right? All set. Okay. Good morning. This is a convening of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission and because we're holding this meeting virtually, take a roll call. Good morning Commissioner O'Brien. Good morning. I'm here. Good morning Commissioner Hill. Good morning. I'm here. Good morning Commissioner Skinner. Good morning. Good morning Commissioner Maynard. Good morning. I'm here. Right. We'll get started. I want to thank everyone yesterday. We had a very productive meeting on all matters coming out of our community. There's division and thank Joe Delaney for really getting a lot of his outstanding matters completed. So thank you for that. Now we are going to turn first to two sets of minutes. Commissioners, if you have the chance to review them. Commissioner Hill. Madam Chair, I move that the Commission approve the minutes from the August 11 2022 and August 17 2022 public meeting minutes that are included in the commissioners packet subject to any necessary corrections for typographical errors or other nonmaterial matters. Any questions or edits on either set? The 11th? So I did, Madam Chair, I had three pages that I flagged stuff on. All on August 11th. So page five in the packet, if you go to the third full paragraph, it starts off Commissioner Maynard asked a question. And I just I think it's just a typo because I'm not really it says the sentence ends with as it was reported that not all tables are rune. Yeah, I don't that's supposed to be open or running. Yeah, I don't know what it's supposed to be. Yeah, I think it was supposed to be running. I saw the same thing. Okay. Can you repeat the paragraph for me please? Yep, it's page five. If you go to the first the third full paragraph. Yeah, that opening sentence, the very end of that opening sentence. Oh, yes. It should be running. Okay. And then page 14. Not to say we compliment the thoroughness of the minutes. Thank you. Yeah. And I do just we're looking for the pages urge our legal team to go through them because there are issues that we hoped would be addressed. And so this is a good reminder. Thanks. So again, I think the the third full paragraph on that page, sort of the third sentence from the bottom starts off and reads right now Commissioner O'Brien stated criteria different from casino licensure, maybe strengthening and security of the sports weighting platform. And I had to go back and reread because I wasn't quite sure what I intended to say. And what I said was when you're when we were going back to see what would be transferable, that one of the criteria from casino licensure that would be potentially transferable would be the retail security equating to the strength of the security on the sports weighting platform. We want to just repeat that if you would like edited. So it should it should read Commissioner O'Brien stated one of the criterion from the casino licensure that may carry over would be because the building security equating to the strength and security of the sports weighting platform. Which are any are you okay? Legal voice with Commissioner O'Brien on on that statement so that Mr. Hill, I don't think that you necessarily have to record it. Perfect. Right. Okay. And of course, of course we are. Yeah. Yep. And then the last one was on page 15. Which was the first full paragraph on that page where it starts off Commissioner O'Brien recommended simultaneous launch periods. I did not actually, I was recommending staggered all along but that what I was saying was parallel tracks to move forward on parallel tracks not simultaneous launch. So it was parallel tracks for regulatory drafting. It was not simultaneous launch. Got it. And I have one very just I wouldn't I wouldn't have brought it up given that we're looking at this Commissioner Hill and you'll you'll appreciate this. It's on page four. I'm referred to as Chief John Stein and I reserve that title strictly for home. So any other edits on the 11th and then we'll turn to the 17th. I have one for August 11th. Thanks. Page five of the minutes. Page seven in the packet. Section B there on Corps Boston Harbor Quarterly Report. That first paragraph mentions E.B.H. President Jenny Holiday has been present at the meeting and she was not according to my recollection. I know she was listed on the agenda as intending to participate in that meeting but did not end up doing so. We will go back and we will check that. Thank you. That was on page seven. You said on the packet. Yeah, the packet. Yep. And then on the 17th. Any. Oh, Chris, are you all set with the 11th? Mr. Hill. Yeah. After about the 17th. Where are we all set on the 17th commissioners? OK. I see not. Yeah. So with those edits, Commissioner Hill does. So everybody else that cannot. Can you remind me on process to be have a second to Commissioner Hill? We did it. I'll second. OK, with discussion, so a little out of order. But with those edits, you just seconded. Are you all fine with those friendly amendments? Commissioner Hill. I am. Excellent. Thank you so much. Mr. O'Brien. Hi. That's Mr. Hill. Hi. Mr. Skinner. Hi. Mr. Skinner. Hi. I vote yes. Thank you. Um, OK. So next on our agenda, Secretary of Director Wells is a casino update from interim gaming agent Division Chief Burkane. Karen, see there. There he is. OK, and you know what? You're on mute. There's on mute. Thank you. And can you hear me all right? I'm on a different camera system. We can actually hear you clearly right now. OK, so just a few updates for the commissioners one. I'm proposing a tentative launch date for the category three mobile operators or online operators of March 10th. The suggestion is we do it that day because it gives us the weekend if there's any issues before March madness starts and then there's a Monday where we could have a commission meeting if necessary. If there's any issues before the big tournament starts. And then the recommendation is that we start at 10 a.m. There are some events that folks might want to rage around on March 10th itself. So that's why the recommendation came down. So we will keep you posted on how things are going with the review of the internal control submissions. But right now that's the date we're shooting for. And I know that folks would like to have some advance notice so they can plan. We are scheduled for the twenty third of February to do the temporary license approvals in front of the commission. Director Band is collecting all the necessary materials from the operators, which includes their their official requests for that temporary license. And we're confirming that they've paid the million dollars and I will be doing my determination that they are qualified gaming entities for that date. The operation certificate, I have done some work with the GLI team. Looks like we can do that in the day or two before the launch on March 10th. So we'll get some further clarification on a good day for that, depending on the commission or schedule. We just wanted to update you. That's what we're thinking right now. So things seem to be moving along. And then the other thing I'd like to update the commissioners on is the Massasoya Greyhound Association. Also, our random application for category two license. So the licensing division is conducting the complete misreview of the application as is required by the regulations with respect to the BEDs and multi-jurisdictional form. We have apparently identified an additional potential entity qualifier. So we're looking into that and see if additional materials need to be submitted. The IEB will be submitting a report to the commission as we've done with the other license applications. That would be self-reported information in the application, a financial review by RSM. That's based on submitted information. Now, we do, given that they have did not have audited financials, they're in the category of entities that do not currently use audited financials on additional work may be needed on that financial review. And then also an open source check on what's going on in different media outlets and other open source repositories information about the applicant. So that will be conducted that's in process right now. My suggestion is that we have a status date at the public meeting on February 23rd to evaluate setting a date for the actual evaluation of the application. I think we'll have much more clarity at that point, the appropriate date. In the interim, the commissioners do have the application that is available for your review. During this time period, the IEB will also continue its work evaluating the onsite operational readiness of the proposed location. As you know, we need to ensure that security, surveillance and the like is up to standards for a gaming operation. This is more involved than the category ones at this point because they have been already operating as a licensed casino. So we have been onsite checking that on a regular basis and they have done a thorough review the category twos that this is new for them. So Burke has already visited the property noted some work that still needs to be done. So that is still in process. And that's an important component of our evaluation for readiness to launch. And then once we do the evaluation we'll also need to receive and review house rules, internal controls, because that's IT testing and verification on the kiosk. So there's still work to be done but it's all in process along the similar path that we did for the other operator. I just wanted to give you those two updates. Are there any questions on either issue for me? And excuse me, Karen, if I just have a very minor update to your update. That's right. You mentioned that the deficiency review was in progress. That review has been complete for the existing qualifiers. The licensing division has communicated with the applicant. We do still have the matter of a potential new entity qualifier but the deficiency reviews on the existing submissions has been completed. Excellent. All right. Thank you. So questions for Karen's two important updates. And I want to note Karen you said tentatively Marcia, I'm going to swing back on this issue to confirm that next week or in the next couple of meetings. But right now. Yeah, that's really dependent on the quality of the internal control submissions that the applicants have submitted and their responsiveness to issues raised by GLI. If the applicants either have done a fantastic job, they're all good to go or they're responsive, we can get this done more quickly. But if the applicants can't respond or do not respond to needed modifications to their internal control submissions, that potentially impacts the timeline. And we do have the option of launching some but not all of the operators. But I want to make it very clear we are giving every operator the equivalent time and attention to their internal controls. So they are all getting the same approach to their review so that no one would be in a better position or a worse position that the applicants all have the same resources allocated to their internal control submission. Excellent. Questions for Karen Kushner? I'm sure so. Thank you, Karen. On what date does the March Madness Tournament start? Can you remind me? March 14th. March 14th. So there are no other questions. I will turn it over to our interim gaming agents division chief Bert Cain to give you an update on what's going on with properties. Great. Thank you, Karen. Good morning, Madam Chair. Good morning, commissioners. Nice to see everybody again. Gonna give you an update on casino operations at our three casinos and I'll start with PPC. PPC continues remodeling and construction on flutes that turn it into their permanent sports book. PPC continues the whole live music, the revolutionary lounge every Friday and Saturday evening from 8 p.m. to midnight. The full lineup and schedule is set through the end of March. PPC promotions falling for free play on February 11th and 25th from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. PPC will be selecting 25 lucky winners who receive $50 in free slot play every 15 minutes. On Saturday, February 11th from 5 to 9 p.m. Players can earn a $25 gift card for every 250 tier points earned using their My Choice Rewards card. And finally in February, players who sign up for a My Choice Rewards card will earn a spin to win up to $5,000 on their big wheel. MGM. MGM is hosting free music Fridays in the area ballroom and offering comedy entertainment on weekends in the Roar Comedy Club, which is in the Armory. On January 27th, MGM had between 300 and 400 guests dancing to the Connecticut Southern Rock Band Screamin' Eagles. And then on February 3rd, over 600 people turned out to rock the night away with Johnny Sixkine, a classic rockin' blues band. Encore. Encore is gonna expand pit 36 in front of the Winsports book due to the high demand.  Commissioners, you may remember when you were walking towards the Winsports bar on your right, there were some table games right in front of the Win Bet Sports Lounge. And so on the left, they wanna do the same thing to kind of mirror that. The table games will consist of one roulette, one craps for blackjack games. And they're expected to get that completed prior to the Super Bowl. This was kind of a last minute request and through the hard work of Encore's games facilities, department and our gaming agents being able to inspect this. It looks like we're gonna be able to get this open by Super Bowl. So that's a lot of good work by a lot of good people. Super Bowl weekend at Encore will provide promotional drawings and some extra staffing to handle the crowds. And lastly, it's a Super Bowl weekend. So obviously it's a fun and festive time at the casinos. So let's go Eagles and let's go Chiefs. That was for Bruce. Let's go Eagles and let's go Chiefs. Any questions, comments? Questions. I'm glad to see they're putting the table games in. And that was pointed out to me. Then we went down there on the 31st that they had activity on that table on the right that you were talking about that was unusual, highly unusual for so the middle of the week. So I'm glad to hear that they're doing that. Or maybe at your next report, you can give us an update on the table games and the poker tables. We haven't had that for a bit and that might be really helpful. It's right. It's funny you mentioned that Madam Chair, I was literally putting that on my list. We'll do that for you. Yeah, I think I'm particularly given the minutes it prompted me to think about our poker discussion and so we probably need an update on that. Cheryl, Brian, great observation on your part. So all right. So we're moving now then thank you. Does anybody else have anything for us, Karen, on your initial update? All right. And so two important announcements from Executive Director Wells. Thanks, Karen. Now we're turning to item number four on our agenda. Just a little bit of a process update. Today we're going to hear a preliminary update on review of two compliance matters from our Investigations and Enforcement Bureau in both Director Lilios and Chief Enforcement Council. Paul will be speaking on this and then turning to Sports Wagering Division Director Bruce Band. This is a preliminary report. I have asked Director Lilios that the IEB with the Sports Wagering Divisions Coordination could finalize its report in writing for next Tuesday. We have a hold on for our next Tuesday meeting. There's possibly a couple of other matters that we need to turn to. In any case, Executive Director Wells have asked for that hold. And then IEB would present the commission and I would ask now too for legal to be prepared at that time to explain our process under the statute of regulation. These matters are new to us. And so we are just wanting to make sure our processes are all in place commissioners. And after next Tuesday, we will be able to determine if any next steps are taken