is that if it were crippling, I would factor that in to the best interests of the Commonwealth. I think it would be a part of that standard. The other thing is commissioner Skinner and I won't do it, right? But like we could say, well, how much money and you could tell us in an executive session, do you make from parlays, right? And I think that number that makes your eyes go really big would go big the other way. If you see on any given day how much money a company makes from parlays. That's how they work, right? You put a $10 in, you put some different options and you hope to hit that $10,000, right? Or $100,000, but on the opposite side, mostly doesn't hit. So I think both those things count, you know, cut both ways, but I will say to the chair, I'm struggling with this just as much as anybody else is. I think I'm just coming down on, do I wanna treat our patrons in Massachusetts differently than Connecticut and New Jersey that are treating their patrons? And that really, that sits with me and it weighs with me. And so Commissioner Maynard, can I just jump in there because I hear you on that and I guess, if in fact there's nothing in Connecticut and New Jersey that's distinctly different from our regs, our law, the house rules, then I'm in agreement with you. I do know there's a whole host of other jurisdictions that did void it. And so, you know, I'm sorry? Most didn't have to go up to a commission. A lot of times they have their way to go anywhere. So those are inapplicable comparisons for me. I respect their governance model, whoever the decider is. I assume they're looking at their regular. The decider may be Draft Kings unto themselves, manager. I'm sorry? The Draft Kings may be able to decide unto themselves. They don't necessarily need to go up to a regulatory body if they deem it, obviously. That's either more compelling ones or the ones that had to go up to some sort of review. To answer that, I don't have the exact off the top of my head, but I think it's about evenly split between the commission needs to approve, the local commission needs to approve and there is no approval requirement. So you can take some good break down from that. Commissioner Maynard. I need a five minute break. That sounds good to me. Thank you. And it's right now at 12.55. We'll come back around one. We should be able to wrap this up and appreciate everyone's attention. Thanks. Thanks, Dave. I'll set up. Thank you. Thank you everyone for hanging in there. OK. Commissioner Mayn, thank you for requesting that break. I certainly benefited, so thank you. Let's turn back to just want to make sure that we've heard from our sports wagering division. We've got Andrew. I don't know if Director Ban is available. Might still be on the phone. I'm ready to make a motion if anyone's ready for it once we get any opportunity for them to speak. I could just hold for a second. Madam Chair, question in the meantime. Sure. Do we know, I guess this is for Andrew or Jake, do we know what the liability is for New Jersey? Could you share that if so? Just kind of could you just repeat for the one? I'm so sorry again. Just what the liability is for New Jersey. We were told that they are going to not allow the void. So is that information available? I don't. Again, I'm not sure it's public information. OK. I think I could say that. OK. I wasn't aware even of yesterday that the DGE denied the request. Connecticut, I believe, was 151,000, but I'm sure of the New Jersey numbers. Yeah, the ruling from New Jersey was late yesterday. Yeah, the figure may well become public, but that's not at the moment. I'm not sure on our liberty to disclose. I'm just circling back before we have a motion for Director Bann. You did come in late, so I just want to make sure you're all set and both Andrew and Crystal are all set because they have, of course, made a different recommendation than what seems to be the consensus. So thanks. Director Bann, if you're on mute, are you all set? I am all set unless you have any further questions. OK, I have just one question. Have you done a void before? Yeah, we're going with the recommendation that we had put forth in the injuries memo. Madam Chair, we did have a previous void on the September 21st commission meeting. PSI brought forward a void request that was granted. And we made our recommendation based on how the commission proceeded on that. Madam Chair, I'm ready to make a motion. Commissioner O'Brien? Commissioner O'Brien, I'm sorry. I am sorry. I just have one question for Council, either Caitlin or Mina. Is it possible to condition a waiver? Caitlin? Yeah, to void it. To void it. Yeah, can we condition it? I think that's part of your inherent powers under the reg to do that. Obviously, the applicant can then determine whether they will accept that or whether they would like to pursue their remedies on that. But yes, I think within your inherent powers, you could condition the voiding if you were to allow it. Caitlin, I don't know if you have a different view on that, but I want to speak for everybody. No, I agree