege of working with her in the reporting relationship that we have and katelyn has been very just very organized not surprising in terms of her wanting to raise issues with me or give me a quick report on status of things and i've appreciated that organization um you know the back and forth that we've had in terms of some of the questions that she may have raised and i especially appreciate that respect respectful nature and no surprise now i'm just going to turn to chief charrette for a second you know the candidate we had today is an exceptional human being his heart came through so um vividly and that heart has allowed him to accomplish all of this in his resume and with great success in that management let's be clear his humility um his heart his recognition that empathy matters and compassion matters is critical to his success but he's also doing everything right with respect to his intellect his capacity to manage thorny issues get tough investigation solved and for that i just want to say thank you for your service thank you for keeping us safe and um thank you for getting it right and doing that with that level of respect and compassion and humility that makes for a great leader it makes sense as everybody has been saying that uh katelyn should should proceed in the capacity that she has right now it's um there is no more there's a learning curve for katelyn too that's all to be clear right this is a new position for her and i love that she's excited about that she's indicated to us that um you know this was something that turns out it's really good for her and i love that for her personally i love it for her intellectual growth i love it for her professional growth and um i want that for for katelyn and i want it for the i e b team i i know that this i e b team led by caro bryan monica chang kathleen kramer in her interim position in terms of chief enforcement council um g e u and um detective lieutenant leo who am i leaving out is that it oh and then of course berg kain the gaming agents thank you thank you i knew it was five five divisions just like um i i know this remarkable team of the i e b would respect the leadership of either candidate and they would help either candidate be successful in that role i have full confidence in that is there a bigger learning curve for you know as he describes himself an outsider that's a given um but i have full confidence in the heart of the i e b team to work with either candidate to make them successful and i know that they are right now working successfully under the leadership of katelyn so um i don't want to deter somebody who's not an internal candidate to apply and i think that's probably what we're all struggling with you know what's our message here um you know it just happens that we've had an outstanding internal candidate apply for this big job in this public form and we've had an outstanding external candidate apply um and i think probably what we can point to is the learning curve in this juncture in the timing of this organization right now may matter more than maybe it would matter at another time personally i'm not necessarily convinced of that and again why because i really give the i e b team such credit they would always have the back of their leader whoever it is um but you know i'm hearing um from my fellow commissioners i think you and i um imagine you know chief chervet coming in and um and contributing in another role i love that he says he loves his job and so that makes me really happy um to be able to say comfortably that i would point to having um kaitlyn monahan assume the responsibilities of the i e b director and i know that um she will respect the role and responsibility of every member of her team and every member of the entire mgc team so uh can i point out though i just love that you pointed out the vulnerability of um uh chief chervet in this way the um the gift of this interview is clear to me because he can always look back and realize um he gave us a lot and it was very very impressive so procedurally yes if i could i i wanted to just um make sure uh that i state for the record that i stand by the committee's decision to advance mr charrette you know to this to this level um and i appreciate that you pointed out his personal strengths exactly what you all saw today is what commissioner hill and chief muldrew and i saw um and you know very uh charismatic uh positive attitude and he um showed his level of interest in this role so i just i want to i want to make sure that um you know there's this understanding that um the fact that we're not um probably not going to be advancing uh mr charrette has the iub director uh today is in no way reflective of you know um my um uh thinking that he would not be able to do this job or that he would not be a good fit uh at mgc and like the two of you commissioner uh maynard and chair um i do think that um you know in some capacity um we'd be very lucky to have him uh join our team other comments you want to add in add in no but you wanted a um emotion i'm ready to give one um and commissioner hill i i love that um and i do uh i guess we do need to formally vote i think that's right we've reserved that right and it's um i think it's part of our requirements and again thank you um and thank you commissioner skinner and commissioner hill and thank you commissioner o'brien and commissioner maynard for the really important contributions today i thought and i uh the questions that everybody asked were um so helpful for me to understand uh the strengths of each each um candidate so thank you commissioner hill madam chair i would move that the commission offered to katelyn marnehan the job of our director of investigation in fort bureau subject to any and all backgroun