either by the commission itself or at our direction, the IEB. So today is quite preliminary in nature and we're turning now to Director Lilios so I think we'll probably turn it over quickly to Chief Investment Counsel Hall. That's right. Thank you, Chair. And we have been working to provide you with interim report sort of in the form of a status, verbal status today. And I'll turn it right over to Heather Hall. Thanks, Loretta. Thank you, Chair. Good morning, everyone. Just want to get my notes here so I can know what I'm speaking with you about, obviously. So obviously, as the Chair mentioned, there were some non-compliance events. They involved unauthorized events and wagering on those particular events at both Plain Ridge Park Casino and on for Boston Harbor. The matters are obviously currently under review by the IEB and our intention today as the Chair noted is to just provide a brief summary update with anticipated follow-up once the reviews are complete. I think the first thing I'd like to note is that both of these incidents were self-reported by the licensees. And our preliminary review indicates that these were violations of Chapter 23N Section 3 and 205-CMR 247, as well as this commissioned sports wagering catalog which the commission voted on. In terms of the preliminary review, with respect to the PPC matter, it is our understanding that wagers were permitted on a Merrimack College men's basketball game over the course of approximately seven hours. And the IEB has been in communication across teams and also with PPC on this matter. With respect to the EVH matter, it is our understanding that there was a wagering allowed on a Boston College women's basketball game and that that wagering was available for approximately five hours. And similarly, the IEB has been in communication with other across various teams and also with EVH. And, you know, as the chair and director of Lidlia said, essentially that's all we have for now in terms of this preliminary update, but the IEB does anticipate that we will be providing a written document on these matters, including remedial steps taken by the operators once we've completed the review, which we anticipate will be coming very soon. And if certainly if there are any questions, happy to answer those. And we can turn to Heather, commissioners. I also know that a director band is also available from perhaps to discuss further remedial steps, but we have questions for Heather at this time. Commissioner O'Brien. I do and Heather, if for some reason you feel like this is premature to answer, let me know. But my two questions really are with these both self-reported, self-identified and self-reported. Maybe you said that, I missed it. And do you have a sense of either the number or the monetary amount involved at each place? Yes, commissioner, they were both self-reported, which is obviously a key component in all of this. So I commend the operators for that. In terms of the specific amounts, I think that might be better to wait for the full report, which we are working on. We do have the preliminary understanding of it and we'll be happy to provide that in the coming days. Okay, thank you. I guess I should also offer this commissioners because Heather and her team will be coming back to us. And my goal is for Tuesday, we should also think as we listen to this report today, whether there's anything in particular we would like IEB to cover. I think I'm hearing, you know, even between now and Tuesday, it's going to be a busy betting weekend. So my question would be, how do we ensure to the public that there will be the remedial efforts in place to mitigate this kind of prohibited event available for betting purposes? And perhaps, I don't know directly who should answer that. I think Bruce is probably in the best position to address that. Certainly some steps have been taken. Again, we continue to evaluate ongoing remediation and may have some suggestions for that as we complete our review, but as an interim matter remediation has been addressed, I think Bruce is in the best position to summarize that. Madam Chair, commissioners, I will tell you that Encore has by tomorrow has taken over inputting their catalog themselves at Encore. They've taken over that process from GAN, PPC is reviewing the catalog the day before it goes into effect each day at PPC to make sure that there are no Massachusetts teams in their catalog every day. So that's kind of the way they're checking it and making sure that this doesn't happen again. Okay, and so questions for... Madam Chair? Yes, commissioner. So Bruce, can you just remind me, so they physically go in and do like click a box, no, no, no, or yes, yes, yes, depending on what the technology is. And is it safe to say that just one of these a box didn't get clicked? It wasn't... I would really prefer not to answer that to the investigations complete, but that will be clear to you when the report gets turned over to you. Perfect, okay. Thanks. So that's a... Thank you, Madam Chair. And commissioner Hill, even if the questions can't be answered today, we know they'll get addressed if we ask them. So this is a good time to ask questions. So it will inform IEB and Director Ban. Commissioner Skinner? Yeah, Bruce, just can you clarify what remedial measures PPC has put into place? You said that they would review the catalog the day before. Is that the day before each... Each catalog is put into place. So they had the whole catalog, they can look at it, make sure there's no Massachusetts teams in that. And then that catalog gets uploaded to make sure that there isn't any teams from Massachusetts in it. That would be a daily review then, right, almost? Pretty much so, yes. Yeah, okay, thank you. You know, I'm gonna turn to Councillor Grossman just as a reminder to the public the statutory and regulatory provisions that are applicable here that Chief Enforcement Council mentioned just generally on Massachusetts teams. If you want to remind everyone on the general rule. Sure, I don't have it right in front of me, but essentially no wagering is allowed on events involving any Massachusetts-based colleges or universities unless they're involved in a tournament that has at least four teams in it. And so individual sporting events with just two teams are not including Massachusetts colleges or universities are not permitted here. And they're certainly not in the catalog. Right, which are the regulatory provisions. So just a reminder that not all states have that prohibition. Massachusetts does and like Heather said, I do commit both operators for self-reporting. I have one additional request. We did, while we were assessing the applications we did get insights on other jurisdictions that dealt with these kinds of infringements. So to the extent that you can pass along how they've been handled by other jurisdictions I think we're always interested in that. Commissioners, do you agree that you like that information? Chair, I just want to say thank you for that. We are actually in the process of doing exactly that and we'll be certainly happy to report our insight that we've gleaned from those different applications. So I agree with you and I appreciate your raising it. Thank you. Other questions or anything you'd like? IEB and the sports majoring division to address. I'll set and we'll stay tuned and again our goal is to revisit this on Tuesday, February 14th, ideally. All right, so just so folks understand we did reserve the right to access an executive session. It's my understanding here, we had no need and so that's why it was on the agenda just in the event that there was something that we needed to discuss in order to preserve the integrity of an investigation or review at this point. So we're going to turn now to item number five on our agenda. Good morning. Good morning, Madam Chair and commissioners. I'm joined by Doug O'Donnell and John Scully and we are here to present to you the second quarterly budget update for the commission's FY23 budget. This begins on page 26 of your packet. The currently approved FY23 budget for the gaming control fund is 35.97 million composed of 29.61 million in regulatory costs and 6.36 million in statutory required costs. This required an assessment of 29.88 million on our licensees. This quarterly update staff is recommending increasing the gaming control fund by a total of 50.77 for independent monitoring voices paid in the second quarter. As a reminder, the independent monitor expenses revenue neutral. So we're also increasing revenue estimates by that same amount. This memorandum also recommends adjustments to each licensee share of the second half of the FY23 gaming control fund assessment and the assessment to the public health trust fund based on revised gaming position counts as of January 1, 2023. In September of 2022, the commission approved a preliminary budget for the sports wager and control fund of 2.193 million. At subsequent meetings, the research and responsible gaming division requested approval to move forward with a 150,000 RFR for a statutorily required study as well as 60,000 for enhancement to the VSC database. These were both approved in those meetings, thus increasing the sports wagering control funds approved level to 2.42 million. In this quarterly update, we're recommending additional increases of 2.32 million dollars to the sports wagering control fund, which would bring the total FY23 projected budget for sports wagering to 4.74 million. We're also introducing an assessment as is allowed by the law of approximately 2.2 million dollars on sports wagering approved licensees. In a public meeting on January 4, 2023, the commission approved the addition of five new FTEs for the Information Technology Division allocated to the gaming control fund were approximately 3.5 of these new FTEs. We have experienced high turnover this year as well as a lag in filling a lot of vacant positions we have. The combination of turnover and difficulty filling vacant positions has resulted in those new positions being funded from our current budget levels. We don't need any new money or request for money for that for those positions. The commission approved the FY23 budget with the bare minimum set aside for litigation costs as required by our insurance policy as well as a flat funding level for GEU overtime. As of this second update, both of those funding levels appear to be sufficient. However, we will continue to closely monitor these items and future updates as well as we have a developing potential exposure that we're not ready to bring details forward on but it's the move of our primary and backup data centers for the central monitoring system. As we have firma details we'll bring these items before the commission but we just don't have enough information to have a good conversation or an informed conversation at this point. The commission has determined that once a year on or above January 1st it will revise the number of gaming positions utilized for determining a licensee's proportional share of the assessment and use that percentage for the billing of the second half of the annual assessment. The tables on page two and three of the memo which is pages 27 and 28 of your packet show reporting gaming positions at each facility on July 1, 2022 as well as January 1, 2023 as well as how the second half year of the assessment will be changed and paid by each licensee's based on the change in those gaming positions. Now moving on to the sports wager and control fund. In this second quarterly update we're requesting an additional 2.32 million as detailed in the table on page four of the memo page 29 of your packet. To summarize, we are looking for an additional 1.58 million for outside council and CPA assistance. An additional 520,000 for GLI consulting, training and internal control reviews and an additional 211,000 for the Commonwealth assessed indirect costs on those additional increases. The FY23 budget for the sports wagering control fund relies on fees from initial suitability fees and assessment to maintain regulatory oversight of the sports wagering operations. We received 3.2 million in initial application fees for suitability reviews. Any costs associated with standing up the sports way during regulatory environment, suitability reviews and application reviews prior to the licensing of operators was funded from the initial application fees. Any ongoing reviews for full suitability will be funded from the initial fees as well as any costs that exceed the initial 200,000 deposit by a specific licensee. Any costs moving forward that are not part of the suitability of applicants will be funded from the assessment. 205CMR 221.01 paragraph four allows the commission to make the assessment on licensees in proportion to each licensee's actual or projected adjusted growth sports wagering receipts. For the purposes of this first assessment we'll be using the licensee's projected revenue for determining each licensee's proportional share of the FY23 assessment. The table on page five of the memo, page 30 of the packet distinguishes between costs that should be paid from the initial 200,000 suitability fee versus the annual assessment. The second table on page five of the memo shows each operator's share of the assessment. In addition to the assessment on licensees for the sports waging control fund, there's a statutorily required assessment of $1 million on sports wagering licensees for the public health trust fund. Each sports wagering licensee's share of that assessment is included on page six of the memo, page 31 of the packet. Before I conclude, I can ask if there are any questions before I ask for what we would like here. Okay. Questions? I don't have any questions on this, more a comment of it seems like we need to support Dave Muldrew and IT, et cetera, to try to fill some of these positions because we've got a lot of lifting coming and a lot of attrition and positions to fill. So not a fiscal question, just more a hiring question. I would thoroughly agree with that. While I was happy as I was starting to pull these numbers together to see that we didn't have to ask for additional funding, it was very shocking to see the number of open positions, vacant positions and lag in hiring that we have. And it's across all divisions. So it really is something that I think Dave and team are tasked pretty hard with at this point. Yeah. Secretary Director Wells, I don't know if you want to chime in on that. I know it's been top of mind for you. Yeah, I know Dave and the Inspire team they have been working on additional strategies in order to... Now, we're having a little trouble hearing you now, Karen. No problem. Thank you. No problem. How's that? Is that better? Okay. Thank you. I have a new webcam from my Tisa. I'm sure I'm figuring that out. So yeah, Dave and team they absolutely recognize this is not just a gaming commission problem or even a state government problem. It's a national issue on hiring. So this is something where we're competing against other folks that are hiring as well. So they have implemented additional strategies in order to recruit more employees and particularly in the IT front. It's just challenging right now. So we're just looking at any ways that we can make the job more appealing. We're looking at additional ways to recruit. We're looking at the option of remote so we can expand our pool even beyond Massachusetts. But these are just things that every government agency and every employer is struggling with right now. So they are on it. They know and the IT team is sort of working. We're trying to network, trying to see if we can get people that are well-known as being strong in the IT department in the Commonwealth. But this is just, it's gonna be an ongoing issue. So we're just, but we do have resources within the HR department and Derek and I have also supported outside consultants