with that. I actually do want to express I hear Commissioner O'Brien is really hot to make a motion. I'm not hot to make a motion, Madam Chair. We've just talked about it for a long time. I know we've talked about it. I'm ready to move and take the temperature of the room, so to speak. Commissioner O'Brien, it's important to me because of the way our reg is structured, that our decision around public policy and the interests of the commonwealth or the interests of the integrity of sports that can be clarified today if we're going to make a decision because as I noted, that matters to me what the reasoning is. And maybe I've heard a variety of things mentioned today, but I wonder if there's any way we could align that. Commissioner Skinner, I don't know if you feel the same way, but I've heard different things. I think Commissioner Maynard probably was the clearest to me of what he was thinking. I don't have anything to add. I think we certainly could have all benefit from a clear understanding of the reasoning for how the vote ultimately shapes up. PSI and the prior void request was mentioned. So I just need if we could just have a refresher as to what the circumstances were around that, it would be helpful to me. Certainly, so PSI requested a void request. It came forward on the September 21st commission meeting and was dated on a, I believe it's September 18th football game or September 17th, apologies between two NFL teams where markets were left open for approximately 90 minutes after the outcome had already concluded. There were 257 wagers for approximately $47,000 or $48,000 that was granted. The void request was granted. This was considered almost like a past post where markets were left open and patrons customers were still allowed to wager on these markets knowing the outcome. And I have to apologize. I've been probably the most back and forth on this and it's because I'm actually having a hard time making a decision, I'll be honest, it's fine. That's my job is to think about it. But, I would be willing to Mina and Kalen's, I would be willing to condition a void. If everyone was treated the same and they got the same promotional opportunities and really in interest of full disclosure and for the record, it would be for the same reasons that Commissioner Skinner articulated, which was, I'm looking for something here that I do want Draftings to understand that this, generally when something like this happens, to me the tie should go to the patron in my opinion. Like we should be patron centered, patron focused, but at the same time, not benefiting people who want to take advantage of a 20 minute situation. And so I would be willing to do that, but I would want everyone to be credited, not only what they put back, but plus the best credit anyone, your best customer got out of what your customer service has done. And I understand they don't have to take that. Mina said, they don't have to agree to anything like that, but I would be willing to have a conversation on something like that or even additional terms, right? Like I'm not saying that's the only term, but I would be willing to have that conversation with my fellow commissioners. Commissioner Skinner, your idea of a compromise is moving forward. I would say, Commissioner Maynard, I have gone back and forth as much as perhaps you have been swayed by Commissioner O'Brien. And that's why we have, there's a long conversation, but there's five of us. And five of us have the ability to make our decision and to think about it. And I'm learning from each and every one of you. We do have a obvious error right on the books. And I think that distinguishes us from New Jersey as you started out. I don't know anything about Connecticut, but I do respect my friends down in New Jersey tremendously, but I also do respect the issue of making sure our regulatory framework and health rules can be relied upon. So Commissioner Skinner's compromise idea has gotten a little bit of traction. Should we build on that? I don't know if legal can help us on that, Commissioner Maynard. I know there's been a proposal, Madam Chair, but I as one commissioner, want an up and down vote, whether we allow it or not allow it. I don't see where we need to put any conditions on it. I'm in agreement at this point. But we could put conditions on it, correct, Legal? So I hear Commissioner Hill say he doesn't love that, but it's not an option that's, at least Mina has said that we can't entertain. Yeah, you can certainly entertain it for sure. I'm happy to make a motion, see it seconded. And if it goes down, then we're in a different posture in terms of where we stand. But because obviously based on where I am, my motion will be to deny the request. So we can take an up and down vote if there's a second on that now, if that fails, we're in a different posture. You know, sitting as chair, I typically don't move. And I respect the fact that Commissioner Maynard would like to move. So I'll take Commissioner Maynard's motion. And unless I hear from someone else who would like to entertain it, I think we know what Commissioner Maynard is going to move on. I would ask Commissioner Maynard to the extent that you could explain the policy that would be really helpful just to recap because I know you're really good at that. Thanks. So Madam Chair, just if I could, I'm sorry, Commissioner Maynard. I just, this is going to be difficult for me because I will vote alongside the majority.  