or outside funding to try to get additional hires within the agency. Madam Chair. Yes. So I should know this, but I don't. Do we take the show on the road as we like to say? Do we go to job fairs around Massachusetts? And in some cases, which I don't necessarily recommend but New Hampshire, Rhode Island areas to get some of these workers to come in. I know a friend of mine who works in the industry of helping people hire people. He's at a job fair almost daily right now. And he's very successful in getting people jobs through those job fairs. Just a suggestion and maybe we already do it and I just don't know. So historically we have gone to job fairs. It's not as many as I think we'd like to because we've had a smaller HR staff but we have historically and then for some of the dedicated positions when we had a hard time filling gaming agent positions we actually held our own job fairs where we brought people out, let them come interview with us let them come give us their resumes and then we created a, if we had more applicants and we needed for the positions open we created a backlog too where we could go to the next group in line. And I think we have to, you know I think Dave is looking at those types of options as well as pulling on recruiters for some of these harder positions that we haven't been able to fill for a long period of time. But there is plenty of room for expansion in that. I will be the first to admit when it used to fall onto me there was plenty of room for expansion into that. Thank you Madam Chair. I like both those ideas. Something to think about Executive Director Wells. So thank you and thanks for the question. Other questions on this and Commissioner Bryan you've raised an important issue for the internal works of the team. So thank you. All right, now back to Derek's report. In conclusion, we recommend increasing the gaming control fund spending and revenue projections by 50.7K for the independent monitor bills received during that time period. We will continue to monitor all spending and revenue activity with specific attention to litigation costs, GEU overtime costs, payroll turnover savings as well as the CMS issue that is developing the move of those data centers. We recommend adjusting the assessments on gaming licensees based on the revised gaming positions as of January 1, 2023. We are seeking approval to increase the sports wager and control fund budget to 4.747 million and assess 2.236 million of that on the Massachusetts licensed sports operating, sports wagering operators. We also seek approval of the $1 million statutorily required assessment to the public health trust fund on licensed sports wagering operators as contained in this memorandum. Thank you for your time. So commissioners, I know that Derek's looking for a vote from us today. If you have no further questions you can find the benefit of your thorough memorandum. Thank you to John and to Doug for joining today. Questions for either of them. Nice to see you, John. Nice to see you as well. Yeah. Commissioners. Madam Chair, I'm ready to make a move if my fellow commissioners see fit. Madam Chair, I would move that the commission increase the gaming control fund spending and revenue projections by $50,770 for the independent monitor and that the commission adjust the assessment on gaming licensees based on the revised gaming position accounts as of January 1st, 2023, as included in the commissioners packet and discussed here today. Second. Any further questions or edits? All right. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Commissioner Maynard. Aye. I vote yes. 5-0, excellent work there. Thank you. I think there's one other motion. Yeah, I was going to say, I think that we now have to turn to because it's been corrected, correct? Do you have that? Commissioner Skinner, perhaps. I move that the commission increase the sports weighting control fund budget to 4.74 million and assess 2.32 million of that on Massachusetts sports weighting operators and that the commission approved the $1 million statutorily required assessment to the public health trust fund on licensed sports weighting operators as included in the commissioners packet and discussed here today. And Derek, you'll have to confirm that I got the numbers right, please. You did. Thank you. Second. Hey, any further discussion on that? Thank you. Commissioner Maynard, you weren't asking, okay? Thank you for the helpful analysis. Commissioner Maynard. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Commissioner Maynard. Aye. I vote yes. 5-0, excellent. Well done, finance team. I know they've got a couple of your team members here, Derek, but you always, and you always acknowledge all the others. It's not just the finance team, it's the whole agency, right? As a reminder, the entire agency is responsible for their own budget. So we have, I think, what is it? John 16 cost centers right now and they all are responsible for their own budget. They meet with John on a monthly basis. They really get it to a point where it's just a quick analysis here and I'm writing the memo and on the revenue side, Doug and his team are working with the licensees daily to keep track of the position accounts, the revenue, the assessment, and all the work that the commissioners did through the review of the applications made the assessment easier because we had the information that was from the executive session knowing detailed out all of the projections from each licensee. So it really is, we get to sit up here and do the summary information, but it really is all the work behind the scenes. And such excellent work by you and your folks in tracking all of that, Derek. So thank you to Derek, thank you to John, thank you to Doug and the rest of the team. Thank you. Thank you, Patricia Skinner. Anything else set then? All right, thank you. And we're gonna now move to our legal discussion and we've got a break to return to. And it's not sports wagering. Good morning, Judy. Good morning, Madam Chair, you're right. It is not sports wagering. This morning we are talking Blackjacks, specifically Pantune 21. I am joined by Burke Kane, interim gaming agents, division chief, Angela Smith, casino regulatory manager at MGM Springfield and Dustin Nigro, supervising gaming agent. As you'll recall, the commission approved Pantune 21 as a new table game in the Commonwealth at the December 1st, 2022 public meeting. Thereafter, it has been approved for play at MGM Springfield, so just over a couple of months now. This regulation has been going through the promulgation process with a public hearing overseen by commissioner O'Brien on January 31st, 2022. So we're bringing the physical characteristics regulation back before the commission for finalization and approval. And we've also bought the rules back as well to make a slight change to them that won't affect their content. But before we get into the nitty gritty, I thought it would be best to turn it over to the IEB to give you a short update of how the game has been functioning at the property and then we'll turn it back over, so enjoy. Good morning, everyone. The game is popular at MGM. It's busy all hours of the day. They've had multiple jackpots. Recently they had a jackpot for the progressive just under $200,000. Since they began the trial of the game back in July, 2022, they've actually given away just under $4 million of prizes for the progressive jackpot rules on that game. We haven't had any issues with patrons' comments on the game and we haven't had any issues on site with procedures and policies with the game. Does anyone have any other questions? Angela, it's great to see you and it was so nice to see you in Springfield. Does Dustin launch way in? Good morning, Russell. No, I agree with Angela. Everything she said has been going really well. Going well, excellent. All right, so questions. We didn't really get a chance to take a look at this unless maybe you did, Commissioner Hill, when you were out there for a little length of your time. So I was gonna make a comment at the end of our discussion here. And Angela, hello into your team out there. I wanted to thank them. So I was out there for like 24 hours. So they took me not only into the sports betting area tours but they brought me around the whole casino and it was very, very informative because I got to see section by section by section and got to see the back of what really goes on. And yes, I got to see a little bit of the pontoon 21 being played as I was walking around. Ian Burke, we're doing our thing during our Monday tour as well. So thank you for being there. Very, very popular game, for sure. Yeah. I agree. And it's popular 24 hours a day. Commissioner Hill and Angela and Dustin, can you discern what it is that makes it, is it why is it so popular? No, I can't. I think the bonus, the progressive bonus spin helps. One of the features that that bonus prize offers is that if the bonus hits, there's minor prizes for everybody at the table. And then there's a grand prize for one person. So everybody has that potential to win a smaller prize every time the wheel is initiated. So that to me would be enticing if I was going to choose a game. So that's just my guess. That's helpful. Well, I'm glad it's a success. Commissioner, is there any questions for Angela, Dustin, Burke, Commissioner Hill, okay. No, a questions for you because you had eyes on the game. All right, so now back to the regulatory work. I think Burke has something he'd like to add, Madam Chair. Oh, in reference, yeah, hi everyone. In reference to the fun or the attraction to the game, I think we all kind of know our kitchen table blackjack game. A pontoon 21 also throws in like a six, seven, eight combination bet, which could win a little bit. Three sevens, which is 21, could win a little bit. Those paid tables would be clearly printed on the layout. So it adds a little bit of difference, bets and combos and a little bit of fun that way also. Very helpful. And I'm sorry, Burke, that I missed you. Thank you. Oh, that's quite a right. Okay, so Judy. Yeah, back with the least fun part of the game, walking through the rules. Yeah, I know. You know what, Judy, if anyone can make a reg, really fun, you can. I'll try my best. All right, so beginning in our packets on page 39, we have 205 CMR 146.28. So this regulation basically incorporates the figure, excuse me, the physical aspects of the table game. You can see a picture of the actual pontoon 21 table at the property on page 58 and 59 of your packets. So I apologize if they're a little separated out, but essentially it puts into regulation, similar with our other table games that the commission operates into this regulation, including the payout odds, commission's rules surrounding progressive payouts of blackjack games and other wagers. But we've made no substantive changes since the last time that you saw this reg on December 1st. And I believe I forgot to add during my little introduction that we've also received no comments at the property or electronically about this game or the regulation itself. So I consider that to be a little bit of good news. Any questions, commissioners? I will note for you, there is one small typo in, let's see if I can find it. My eye just caught it, I apologize. I believe it's in number six. There might be a spacing issue, but now of course I look crazy and I cannot see it, but I promise I'll go for the reg one more time and take a look. Yeah, with those kinds of typos, I think there's always permission to fix that. Commissioners, any further questions on the reg itself? I think that Judy's looking for a motion, Brian. I did the reg hearing, so Judy, I can bring it in. I moved that the commission approve the amended small business impact statement in the draft of 205 CMR 146.28 as included in the commissioners packet and discussed here today. And further that staff be authorized to take the steps necessary to file the required documentation with the secretary of the Commonwealth to finalize the regulation promulgation process. Second. Any questions? Commissioner O'Grayan. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Commissioner Maynard. Aye. And I thought, yes, thank you. All right. Hi, Carol. So then, thank you. Oh, thank you, guys. Next, moving on, we have the rules of pontoon 21. We've simply gone on to the rules begin at page 43 in your packet, but I'm gonna flag the major change for you is within the rules on page. Let's see if I can get there fast enough. I think 56. That's correct. Page 56. So now that the regulation is finalized, we've gone in and essentially stricken section 17 that lays out the physical table characteristics in the rules. We did this because it took around 65 days for the regulation to go from draft to now final format. And so removing this out will put these rules kind of in similar fashion to all of our other approved table games. And then this version will just go up on the MGC website with the date of approval. Questions for Judy on this? Everybody sees the stricken link, right? Do I have a motion on the rules? And of course, when there's no questions, that's a good thing, right? Oh, yeah. We've had a good meeting. Right, Commissioner O'Brien? Commissioner Skinner, you can tell him like first. I will yield to Commissioner Skinner. OK. Unless you don't want to. No, no, no. I was ready to second, because I saw you would move in first. But I can move. I know that the commission approved the amended rules of the game of pontoon 21 as included in the commissioners packet and discussed here today. Second. No. Any questions, edits? Commissioner O'Brien? Aye. Commissioner Hill? Aye. Commissioner Skinner? Aye. Commissioner Maynard? Aye. And I vote yes, 5-0. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. We thank you. And thank Dustin and Angela for coming in today and for your great work. I have to say that when we're moving and there's some comsiness, I think to ourselves, we operate on this virtual platform pretty well. So occasionally there's some crossovers and that it actually makes me laugh because it is strictly a matter of being on a virtual platform. So thank you. And you know what? Angela and Dustin, you didn't have to leave any distance to get here today. So thank you so much for that virtual. You're welcome. You're welcome. And thank you. Yeah. Have a good day. Bye-bye. All right. So. Yeah. Let's see. What do we have next on legal? I guess we're turning now to the discussion of two. And I see Carrie. Are we turning to you now this morning? That would be great. Good morning, Madam chair and commissioners. So I can kind of tee up this discussion on the cooling off reg for you. This is just a reminder. This is not the meeting to vote on this reg for the final version. It's just for some discussion today. And I'll sort of explain what the intent of that is, but to guide the discussion today, you have the reg in your packet beginning on page 60. Just a reminder, this reg we're going to discuss. This is the cooling off reg, which allows individuals to temporarily prohibit themselves from sports wagering. And specifically at issue for discussion today is a notification requirements of the expiration of that temporary prohibition period, which is on page 61 of your packet. It's 254.033 is the section. I just want to remind you as well that the red line language here in your packet is not currently in effect. It's that the non red line version is, is what's actually in effect by emergency. The red line language is what you had voted on at the last meeting to put out for comment to see if operators had any comment on this proposed option. The non red line diversion made these notifications mandatory and the red line language made them opt in. By the individuals carry on that. Yeah. When we read the language, that's not read. It doesn't look like it's a complete sentence. It's when we start with 24 hours. Fire. I think it's just. Let me double check. I think it's just because of the, the number being used instead of. Maybe that's right. 24 hours prior to the expiration of 72 hours on one week. temporary prohibition period or 72 hours prior to the expiration of two, three. I think we've taken out the, something about notification. But if you want to work on that, I also want to turn to the director Wells, because you've had some conversations about this particular provision as well. And I know we're going to hear from Mark as well. Yes. So there, as you know, there was a discussion at the commission meeting prior, a prior commission meeting on this issue. We also had conversations with director Vanderland on this. We were trying to read, we did reach out to the operator. So director band did reach out. We haven't confirmed yet whether or not the operators would actually be able to do some kind of opt in for the prior notice that there, that an individual's temporary prohibition is expiring. So, you know, we've chatted and Mark chime in here, but I think that given that this regulation is now in effect per emergency, we could communicate to the operators. They, they can petition for a waiver on that if, if they can't do that. So that's sort of on the operational side and on the substantive side, you know, the commission has had some discussion about sort of the policy behind this. Mark's going to do a presentation later on, sort of his thinking behind the reasoning for the policy. But one, one option we have also discussed with the chairs, you know, some kind of further, whether it be around table or some kind of stakeholder discussion on the policy. We recognize this is not something that's done in other jurisdictions. It could be more on the cutting edge or the forefront. So there could be discussion on how to do that. The other issue that had come up, if there was a concern about the, the notification coming from the operator and whether that's a trigger or some kind of signal. That would entice someone on the, that would be going and making statements. And there's some sort of general or otherwise, general ambition cooling off period to then go ahead and start gambling. As soon as the cooling off period had expired. That there is the option of that messaging coming from game sense or something through the commission. So at this point. We have started the operational piece and then, and then the policy piece, Thank you for that. That just gives a little setting of the stage now turn back to Carrie. In terms of the black language do you see my question. Yep, I can show you so it's a little confusing because the the crossed out language is what's in effect so if it helps I can I can show you the. What's an effect language that is in effect. Excellent thank you. Yeah, it's that notification clause right there so so. Commissioners you can see in number three. That's what's in effect right now and if you recall correctly we spent a good deal of time discussing the amount of. Time that should be a lot of for notice, you know, depending on the selected cooling off period. During our assessment. I happen to notice and perhaps you did as well and I actually asked a few operatives about it that they didn't provide notice. But I don't have any notes and maybe commissioners you can remember more clearly that some of the operatives gave coming off periods that were different than what's often in our wreck. So, it, and I think one might have even been as long as 365. So, I just wanted to point that out because that would be another change for operatives to make if we really want to keep the cooling off periods to strictly two weeks, three weeks, four weeks. temporary prohibition periods. And my observations that came from our assessment of the applications that followed our adoption of this emergency bag. And then, and mark will go through his policy discussion. There was an additional recommendation that emerged where that notice could be optional. But that's still the sports operator sports raging operator would have to be the, the notifier, which we got some feedback from those that were those operators that came before so that that would be from their perspective exceptional So, I think we can take this language down but that's really, you know, actually, I should take a picture of it. But that's the reg in place now. And if we were to decide on a waiver. That would be what would be played now, and we have not yet acted on the new bed line language. So, right. Okay, so now that's an additional studying of the stage. We have Mark Vandalin and has provided a PowerPoint. I know that he was concerned about it being submitted on the later side of our, our regular practice. I thought it would be helpful for him that's very least to use as a guide for him. And I felt that the commissioners didn't need to necessarily study it. Looks like we also have Dave Mackie here today. And so for questions and carry I want to turn it back to you as to what how you'd like to proceed. Sure. So I just wanted to mention sort of where the reg is in process before we kind of jump to Mark's presentation. So this regulation, the one that is in effect will come back for final vote on the 28th. So, you know, if there are particular changes or the 28th or the first I think we booked both days because we have several regs but if there are changes that the commission sort of comes up with today that you'd like us to make sure that we could come back with those changes at that meeting when it comes for final vote. And then what I particularly wanted to note is that that whatever that version is where wherever you land that version will go into effect on March 17. So, you know, not to keep that in mind with respect to any potential waiver that might be necessary, whatever regulation you do decide to vote on on the 28th or the first won't go into effect until March 17. I think I'll just turn it to Mark if he wants to walk through his presentation. Any questions yet for Carrie or Karen. Carrie final vote on February 28 or March 1 with an effective date of March 17. You said right. Correct. Yep. Thank you. Any other questions. Okay. Good morning, director Vandal. Just have a five minutes. Just a five minute break before we start the presentation. That's probably a good idea. Thank you so much. So it's 1115 will return. 1125. It's not running. Okay. Thank you so much. All right. So this is a reconvenient of Massachusetts getting commissioned meeting number 434 on February 9. We're holding this meeting virtually. Good morning again. Good morning. I'm here. Good morning again. Good morning. I'm here. Okay. Good morning. And commissioner may have a good morning. Good morning. All right. It's starting and now returning to its item number. The I regarding coming off periods and returning now to our, our research and responsible gaming director. Mark Vanderland and thanks Mark. Good morning, madam chair. Good morning commissioners. Um, thank you for, uh, allowing me to bring this late PowerPoint to you. I was working with Bonnie and long over the past couple of days. We decided that a PowerPoint was probably the best way to kind of organize some of our thoughts on this and, um, and so here we are. So, um, I'll, I'll just dive right into this. Let me see my screen. We can change. So, um, what I'm going to talk to you about is the utility of notifications during a cooling off period. But I also want to just spend a little time talking about what is cooling off. I think we have it sort of a general idea of what it is when you, when you say it, and it's used in a variety of different settings, not just gambling. But I think that let's just talk about it for a second here in a gambling context. Before I do, again, I really appreciate the help of Bonnie and mom and pulling these materials together. So cooling off is one means for an individual to limit their access to a specific type of gambling on a platform for a short period of time. It's a voluntary external control for persons concerned about their ability to, to self limit. Basically, it's an external control. When you, when you feel that you don't have the internal controls to limit your gambling. And I frequently described our voluntary self exclusion program in the same way. And as, as the next bullet point states, it's just a shorter period of time for self exclusion that may be offered as part of a pre-commitment system. And that term pre-commitment I use frequently as well. And I'm going to come back to that in just a few slides. So our responsible gaming framework is the Massachusetts responsible gaming framework was first developed I think in 2014 revised in 2018. There's seven different strategies as you see here. Strategy two really focuses on supporting positive play. We have a number of different tactics and strategies specifically under supporting positive play. But what I wanted to focus on here is just sort of the challenge for the commission, the challenge for our licensees to try to keep thinking about how do we do a better job in promoting positive play. So for persons who are unable to maintain positive play, gaming licensees must offer information about problem gambling options for health. The strategy also recognizes that things continue to evolve as new information and technology become available, especially now with sports wagering. Licensees and others have a role in innovating and assuring programs and materials that support positive play and address problem gambling are woven into all practices and policies. I just got done watching a webinar from a colleague of mine, Dr. Tim Wong from the UCLA Gambling Studies program. And he was doing a webinar for the Mass Council on Gaming and Health. And in one of his slides he said that we need to do a better job of developing innovative ways to reach sports betters at a very early stages of problem gambling and increase the demand for services. That's sort of early detection. And I think that's an important way to try to understand this. How do we develop early detection system? And how do we implement that and embed that in our different types of gaming platforms?  And I would venture to say we know very little about that just off the bat. A lot of research hasn't been done on this. We know who enrolls in voluntary self-exclusion programs. They're generally speaking at risk and problem gamblers. So I'm going to just venture to say that when we talk about cooling off, we're probably talking about individuals that would be sort of in that at risk stage and perhaps problem gamblers. Because if you think back to the definition of what cooling off is, it's that external control for somebody that's having a difficulty with internal controls. And a step care approach. And this also is drawn from our responsible gaming framework. The step care approach says you can't have a one size fits all approach. You have to recognize that different people need different types of information. And our entire responsible gaming program is really focused on providing the right information at the right time to the right people. And I don't care whether it's play my way or brochure or discussion with our game sense advisors. It's really built on this idea that we need to tailor our approach to the players that are gambling in Massachusetts. And so just a very brief thing. It means that there should be a hierarchy of potential interventions designed for different players ranging from the focus on promoting positive play to providing access to self-management tools and help resources, including offering casino exclusion. So in this social work and therapy world, there's something called the stages of change. And it was developed by D. Clemente and Prochaska quite some time ago. And it was originally used to help people overcome addiction and problematic behaviors such as alcohol and drug abuse. It's been used in a thousand different ways since then and way back in my social work career when I was doing a lot more direct practice and working with children and families. This was something that I leaned on quite heavily. And basically it's just saying, you know, people move if people who are wanting to make a change, people who recognize or have an issue move through these different stages of change all the way from pre-contemplation where you may not even necessarily recognize the consequences of your action. And they don't necessarily say this behavior is connected to this negative outcome. But slowly people begin to acknowledge that maybe there's a problem there but they don't necessarily have the tools or the confidence or the resources in order to address it. And I would say that persons who enroll in cooling off may be at this either preparation stage or possibly even the action stage, meaning that they're willing to set small achievable goals, take small steps forward. And when they do that, it's important that one, that the tools are easily accessible and that you take that additional step to try to nudge people to the next logical step. How do you encourage self-efficacy in order to move to that next stage of help? And again, talking about willing offer, anything else related to some of our strategies, we spend a lot of time talking about, okay, if we offer voluntary self-exclusion, what efforts do we do, information to try to connect people to help in the community? And again, it goes back to the right information at the right time to the right people. And so I'm going, again, without a lot of detail and data research on who is signing up for these types of cooling off periods, I would venture to say that there are individuals that are in this sort of preparation and action stage change. I'm going to talk a little bit more now. I'm going to kind of venture into the notifications piece of it that I think is kind of the center of discussion. So notifications support pre-commitment. So pre-commitment is a general term, is a harm minimization strategy, which allows players to make rational decisions about their gambling involvement prior to actually engaging in gambling and obliges them to retain these limits despite the patients that arise during play. So in other words, a notification is delivered to an individual at a point in time where they don't actually have access to gamble on that specific platform. It's not an option that's on the table. It's not even like a click away. So it's important to provide them with information at that point in time so that they may make that rational decision in a cool state of mind. And a little bit more about pre-commitment and who we're talking about there. We actually have a study that was just wrapped up and I'm looking forward to sending it through our review and delivering it to the commission. But it's a follow-up study looking at positive play behavior in Massachusetts. So this is a Massachusetts specific study of the online panel and it was a follow-up from a replication study that was done two years ago, I believe it was two years. But basically what it takes a look at four domains, pre-commitment, gambling literacy, personal responsibility, and there is one of our, I'm sorry, I'm drawing a blank, but what I want to focus on is pre-commitment. And what you can see is that persons who are at low moderate and high risk have lower positive play scores than those who have no risk or no sign of problematic play. And in addition, those who are younger have lower positive play scores as it relates to pre-commitment. And this is important. It ties back to some of the work that Dr. Volberg and our Sigma team did, which begins to identify who is at greatest risk of gambling-related harm, specifically in sports wagering. And it's a younger group, it's a younger demographic that tends to have more difficulty. So again, it's trying to get the right information to the right people, recognizing where are their