So I don't know. I am looking for guidance from legal perhaps. I just, I don't want to tie my hands. And I appreciate that, Commissioner Skinner, because the five of us really do work and, you know, to try to achieve consensus. We really do. And this one's a hard one for us. And it's probably because there's a lot of discretion and there's a lot of options. We also know, I think we acknowledge errors happen. I think how much our tolerances for that may vary across the screen here. Commissioner O'Brien, I am appreciating your desire to move, but I'm also appreciating that that does put us in a position where maybe a nuanced vote that we try to work toward isn't going to be considered. If it's off the table, no one wants to move for that nuance. Then, you know, we have, I'm hearing from Commissioner Skinner, Commissioner Maynard, something more nuanced. I'm hearing from Commissioner Hill up or down. I'm hearing from Commissioner O'Brien. I think, you know, her motion's been sitting there anxiously waiting to be made. So if no one else wants to move, Commissioner O'Brien. I guess what my response will be, I would vote, well, the issue is, Commissioner O'Brien, if we vote to not void the wagers, then we can't put the, if we vote to void the wagers, if you have a majority vote to, and I don't know what the chair's going to do, she just outlined all of us pretty well, but then, but if it went the other way, right? And then we can't then condition. And so then I would be in a whole different posture, which is, I don't want to just do, I'm only, let's put it this way, I am not going to take a vote clear of conditions to void this thing. And I heard Mina say, well, it depends if draft kings will accept a condition. I've not heard whether or not they would even accept a condition or not, which would also help move this along, because if they're not going to accept any conditions, I'll just, you know, I'll vote, I'll vote with Commissioner O'Brien. I think I can speak for the company that we would be open to any conditions that the commission would suggest to us and if it were tied to equal bonusing across the entire customer cohort as the ones that have already taken place. I can all but speak for the company that we would accept that. And I want to be able to make a motion to that or similar effect. And so I'm going to need some assistance from legal, however. Before we go down this road to be blunt, I think those of us that wanted to move earlier should be able to speak on this. And one of the things that has disturbed me is draft kings has sat in front of us for two days and never offered anything up other than we want it voided in its entirety. We sat here and there was conversation about it. There was silence. The only numbers shown thrown out in my view rather low given the potential payout is in excess of a half a million that you're paying out in excess of 115 Connecticut and likely more than that in New Jersey. And so to me, that is not so much of a compromise is that basically essentially voiding. I think it does not comply with the public policy issues that I took issue with in terms of you had an error from a vendor in January, you were able to avoid, you kept the vendor that put us in this situation. Not only Massachusetts but in close to 20 other jurisdictions. And so for me, I have a huge issue that goes beyond coming up with a de minimis credit back to the 130 something customers in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts because I do believe that this ability to come in and void is a deeper question in terms of taking responsibility for vendors that have made mistakes already, what you put out to the customer coming before this commission, only asking for voiding and not coming in with any other requests apps and someone else coming up with a de minimis alternative. So to me, any sort of conditioning, it would not be something as de minimis is simply taking $500 and bonus credits or a thousand credits per person embedded. That to me is a woefully deficient on a public policy position for me. Madam chair. Yes. Just a question for commissioner Brian in terms of what would you be comfortable with in terms of a condition? I'm not comfortable with the conditions in general because I do feel like they made a mistake. They had a vendor, they made a mistake. They've had to pay this in other jurisdictions. This has happened to other licensees and other jurisdictions where people have paid. I do not like the language that they're using at a certain client base that they've used. You gave me a little more clarity on how you view some of that client base. They're not doing anything illegal. To me, sometimes