strengths and where are the challenges of getting this information to people. I wanted to just, I could go into a much larger sort of literature review, but Bonnie pulled these couple studies together. You could see the citation below, but in this is, again, there isn't a lot out there specifically on crewing off. But if you want to take a look at voluntary self-exclusion, there are two studies that really pointed, and one report by the Responsible Gaming Council, I'm sorry, that really pointed to the sort of utility of providing information to people when they are in that cool state of mind, when they don't have access to the gambling with the hope that then they continue to take that next logical step in that stage of change. Just real quick, a lack of support and access to counseling and treatment options during exclusion periods has been identified as a weakness of some current self-exclusion models. And this was Delfabro and another one by Heng and Musk. Another study that said, as observed that many self-excluders identified a need for better links to treatment and supports during the period of self-exclusion. So I know that triggers were brought up. Can I interrupt? Do you have a question on the previous slide, please? Are you equating self-exclusion to cooling off? It's not a direct equation, Commissioner, but I think that it's as close of a link as we can come. I mean, cooling off is basically a very short-term exclusion. And so because there isn't vast literature on either voluntary self-exclusion or cooling off, we kind of did a literature review that tried to get at some information that would point to the utility of providing people information at a point in time when they don't have access to whatever the gambling form is or whatever the gambling platform is. Madam Chair? Yes, Commissioner Hill? Mark, I have a similar question to what Commissioner Skinner just asked. And it's been something that I haven't understood. And maybe you're going to bring it up in this PowerPoint. But if not, I think this would be a good place to ask. And that is, I'm really kind of trying to figure out what is the difference between self-exclusion and this temporary prohibition? I just can't seem to understand what the difference is. So I'll describe it very specific to Massachusetts, if you don't mind, Commissioner. No. Voluntary self-exclusion in Massachusetts. It's a statewide voluntary self-exclusion. We have two types of voluntary self-exclusion, one specific to sports, wagering, and one for casinos. And what I mean by statewide is it prohibits you from engaging in that form of gambling at any casino or any mobile operator, any licensee in the state for a predetermined amount of time. And it's a longer period of time for voluntary self-exclusions, one year, three years, five years, or a lifetime that you've completed at a shorter term duration. The process of enrolling is we have this sort of what I call an engaged approach to enrollment, where you speak with one of our game sense advisors or another designated agent, that designated agent, we have designated agents in the communities, we have designated agents in Connecticut, people who are trained to help enroll people into the voluntary self-exclusion. And then there's an additional layer of support that at the end of that voluntary self-exclusion period, there's a reinstatement session, again, sitting down with a game sense advisor, a designated agent to talk about, you know, it's a big decision to put your name on the list. Let's talk about what it means to come off of this stuff. So that's voluntary self-exclusion, and it applies to sports, wagering, and casinos statewide. So cooling off would be a platform specific form of exclusion, a shorter, much shorter period of time, an easier enrollment, where you don't sit down with a game sense advisor, you don't sit down with anybody, it's done directly on the platform. And it's platform specific. So if you enroll in a cooling off period with draft kings, you're only cooling off on that platform with draft kings. If you have another account with another operator, you can hop over there and gamble over there. But if somebody is loyal to draft kings or whatever the operator is, it would stop them in that very moment from placing another bet for a shorter period of time. The cooling off period, can you take yourself out of the cooling off period where in BSE you can't? My understanding is you cannot shorten your cooling off period by petition, and same as voluntary self-exclusion. There are certain jurisdictions that you can petition to have your voluntary self-exclusion period shortened. And so if you have a year BSE, you can petition at six months and have it lifted. That is not the case in Massachusetts. It's very firm on that point. And I don't believe, Madam Chair, that that's true with cooling off either. Once you're enrolled, you're enrolled, and there is no shortening the period. I ask that because, for instance, other limits like on spend, they want to go more restrictive, no problem. But if they want to ease off on the restrictions, they have some kind of notice provision.  That's correct. Okay, excellent. Thanks. So to be clear, Mark, there's less of a process to get into the temp prohibition and it's a shorter amount of time in some cases. Yes. The other another key feature of this that I think is important in cooling off is it takes effect in media. Because it's operator-specific, the second that you enter into the cooling off, you're not able to place another bet. Whereas voluntary self-exclusion, it's statewide. The Gaming Commission is the hub of the voluntary self-exclusion list. So there may be a short period of time between when you enroll and when you're active on that list. Understood. And very good. And thank you for that explanation. I'm sure I'm going to have another question, but I don't want to interrupt your powerpoint any more than I have. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mark, I'm sorry. I'm going to continue to interrupt you. I apologize. Okay. I know you acknowledge that there's not a lot of data on who exactly is signing up for the cooling off periods, but what evidence do you have that the target audience are the at-risk gamblers and the problem gamblers, as opposed to the non-gamblers or recreational gamblers? Right. So I would say that there may be individuals who would meet that low risk or recreational gambler status that would say, you know what, I really need to take a break this weekend and not that. That is totally true. However, based on the definition of what cooling off is, I think if you're talking about inserting external controls in order to control your gambling, I think you begin to meet far more of the definition of somebody who would be at the very least at risk of gambling related harms. And then though if that's the case, wouldn't self-exclusion sort of be more appropriate for those individuals? Yeah, you know, I mean, and Commissioner, I think this goes back to the stages of change where people who are beginning to recognize that they have a problem may take a small step. Maybe that small step is enrolling in cooling off. Maybe that small step is a slightly larger step in something like enrolling in the voluntary self-exclusion program. But it's recognizing that, you know, people will approach this in different sort of ways. The key here is making sure that you have the options that are there and available for them when they need it. Thank you, Mark. Madam Chair. Yes, Commissioner. As you know how I am, if I am given a little bit of time, then my mind starts going. And there was another question I had in regards to differences between self-exclusion and temp prohibition. In a self-exclusion and other jurisdictions, when you're coming near the end, you're notified, and I think in our case, it's by game sounds. I don't think that's true, Commissioner Hill. So that's, I want to know what is the process for that? At least that was my observation, Commissioner Hill. That's fine. What having this discussion is, I think at least with respect to the applicants that came before us, when we saw the demonstrations, if you recall, I was looking for their notice to see how close we were, you know, how we do when we are coming up with our reg. And they didn't have notice provisions. It just, once you, let's say you choose three weeks, but you decide not to go on the device for five weeks. It's my understanding from our assessment that you'd open up your device, go to your drop kings, you know, that's your favorite operator. And because you're coming off period had been fulfilled and actually expired a couple of weeks before, you could play again. I think what Mark has proposed and what our reg says, and I'm sorry for jumping in, but we were all, the five of us were at every single assessment and not every member of our team could be at every evaluation, but we all saw those demonstrations. That's why I'm kind of jumping in. And because my observation was, and I asked, I asked them, hey, why don't you have a notice provision? And I maybe you recall, they all kind of went, oh, that would be an RG problem. They saw as intervening before the expiration of the pulling off period would for them be uncomfortable from an RG perspective. And that's why I personally was very interested to hear from Mark. What is our theory here? Why is it a good thing? Should we be notifying in advance? Is that, like I cut you off, but that's kind of a framing that's in my mind. You didn't cut me off and you're going exactly where I'm going with my question and what it brings it all back to the temporary prohibition question as well. Let's go through the PowerPoint and I think maybe some of these questions. Now if you want to finish up your thought with Mark, I just wanted to say it wasn't a given that they did provide notice to you. So if you wanted to ask Mark that now. So let's be more specific to Massachusetts. How's it work? Exactly. And what would be different between self-exclusion and temp prohibition? So do you want to carry, I don't know, carries listening, but she could bring up the reg again. That's actually in place right now. Does that help? I see Commissioner Maynard at least nodding his head. So if we could pause here and then Carrie bring up that language again, because this was one we chewed on a long time and I know A and K was involved in. So here it is again, Carrie. Sorry, couldn't find my mute. Yep. So I think these are all the notification provisions specifically section three is the related to the notification before the period expires and section four is the notification after the period has expired.   And for a 72 hour cooling off period, which is one option, it would be delivered 24 hours in advance that first or anything greater than that. Yeah, I but I do think and you'll see it at the end of my slides, if there is some concern, I think that there's that the commission should consider other options about who delivers that that message. And I think that's a there's there's pros and cons of both quite honestly. So Mark, I'm just and the only reason why I interrupt, I'm sorry, but it's it's important for everyone to understand that what's in front of us right now is the regulation. So right now, the sports wagering operator must notify the individual when temporary provision expires. And if you now if you want to go through the time period, that's the only thing because we're dealing with current right now. Thanks. Can I ask a question, Madam Chair? It might be for Kerry, it might be for Mark. So if a patron, I remember having this, this conversation on substantial three very well. But now that we have talked to operators, if you had someone who wanted to do a two day pulling off period, right? Is that captured in this right? No, it's not commissioner right now we we have a limited set of options of 72 hours, one week, two week, I'm sorry, 72 hours, two weeks, three weeks, four weeks. The rationale behind that, and I think this is an important policy discussion, is that you want to try to make enrollment as simple as as possible, as simple and straightforward as possible, which means that in some cases like this, you're limiting that just the number of options that if you have too many options, it could paralyze you and you choose not to act. If you offer a simple number of options, you're more likely to act. I know that some operators are offering far more options with this and I think certainly there's there's a case to be made for that too. So director, here's my worry. And I've thought a lot about this and rethought about it. I'm rethinking it now is I get to the end of the month and I'm somebody who let's just use a real world scenario going on a bachelor party, right? And I'm wanting to make sure that I don't you know have one too many and and get on the app and I just want for two or three days, right, to get on the app. But I see that the only option is a week. So so does this then make me not, you know, do we essentially incentivize patrons to not use the program that's built into the application that doesn't require meeting through the voluntary self exclusion, but that actually is that quick like click the button that that's kind of my worry when I'm sitting here thinking about it because I think a lot of people who are going to use the cooling off period are just looking to get through, you know, maybe even just a few days. And I think to Commissioner Skinner's point of something she she questioned and you answered, there are different levels of people who are using different different means and methods. I think some of the folks who are going into the voluntary self exclusion program are at a different level or are wanting something more than than what is in that cooling off. And so, you know, maybe I, you know, in this scenario, maybe I remove the app from my phone, maybe I try to delete my account, maybe I what have you, but you know, maybe I don't use it at all because it's a week instead of two days or three days. So that's something that I'm sitting here thinking about. Perhaps the more options is the simpler solution to some patrons. Right. I wish there was there was data or research that would support the optimal configuration of the different types of durations. I agree. Just as an explanation point here, this is one of the issues to that Bruce Van needs to look at because as I mentioned at the offset, this is our rag, but some of the operators that have that, you know, our prospective life temporary licensees have different time periods. And that's not normally an issue because, you know, an individual can just opt into whatever time periods that app provides. But unless another, you know, other jurisdictions are driving those periods, it might be an interesting question, Mark, to see what other jurisdictions are doing. But so they have to reconfigure that as well as the notice provisions. So operationally, as Karen mentioned, that's just another issue. And then the second part of that clause is right now the sports wagering operator would have to provide the notice. So it's not just the button to get a notice. They have to be able to shoot out an individualized notice to each participant. And so that's another operational issue as well as a policy issue. I know, Mark, you're rethinking now. So but right now this is in order for them to comply. One of the questions I had Karen and it was if they're starting to build this out, that that could be an expense if we're going to change our mind at all on policy. And so that's why this was an important discussion, you know, timely discussion before they expend a lot of resources to meet launch date. And if we decide we want this, then they know, and if they can't meet it, maybe we give a waiver. But otherwise they would be building it out. So it's operationally and subsequently important.  But this is Commissioner Hill to the spearpoint. What's happening in Massachusetts? This is the law of the land. Okay. So now, Kerry, I think anyone questions for Kerry or on this? Madam chair, if I can just add, I understand it's the law of the land. But we may not have our operators being able to do it. So we're in conflict. Hello. Yeah. And right now, I think Karen, she could chime in, but they just have heard back, right, Karen? Right, right. So we may need to further do that. I think we may have gotten one, one in that is seeking a waiver, a waiver request came through this morning. But I think that would be the mechanism since the emergency red went through, we could contact the operators and inquire, and if they operationally can't do it, they could petition for a waiver while this issue is being resolved. But Karen, should discussion lead us there, we could revise that regulation, right? Correct. And remember, we've already had a proposal for revision to it. That's the language that Kerry started with, the red line, where it's an option for notice. And if you select to opt in, the operator would provide it. And the same, with the same. But the same operational concerns would apply to that. With an additional button, because now you're opting in or opting out, right? Yeah. Madam Chair, the reason I'm focused on this, what are the exact days and time periods, and did we get that piece correct? And I understand notice is the focus of what we're talking about. But I think it matters, right? Because to me, if somebody's trying to do a two or three days, should they get the same notice as someone who's trying to sign up for 364 days? And so I almost think it's in tandem of, is there a subset of people that just need to make it to the next paycheck? Let's be real here, or need to make it to get through the bachelor party or the wedding or what have you, whatever the trigger is, but don't need that long term. And are there people that need that long term that need the self exclusion language in their face sooner? And so that's, that's why I'm, I can't divorce some in my mind. Commissioner Maynard, I think that's an important. Yeah. We'll go to Director Vangolin and then Commissioner Skinner. Thank you. An important feature of what I'm recommending is that it's an opt in. So if in your scenario, you don't necessarily have to opt in for that to be delivered that notification in the associated information that would be provided. So, so there is that, that piece of it. And that's our second. We haven't yet decided that, but that's another proposal. Commissioner Skinner? I was just going to comment that I think Commissioner Maynard and I are thinking similarly here. I asked the question that I did about the target audience, because I'm not comfortable treating the recreational gamblers as individuals who are at risk for gambling, or individuals who are looking for something more than just the cooling off period, a brief cooling off period. I can use my own situation at times. As an example, I like to shop, but there are times where I have to say, no, I got to put, I got to put, you know, I got to, I got to stop. I got enough is enough. So, you know, as a recreational gambler, I might want to just say, if I were a recreational gambler, I'm not. But as a recreational gambler, I might want to just say, you know what, I need to buy a new car. So I don't want to be tempted to go on to this sports wagering app to spend money there. So that that's the concern. And I would really, I, you know, it's unfortunate that we don't have data. I understand that we don't have the data, but that's something I would be looking, looking, you know, to kind of flush out further. Commissioner Skinner, I don't see any, any barrier.  It's a voluntary program, obviously, cooling off for individuals. The shortest duration is 72 hours that, that are at least how it's structured in the current regulation. If you wish to receive notification, it's an opt in, it would be a simple, a button to push in, and, and you would be notified prior to the end of the cooling off. Well, I do think we haven't, oh, so sorry, but I just wanted to make it clear we haven't, we are addressing all of the elements of the, the rag, including the, we're not divorcing. The notice is the thing that first factor my attention, but I also noticed they were different periods of time. And I wondered, you know, the science behind the different times. Who was about to speak?  It was me, but I was, I was asking the same question, manager. Okay, so that's also the, right now, yeah, right now, our reg has that, and I don't think all the operators offer those time periods. So that's another operational and also a policy matter for our consideration. So, Mark, we can go back to your PowerPoint unless commissioners, if you just want to hold for a second, I, anybody leaning in? Okay, let's go back to Mark's PowerPoint. Madam Chair, if I may, there was just one other piece of Commissioner Hill's comments earlier. Massachusetts has taken, and it's built into our, built into statute, it's built into our mission, a commitment to mitigate gambling rate, related harm to the maximum extent possible. And I think to the maximum extent possible, the commission has implemented a number, a range of different programs. I think just generally speaking, providing information to individuals who are experiencing some gambling related harm is a really important thing to do. I don't think anybody, anybody would disagree with that. And what we're trying to do is don't leave any stone unturned. If there's an opportunity to provide that information, let's do so. In voluntary self-exclusion, most of their jurisdictions, there may be a few out there, don't have, you know, a designated agent, somebody who's trained to understand problem gambling and the process that they're going through, the importance of that step to enroll in the voluntary self-exclusion, it's done by a casino security. And at the end of the enrollment, they're escorted off the property. And individuals and gamblers anonymous would say, it's the perp law that we have to do in order to sign up for, to get the help that we need and to get the help and to exclude ourselves from the casino. We would not do that in Massachusetts. It's respecting the individual, the process and the, so the gravity of the decision to enroll in the voluntary self-exclusion program. And so this is, this is, this is not the same, but it's the same idea that it's really important that we kind of look for the opportunities that we can deliver relevant information in a timely, a timely way. Let's continue with your PowerPoint. Okay. So I have two slides left here. One is just on triggers and triggers and relapses. And because the concern was raised that delivering a notification during the cooling off period may actually indeed be a trigger, I wanted to just say, we probably, much like the definition of cooling off, we probably know what it means. Triggers would be the same. We kind of know what it is, but look, I just wanted to focus on that for just a second. So triggers are external events or emotion, emotional reactions that contribute to gambling urges before, urges being formed. Every gambler has a different set of triggers. And so the, down below, Oaks at a Hall, listed five key themes related to these types of push or triggers. You can have environmental triggers. So just the access to opportunity to gambling, having money in your wallet. It could be a negative effect, the stress or escape or boredom that, when you feel that, it becomes a trigger to gamble. Erroneous cognition. So believing that you have the team picked and there's, there's no way that they could possibly lose or that, or that you have a special kind of luck. It could be the presence of an urges psycho or physiological response to an external or internal trigger. So sort of a kind of cognition. Or it could be relationship driven or quality relationships and fight with a spouse or a core relationships at work. And as you can see down below, some sources of noted, Fong specifically, who I referenced earlier, some source of noted that reminders of gambling is possible triggers. So that could be that notification, but it could be advertisement that you see when you're sitting at the Celtics game on the big screen or commercial or the pop up that's coming, coming to you because you're you entered, you visited a gambling gambling app. Triggers are are multifaceted and are probably hitting people every day at almost any given moment. So it's not, it's not that I'm trying to discount what that concern is. But I think that it's important to understand that it's, it's a, it's a bit much bigger, bigger issue that we're dealing with when we think about what triggers are, and how persons who are experiencing gambling where they're at risk, what they're being inundated with in terms of different types of triggers. So this gets to, and maybe this is a change in, in what the current regulation is, but I think that it's important to note. So key features for the proposed cooling off notification. One is that it's often, you don't have to receive it. It's, it's easy to get the notification, to enroll and say I want the notification. It's easy to say I don't want the notification. Much like that is currently in the regulation, that notification would be delivered 24 to 72 hours in advance in the expiration of the period. What I don't think is clearly outlined in that notification within, within the regulation is what goes along with it. And I almost feel like the notification is secondary to all the other types of, the opportunity to provide other types of information. So it's important if they want a notification, that's great. But let's also, much like everything else, let's take that opportunity to try to reach, reach a group that would be considered at risk with really relevant information that's right at the fingertips when they're, when they don't have access to the gamut. And so the ability to extend the cooling off, information about the problem gambling helpline, information about other RG tools, including the play management, information about voluntary self-exclusion, that next logical step in that, that same sort of type of, of exclusion. And in response to concerns about triggers, perhaps have the notification delivered, either have the sender either be the gaming commission or, or game sense, or at the very least, it could be from the sender email address could be customer care, doesn't necessarily have to, have to be, you know, the casino itself. And, yeah. And then finally, Commissioner Skinner, because we've really hit on this, is that there is this sort of lack of data and understanding of the true impact of many different types of measures to mitigate gambling related harm or responsible gaming tools. The, the MGC is really fortunate to have a really robust gambling research agenda and mandate to do that by the, by, by statute. And I would fully support or recommend to the commission that we include dollars to evaluate different approaches to this, to better understand it. Sports wagering has an incredible ability to do different types of evaluation based on the access to the data that's being captured. So that's that's the end of the presentation. Any other questions? Before you go slide down, I do have an observation, but I'll wait to see if anybody has, well, we took, I wanted that slide still, I'm sorry, for my, my comment. Oh, you want to slide up? I'm sorry. Yeah, right now. I have an observation. I'd like to share a comment, but I wanted to see if commissioners had any questions first. I'm hearing down to right now. So, Mark, you and I've had some offline conversations and I've given this some thought from both the operational and the policy perspective and what you just said, and I hadn't heard this before, that you said, perhaps even more important than the notice is all the information that you want to get to someone who has decided going off period, however long is important. And I agree with you and that's to your earlier point that you made right before returning to the PowerPoint, how important it is for us to get information to Massachusetts matters that will help them make informed choices, healthy choices and keep gaining fun and having responsible play for all the, you know, all the considerations that are unique to their own personal situation. So that includes, you know, those several bullets that you have with information, information, information. One of the things I had, I'm having trouble with, and that's the trigger. And I appreciate your slide on triggers. If I've decided to exclude or to cool off for two weeks, let's say, and then I kind of just don't even think about gambling again. It's worth waiting. I don't think about it. I'd like to be able to finish my two weeks without having someone telling me about it. That's what I'm, I'm, I'm thinking, hey, I could be that player who doesn't even ever return to that app ever again, or I'm returning when the next big sporting event comes up. You know, I'll turn to it come World Series. I wonder, rather than notice, because you sort of said that's not so important, but the information is, if I now turn back after my cooling period has expired, and I now turn because that big event is here, it'd be more helpful for when I open up that app instead of being able to immediately play. There's some kind of a, you know, a page that pops up for those coming off the cooling off period, maybe for BSE too, I'm not sure, that says all this information that's really helpful. Rather than the notice that could, I think, be a trigger, I can be convinced it's not, but I just wondered if that achieves what you're thinking of from a policy point of view, or is it really important for them to get noticed in advance of the expiration? Yeah. I think it's a really good question to ask, and I would argue that there is the importance of before somebody is one click away from being able to continue to gamble. If you log on to, if you're, say you don't get the notice, if you log on to your cooling off is over and you log on, chances are you're logging on to place your next bet. So if you don't get a notice, you log on to it, you could go right to place a bet, you could go left to receive information or to do other things. I think that there is a value, much like the definition of pre-commitment, it's a pre-commitment and a tool, the ability to set this before it's an option to gamble. I don't think that it's not, I don't think it's a bad idea. I see that, I see that, I think it's often, you know, you may have people who opt out, so they're not going to get any of the information that you're suggesting, but that's okay. The other thing I wanted to bring up is, I vividly remember one of our fellow commissioners working with you, thinking about playing my way and how many notifications got sent, and he convinced you that that's a bad idea to do too many, but I can't remember all of that discussion, so I don't know if it's, you know, can be an analogy to the situation here. Well, yeah, I think that's a fair analogy. When we play my way is a similar situation where we introduced a responsible gaming measure that wasn't available in the industry at the time, and worked closely with our operators to develop the capacity to offer a slot machine-based budgeting tool. We had built into it notifications as individuals approached their budget. At first it was at 50%, 75%, 100%, you could, it wasn't a hard stop, so you continued to gamble and you would receive those notifications. There was feedback that the notifications were too much, so first step was to reduce the number of notifications, so you only receive the notification once as you approach that limit, and then at a certain point when we went live at MGM and Encore, we made notifications optional, so much