those people are the very people that would keep you on your toes and make sure that you're not doing anything that would cause risk or misinformation or mistakes to go out. And so it would have to be substantial to me. And I'm not so sure the condition is only on the clientele in terms of is there any other solution and condition that goes out that provides something else to the Commonwealth on a public policy standpoint and not just limited to what happened in this moment. Mr. Mayor, they probably didn't outline my own position because I have to say I'm listening and listening. And it's been really I'm the beneficiary of being able to be at the end, I know. So I just can say that I'm listening. Mr. Hill, do you want to add? Well, Madam Chair, I'm really at a point now where I think a motion has been put forward or wants to be put forward. We've heard every commissioner at this point make their opinions known. I think we're at a point in the meeting where if a commissioner wants to make a motion, I would ask through you that that happened. Yeah, so Commissioner Hill, I appreciate that. I think I probably did expand that here because I think commissioner Skinner did raise an important point that she would like to go with the majority, we all do. But that said, it's not always the case. It's not always the case, that's right. So and I appreciate, of course I'm a little uncomfortable with how long this has taken, but I also think that our process is inclusionary and I think everybody has had a chance to be heard but something that's not uncomplicated. So I will turn right now. I am not going to be a moving party. Is there someone who would like to be a moving party? I'll make the motion I intended to make earlier, Madam Chair, which is that I move the commission deny Draft King's request to void the wagers as included in the commissioner's packet and discussed today and November 16th of 2023 and that staff be authorized to issue a written order pursuant to 205 CMR 238.35 consistent with the conversation that this commission had on November 16th and today. Second. Any further discussion? Commissioner O'Brien, could you elaborate as I requested perhaps on any of the public policy issues that you expect our legal to pick up on? I think I said it just before the vote and the motion for the vote, Madam Chair, which is that I don't see anything in here in the presentation that Draft King's made in the motion or that the sports wagering division put forward that would justify that this isn't the best interest of these customers in the Commonwealth or the integrity of the sports wagering industry as a whole on the Commonwealth. I think holding your vendors accountable, fixing errors that were known to you a good nine to 10 months prior to this is more in the interest of the Commonwealth, not the other way around. I think that there are tools available to the licensee to use a scalpel on a small number what appears to be a small number of clientele they think is gaming their system in a way that is not illegal, but it's not advantageous to them. And I think for that reasons, plus the other reasons that have been discussed here today that that would provide sufficient fodder for the written decision and memorializing what I just moved on. Okay, commissioner, any other comments or requests? Commissioner Skinner, you're off camera. I want to give you time, do you need that? Thank you, Madam Chair, I'm all set. Okay, Mr. O'Brien. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. I'm a nay, but I do have a counter motion to offer if given the opportunity. Okay, commissioner Maynard. Nay, because I cannot stomach the fact of enriching a group of people that were taking advantage of the system. And I would like to hear any counter options. And I'm a nay because today I've heard a lot of discussion. I'm convinced that this is close enough that we're gonna honor the recommendation of our sports weight training division. So I am, and I appreciate the input from draft kings today. So I'm a nay. With that said, the nays carry. So it's helped me up, Caitlin. I guess it would be two dash three. On this vote, I'm hearing from commissioner Skinner that she might want to move in the alternative fashion. I think that's right on the vote. Thank you. Commissioner O'Brien, I am guessing that you're about as hungry as I am. Thank you everyone for hanging in. Madam. No, I'm sorry. Continue. I move that the commission approved draft kings request to void wagers as included in the commissioners packet and discussed here today. Subject to draft kings providing promotional funding, the amount and manner as was reported was offered to the other or to 14 of the 138 patrons who placed a wager on this particular bet. Council Grossman, you'll have to confirm that that is in good order, that motion. I believe that captures what your intention is to make sure all the, I'm sorry. No, I'm sorry. The reasons are treated the same. That's what I wanted to clarify because my understanding is the 14 could have had different incentives or promotional