like the cooling off notification, that is also now an opt-in to receive notifications. So not a direct comparison, but I think your point is we'll take it. Well then, yeah, in terms of that notice, it can be problematic, and then if you opt out altogether you don't get the benefit, but you don't get this information if you exercise your cooling off period and then decide to go back, we might miss an opportunity there, but I'm hearing you say it's better to notify somebody that their cooling off period is about to expire, so they would get this information, and again, that information would be probably really, really helpful for somebody who's in more crisis mode than somebody who's at recreational gambling. Much of our, all of our responsible gaming tools, we try to make it easy to access, easy to enroll, but we make sure that everything is voluntary, and so much like enrolling in the cooling off, it's completely voluntary, but you should have easy access to it. The notification and the subsequent information, it's also voluntary and easy to access. Okay, you can take that down please, and then we can see everybody. Commissioner's questions. Madam Chair, so remind me, I know that my memory is a little shot on this, but I know that we did address it. If I am on the app, do I have really easy access to information about the VSC at any given point in time, right? Whether I'm trying to cool off, whether I'm just playing, whether I'm logging in, didn't we address putting, putting a lot of information in there that's, that's easily findable? I think all the responsible gaming pages that the operators shared with us would include the VSC. Am I right, Commissioner? Can you recall that? I'm not sure. I think we probably asked about it. Anybody remember that? Mark, did you see it? Yeah, I did see a lot of it, and I think that we would, you know, we've developed some guidance for operators in terms of how to signpost game sense or help for different types of responsible gaming tools and information. So it's, I'm confident, Commissioner Maynard, that all of that will be there and it will be easily accessible. Whether it takes a little bit of finesse to make sure it aligns with Massachusetts or it already exists, and they're doing a great job. Thank you. That helps me think about this, Rick. Commissioner Hill, Commissioner Skinner, Commissioner O'Brien, any questions? Okay, so now Karen, I'm going to turn now to the faculty of this regulation. Yeah, I think I just want to get some clarity on what should be the messaging to the operators right now. So we don't know exactly what percentage are all set on this, but we did get a preliminary view because we asked the question at GLI and they didn't think any other jurisdiction had a notice provision and they didn't think that they could be ready for an early March launch. With that said, GLI doesn't speak for all the operators, but we did ask them based on their experience, their experience with other jurisdictions. And that's what prompted another inquiry with Karen for me, because we need to make sure that we're asking something that's operationally difficult, Karen needs to be able to manage that. So commissioners, we could right now we have a the provision that Karen gave us that shows the notice provisions are in place. We could decide today to give a waiver to all the operators pending you know, some time for them to be able to implement it and adopt Mark's recommendations at carte blanche. We could, and that would include, I guess, the red line version where it would be the opt-in. We could also decide we want to give a waiver. And I think Karen mentioned, I think during some meetings, somebody thought, oh, is this right for a roundtable discussion to have Mark be somewhat of a thought leader here and find out what his own experts think and we can convene a roundtable before we actually require the operators to start building this program. So if we give the waiver, they're still that, but without any other direction, they're going to have to start building, right? It's going to be an expectation. So it depends. Do we want to spend more time philosophically from a policy point of view on this and give a waiver? What direction do we want to give the operators? So Karen can work with them. And I just have a technical question for Todd. On the waiver reg, do the operators need to request the waiver or can the commission do it suesponte? I think the commission could do it suesponte. It's kind of a blanket waiver, but assuming all the, you know, elements are met. Okay. So the one thing we don't want to do is inadvertently waive the cooling off period. Right. Michelle, Brian, what are you thinking? I was with you to that last comment. Now I feel like I've, so what exactly would we be waiving the entire, not the entirety of it, but like. We have, that's why I'm saying we need some guidance on that, Michelle. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Good. I was with you. So you said that sentence and then I was like, well, we don't want to inadvertently do that, right? So it does take some care. We've got Dave Mackie and Annie here and Caitlin and Carrie and Todd. So we've got a lot of good legal resources to help us on that. So Marcus, the waiver would be on the opt-in provision as part of 25033. So that's the piece, right? That's not in yet, Karen. That red language isn't in. It's the very language, the black that we would be waiving. What? It seems like it's the, I mean, the waiver would be, well, it could be two pieces. It could be definitely the notification piece. And then the opt-in we haven't voted on yet, Mark. So we don't, we haven't waived. Right. But notifications generally, but operators are saying we don't have the capacity to do notifications at this point in time. Advanced notification, opt-in or not opt-in. And so wouldn't there be a waiver simply for either opt-in or not opt-in, the delivery of any type of notification in advance of the expiration of the cruel law? Maybe we should bring up the language again, Carrie. Thanks. So that we can, and Dave Mackie, you're leaning in. Yeah. No, I was just going to say, you know, I think, I think the waiver would just just relate solely to the notification provision and not the, not the opportunity to cool off. Exactly. And there, so in any case, the, the, the core of the cooling off program would be in place. And the policy decision and the technological decisions to be made will all just be based on this notification. If you look at 25031, that's the prohibition period that's defined. And that may be operationally difficult, as we've mentioned. And then number two, an individual may elect to renew the temporary prohibition at any time. So It would be three. That would maybe look any give the waiver. And then, yeah, I might suggest that on, you know, one where it may be different for different operators, they actually do request the waiver. And then you know sort of exactly what you're requesting, what they're requesting. And it could be the waiver process could be moved through in that way. What if we just said that they offer what they have available, but you are, do we have to then come back and decide which ones they like? So from a policy chair, my issue with Caitlyn's suggestion is I'm not sure that I don't want a three day option. And so like if I'm sitting here wanting to see a three day option and see how it's working in real time and get a hold of that data on how many people are selecting a three day option and why are they selecting the three day option and so forth and so on. I mean, I would, I can see wanting to have it captured in here that we have the temporary prohibition or the cooling off period. I can see even putting some, you know, between one day and 365 days or what have you into the language to make sure that we don't get rid of it because like you Madam Chair and Commissioner Bryan, I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Can you still say that? Yeah. But at the same time, I'm kind of interested to see, you know, what these temporary days look like and why the operators are using them in other jurisdictions. So, Commissioner, I was just going to say to clarify if that's okay. What I was just talking about is the just the technical aspect of it. If, you know, putting aside the policy aspect of what you want the periods to be, if an operator at this moment says, I can't do this by launch and I need a temporary waiver, having them request that and they can be then, you know, approved on a one off basis rather than a general waiver, which is probably better practice overall to have each waiver come in a specific request from each operator. But it could go either way. I'm just on Caitlin being kind of, I'm being somewhat respectful of Commissioner's calendar. It could, they'll need to be all approved. And I suspect they would come at a different time. So, that's okay. We can meet 14 different days to determine they're okay. I guess I'm wondering to your point, Jordan, you want to, Commissioner, maybe you want to ensure that there's a three day option now? I would say a one day option, a three day option, a 17 day option, a 22 day option, right? So, you don't want to prescribe whatsoever. After we went through the process of evaluating and then we've also received letters saying we, you know, certain operators offer between one and 365 days or 364 days. I'm kind of interested to see how it works and the data associated with it. Okay. Let's just set that aside for a second. And then let's look at, I think number two is all okay. Three right now incorporates subsection one because it repeats those, you know, the prohibition periods and then it gives the notice and it also requires the operator to notify. So, and then the next front, the next is the notification should also provide the individual instructions on how to, you know, the temporary prohibition. So, the notification has that language in it. So, that language wouldn't apply if we suspended the notification. So, turn to Dave Mackey as you're looking at that. I was going to say on that, on that last point, Madam Chairman, number four relates to the notification that would apply just when the period is concluded. Oh, number four. Yep. I don't think it, but three does also. Oh, you three does also. I'm sorry. That's right. Yeah. So, one, two, yeah, the notification should provide the individual instruction. That language is the same. That's right. Yep. It is the same. But to Commissioner Ryan's point, we don't want to, you know, we need to have the temporary prohibition periods selected. Should I just do a quick temperature take? I mean, the only other thing that Dave, just one second. Commissioners, am I right that we want to entertain a waiver? Because like before we start, I can only see Commissioner Hales taking his head. Commissioner Maynard, are you in agreement that we should think about the waiver? Commissioner Skinner? I can't see you. Yeah. So, I'm still stuck on the data or the lack thereof. I like the idea, as someone suggested, of the round table. I think it would prove us as a body to solicit other thought leaders around this topic to understand whether or not the policy itself is a best practice. I hesitate to impose a requirement simply because we can as a commission. I think that, you know, to require operators to build this functionality without fully understanding the utility of it, how effective it might be, is, you know, backwards. So, I would really like us to entertain that round table just to gather some more information. And I do think it's how we've operated, Mark, is such a respected thought leader. And for sure. Yeah. And with him competing that, you know, we could learn from that leadership role, how to maybe even nuance it a bit better. So, if we're asking, if we're, you know, making the availability of a waiver option to the operators, they would still at some point, I would imagine, have to comply with the regulation. So, it would be a temporary waiver, right? So, even on that road, I just think it's premature right now. Right. And, and, you know, the assessment of their applications prompted this. And so, that's, we knew that we would learn as we went along. So, I didn't hear from Commissioner O'Brien, are you sort of in favor of entertaining the waiver language before we turn back to turning that key? Yeah, I mean, because I think we need to digest this a little bit more. I mean, I hear there's a number of different questions that we need to answer on this. I'm not in favor of scrapping it altogether. And so, the temporary waiver, to me, seems to give us the best flexibility to get the information we need and decide what to do. Yeah. I am in agreement. Okay. So, now, Dave, I didn't need to interrupt you, but it occurred. No, that's okay. You know, I mean, the other issue is if the temporary waiver is only related to notification, we still have to deal with section one, which is the, you know, the temporary prohibition period. And is the commission able, does the commission desire to say shall select a temporary prohibition period of, you know, from one day as Commissioner Maynard was expressing up to, you know, 365 days. And if we do that, then we can certainly change subsection three to say something like, you know, 70, just skip the 24-hour part, because it does make any sense to get 24-hours notification for a one-day cooling off. But you could say, you know, 24 hours prior to the expiration of a cooling off period up to 70, you know, between 48 and 72 hours long, or 72 hours prior to the expiration of any longer cooling off period, the sports wagering operator shall notify if the commission's desire was to stick with the notification provision, but do the waiver. Yeah. So, I think what I'm hearing from my fellow commissioners is that we're reassessing what we included here. And that includes the definition of the length of the temporary prohibition, as well as the wisdom or the policy behind, we're not questioning what they're showing on, the notice altogether, and who needs to provide it. So, I think we could give a waiver totally to those, but we would want to keep in tact. You've got to have a temporary prohibition period. And maybe, Commissioner Mayer, you'd be willing to say, I'll wait a bit until we find out, you know, the lay of the land. What do they have and what works and how operationally, because I don't know if we say one to one 365, but that's also operationally tricky, right? Or if we just say, provide a cooling off period and stay tuned. We may be requiring those to be more defined, and we might be requiring notification periods, and you might be the notifier, you might not be. But what right now will lift are we right? But I just don't want to lift it and leave us without a cooling off period whatsoever. What do you think? Could we live with that for right now, Commissioner Mayer? Because we don't really know exactly what's the best duration as well? Yeah, I can live with that, Madam Chair. And I'm not saying that one to three hundred sixty-four or sixty-five is the way to go. I'm saying that I want to make sure we capture the temporary prohibition with whatever the operators are doing now in other jurisdictions, and I would want it to be honestly, as RG friendly as they offer in other jurisdictions, that jurisdictions are varied, right? And in the meantime, I keep in mind in all this, this is a temporary licensure process that we're going through right now, right? And that we're going to learn a lot over the next six months to a year. And you know, I just I want to capture it, which is what I think everyone said. I want to capture it. But at the same time, I don't want to say the 72 hour and two week and three week and four week, if the functionality is not there to launch while we are doing around table as Commissioner Skinner and other commissioners have mentioned, and we are looking at data. So I mean, my preference would be, let's launch with a temporary prohibition that's used in other jurisdictions that every licensee must have some sort of temporary prohibition application, and then we will revisit this. Commissioner, how do you feel about that proposal? Commissioner Skinner, leaning in. I'm just looking for clarity of it. What exactly is that proposal? Is it just to launch? I'm just looking for clarity. Sorry, Commissioner Maynard. Yeah, I think. Commissioner Skinner, I think what's what's going on right now with me is that I don't know what the perfect number of days are, you know, whether it's week periods or whether it's day periods, and I don't know what the operators can provide on March 10th or what have you. So I would just say whatever functionality they have, submit their best functionality, right, for the temporary prohibition by launch, understanding that that's temporary, right, that we could change it once we get more information, like you mentioned earlier in a round table and then as data comes in. Yeah. The only thing with that is we still have this regulation that's currently in effect. And so I think we're going to turn to our, we're going to turn to Dave Mackey and team and Karen and Todd to get the reg, but we wanted to see if we're all on the same page from a approach. So we would let them live with what they're providing now is kind of what I'm hearing. That's hard to, maybe a little bit hard to draft. I mean, another option here would be to say that the operators have to make available to patrons temporary, you know, an array of temporary limitations periods of reasonable duration, something like that. And then keep in mind that under 254.0, 254.04, the operators have to present a plan for how they're going to execute on this. A written policy for compliance with this reg, which would give the commission an opportunity to make sure that they think the durations offered to patrons are reasonable. So, Dave, you're saying we can't leave this all together, but keep the operators temporary coefficient processes in place right now? Maybe we can. I guess we're just going to need to draft it in a way because I'm candidly not aware of what they're doing and all other jurisdictions with respect to these temporary prohibition periods. And I guess I'm just a little bit reluctant to draft that and offer that up without being sure what those periods are in those other jurisdictions and whether those would be satisfactory to the commissioner or not. Others, I mean, Mark may have a better idea of what's available out there in terms of these temporary prohibition periods, but I don't, as I said. I think we're struggling with Dave is that we don't have the science behind us to even evaluate what they are, but I think all of them offer it according to period options. Commissioners, I think that, and we can confirm that. I know there was one comment from Fanatics, I think that said they offer it and it just is, Kerry, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it was literally like one day to 365 days or maybe three days to 365 or something like that. Right. And so we're saying that's great, but we don't necessarily want to impose it on another one that does something more similar to what our regular house. See, we don't know if the science might be, Fanatics might have the best science, but not all of them have that. So rather than having them build out and change their app and incur the cost, as Commissioner Skinner mentioned, maybe we say we are reevaluating our regulation and we are lifting those precise prohibition periods as well as the notification requirement. But stay tuned because we have a great thought leader who's going to, he's got a proposal and we're going to do a round table to discuss it and then we'll have our reg revised if we decide to and then they'd have to build out apply. Commissioner Skinner, that's kind of what you were imagining, right? Yeah, I like that and I think it would be relatively easy for someone to go and review the portions of the application that speaks to these options. We need only look to the EY index, kind of get a high level sort of understanding of what at least the operators offered in their applications. The kind of demonstration, Commissioner Skinner, that's good. But I don't remember it. Perhaps you and other committees do. I don't remember specifically which operator offers what, but I'm just pointing to the EY index that they provided for commissioners to assist in that process so we can have a baseline understanding of at least what was promised. That way we can have a little a certain level of comfort in knowing that if this regulation is kind of paused, if you will, we know that at the very minimum, what we are concerned about in terms of the cooling off period is being offered on some level. I think they do offer a pretty substantive cooling off option. Could we ask Karen to ask the operators each to just get, I think that's probably the most efficient rather than because I think some of them may have included in their demonstration, but it might not have been captured in their written documentation. Because I think I asked them a few times to navigate to the cooling off period just so I could see if there was a notice vision. So we could ask Karen, then it, I just I'm trying to, I'm trying not to delay today's lifting. Well, Madam Chair, I think what I'm hearing is that there seems to be consensus to currently do a temporary waiver for 250303 and 4. So this notification temporarily waived. So the outstanding issue is what to do about 25031. There are a couple, I see it basically two options. One, it's the, I think what Caitlin has had alluded to that if any operator can't comply with that or that's problematic, they would be instructed to submit a waiver on 2503031. So you may have some operators say, you know, whether it was Fanatics or one of the other operators say, we have a system that does one to three to 65 days, they can come to the commission and say can we still do that at a one off. The other option, I guess, is you can temporarily waive 25031, which requires that they have under 25042, they still have to have the temporary prohibition. We would just leave it to them temporarily to whatever system they have right now. If you wanted to do it today, my understanding is those would be the two options. I think Karen, could I just add one thing there just to be a little more specific on one. I think what you would want to do is to waive the specifically identified time periods of prohibitions in section one, not one in its entirety, because we still wanted to say an individual can select a time period, but to waive the specifically identified time period. So just that basically after period, you just almost strike the rest of that as a requirement temporarily. And I think then we are going to be assured that they provide prohibition. You could even, yeah, period, waive that amount. And then we start getting intelligence about is it best to have a really flexible situation? And we think operators should adopt that. But I think, Commissioner Skinner, you were concerned, what if they only maybe didn't have access to enough choices or something like that? You might want to see it in advance. What do you think? Could we live with lifting it right now? And I suppose we could ask them to get lifted. And then we find out that they tell Karen what their prohibition periods are. And if we saw something that was alarming, we could revisit it. Commissioner Skinner, because I'm trying to be responsible for your concern. Yeah, that makes sense to me. Yeah, I think I'm on the same page. Okay. So I think that it would be, because Carrie's identified that we don't want to somehow let something inadvertently. So the waiver would address number one, partially, three and four in their entirety, right? Is there anything more? Is that the last provision, Carrie? That's the last provision. Yep. And I didn't scroll just because I'm sharing, but I just wanted to double check that those time periods aren't mentioned anywhere else in the reg. Dave or Annie, do you know? I don't believe they are. I don't think they are, but I just wanted to double check. And in the meantime, we get busy convening that round table. One question I'm just not sure about, Madam Chairman, is the waiver also applied in number four, which is notification that your temporary prohibition is ended? I think it has to. I think I said one, three, and four, one, partially, and then three and four all together because there's no notification periods been lifted. So it's basically in sub one, it's the word of through the end, and then three and four in their entirety. Yeah, in their entirety, three and four in their entirety because we don't have any notice in the first line on four. And then the second line, it's referenced to a notification, so that needs to go. And then the third line, their sentence mentions a notification. We want to get busy on convening the round table and help Mark move his thinking ahead. And then we can be better informed. And at the same time, we should probably learn about what the operators have in place with respect to duration and confirm that none of them have a notice. I think I stopped asking after a few times. But GMI did say that their search indicated that none of them had questions. I guess we can take this down now. Madam Chair, I'll fill the silence and thank Mark. I'm comfortable with silence when we're all thinking. So can I just get her? Thank you. I just want to thank Mark and Bonnie and Long for the presentation and the work that they conducted to prepare us for today. And they were very responsive to all of the inquiries that we had the last time we talked about this. And Mark, I don't remember where you stood on the round table, but I appreciate your willingness to move forward in convening that. So much appreciated. Happy to help organize that. I'm assuming the operators would also be a part of the round table? Yeah, I think that we'll talk about that. I think it's the round table to convene the right mix. We did a pretty good mix last time, Mark. But we want to conclude representation from the operators commissioner. Absolutely. And obviously folks from the communities, which Mark already was with, and I agree with Commissioner Skinner that I appreciate all the information that we had of knowing that 2018 was the first time sports wagering was allowed across the country and states have been coming online in this short period. So totally understandable that we're going to learn a lot. And we're still in the empathy of this wagering. Thank you, Commissioner Skinner and Commissioner Maynard. I think we can be quite confident that jurisdictions across the nation are looking at this issue because we are looking at this issue. So I think taking the time to get as much information that's going to only strengthen your work mark and help really other jurisdictions as well. Thank you. I think this work all along, promoting responsible gaming, it's certainly new and sports wagering, sports wagering is new. Casino gambling has been around for decades and responsible gaming in this space has also taken, it's taken a long time in order for it to kind of come to the forefront. It hasn't always been that way. And so we need, much as I said before, we need to be diligent and encourage innovation and capture data and look at evidence and all of that. It doesn't necessarily happen, you know, as it launches, it will continue to happen over time. But the historical perspective of gambling in this country is important to consider. Thank you. I'm just going to turn back to Dave. How are you feeling in terms of Dave Mackey, in terms of what's been proposed in Annie and legal team? No. So it sounds like I do understand what the waiver is going to cover, basically all the words after period in 2503, 1, and then all 3 and 4. So I think I understand that. And then just to add to that, when we bring this regulation back to you for final vote at the end of the month, we'll bring you the version with that language removed. Redlined. The red line version. If we're not ready to act on that, carry what happens to us? Have we in regulatory trouble? So this emergency expires on March 21st. The last date to vote on, the last date to file it to get something in effect before the emergency expires would be that that Friday, the March 2nd or 3rd, which means the last date we need to be voted on would be March, whatever that Thursday, as I think it's the 2nd, because you have to file the amended small business impact statement one day before you file the regulation. Well, we'll need to work closely with legal as we consider the policy so that we can be informed along the way here. We've got a little bit of time to figure this out. Okay. So commissioners, we do need a motion to direct our legal team and for Executive Director Wild's purposes. Yes, go ahead. We get there. I just want to, we didn't talk about the standards for waiver and I'm sure we're covered, but it might be worthwhile to kind of walk through those standards so we can be assured that we are in compliance with those regs. We'll have our council go through that. Thank you. I'd be happy to jump in on that one. The variance or waiver standards are outlined in 205 CMR 102.03 subsection four and they were made applicable to sports wagering by amendment a week or so ago. I don't have that exact site in front of me, but they do apply to chapter 23 and now as well. So the standard requires that the commission may in its discretion waiver grant a variance from any provision or requirement contained in 205 CMR not specifically required by law. So these are okay. Where the commission finds that one, granting the waiver or variance is consistent with the purposes of chapter 23 and granting the waiver or variance will not interfere with the ability of the commission or the IEB to fulfill its duties. Granting the waiver or variance will not adversely affect the public interest and not granting the waiver or variance would cause a substantial hardship to the person requesting the waiver or variance. So those are the standards or factors if you will that need to be considered. So there is a requirement it sounds like for a request and we have one question we can to be fair and equitable extended out to all the other similarities operators. Is that fair? I think that's very fair. I think you could even grant a waiver from the waiver provision and extend it to allow for blanket variances. That's entirely consistent with the purpose of this. And I know we asked that question before about who's helpful to have you go through those elements. So thanks. Okay. With that, we probably need to move on this and then we probably need to take a lunch break. Yeah I can give it a shot Madam Chair. Thanks Commissioner. I move that in importance with 205 CMR 202. Is it 202 or 202? It's 102.03. It's 202 is what references back to 102. Okay. Yeah so that's sorry. Yep. I like Carrie take it from here. I move that in accordance with 205 CMR 202.023 the commission issue a waiver to all licensed sports wagering operators from the specifically identified time periods in 205 CMR 254.031. The requirements of 205 CMR 254.033 and the requirements of 205 CMR 254.034 until March 17th 2023 as granting the waiver meets the requirements specified in 205 CMR 102.034. It is consistent with the purposes of general laws chapter 23 in second. Thank you. Any questions? Excellent. All right. Commissioner O'Brien. Hi. Commissioner Hulke. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. I think Commissioner Maynard. Hi. I vote yes. Five zero. Very good discussion Mark. Thank you so much and to Bonnie and mom. Thank you so much and I don't know about you but that's the power point on keeping handy. It was very, very helpful