funding. So apologies, commissioner Skinner, are you asking for them to receive sort of the most favorable promotional funding that any one of the 14 received? So my understanding is that each of those 14 receive three bonus bets in the amount of three times their initial wager. Whether they place the wager using cash or a promotional wager that was offered to them previously in the only distinction there. And I think for all of the patrons, the intent is for all of the patrons to be treated equally in that same form and fashion. So just for absolute clarity, I'll repeat what we did. So if the customer placed a free bet, we gave the free bet stake back. Sorry, if the customer placed a bonus bet, we refunded the bonus bet in the same amount that the bonus bet was. If the customer had bet in cash, we refunded the customer three times the cash stake. And my understanding is we would apply the 3x cash stake to the entire population. Even where the initial bet was placed with a free bet? I mean, I think that would be up to the commission of what you think is appropriate, but the sort of logic that you've used is something that we can carry out. It's not my logic though. It's what I understood you'd have to have reported as was already done for the 14. Right, so what has already been done is only the stake of the free bet was refunded to free bet. Only the stake of the bonus bet was refunded to customers who made a bonus bet. If the customer made the wager in cash, then 3x cash was refunded. So we could apply 3x cash to the rest of the scope of cash bets and a free bet refund to all of the free bets. Or we could also give an additional cash bonus to the free, so the bonus bet patrons as well. Take care of that delta, correct, Jake? The one said didn't get the cash. Is that what you like, Commissioner Skinner? That wasn't what I was proposing, but that's actually even better. And I think commissioner Maynard might agree just according to looking at it. I was going to say friendly amendment to commissioner Skinner that I wouldn't want to paint out 3x cash across the board. And the ones that got the credit, they would just get the 3x cashed. That would be a friendly amendment. I accept the friendly amendment. Thanks for clarifying for me. We can also provide, I guess, just for absolute clarity what we intend to carry out in writing to the MGC staff, just so that we're 100% clear on what's about to be carried out. I would ask that you do that before it's carried out so that we can be totally clear that that's in accordance with what we intended today in terms of a vote if we get to that point and it carries. Yeah, understood. So there's a motion with a friendly amendment. I second that. And you second it as well. Point of clarification. This would still require a written decision. Meena? Yes. And Jake Jopkins is offering a written submission on that. Okay. Yes.  Oh, no, sorry. I was just making an agreement with your comment. I think we fully understand what the condition would be, but to make sure we would supply a spreadsheet of the action to carry out. Thank you very much. Any further questions or discussion on motion? For the record, Madam Chair and to be fair, it would be for almost the same exact reasons Mr. O'Brien outlined. And I think I helped outline earlier. I just within add in the public policy not enriching people that take advantage of the Commonwealth. Really. Thank you. Is there any other public policy point that we want to make Commissioner O'Brien did a great job summarizing? Commissioner Maynard, really good job. The only thing that I will say as I will cast my vote no, is because in my view, the self description of the undesirables by Drapkins to me in terms of how these people are qualified in their view, et cetera, they certainly take their money in other circumstances, even not this one. So I disagree with you, Commissioner Maynard. I do not think that what I said, then has this motion that's currently drafted, covers the public policy concerns and the customer protections, particularly when you look at juxtaposed and New Jersey and Connecticut, betters will be treated. I disagree. I do not think that it falls within the public policy requirements of the reg. So, and I would hope that's reflected in the written decision. Respectfully, Commissioner O'Brien, I agree with you earlier. And in fact, I'm leaving my notes. I made the point that, you know, I agree. I just think the severity of how we treat it's different, especially for this first time. I would also note that I would not treat this the same way, potentially next time. So I mean, I respect that. I agree with you about the issue and I do think that there's a real issue of taking money from these folks and next time it comes around, I'm gonna weigh it again and I'm gonna weigh it very differently. Any further discussion? I think I can go ahead then, Commissioner O'Brien. Nay. Commissioner Hill. No. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Commissioner Maynard. Aye. And I vote yes, three, two. Okay. Well. Please tell me we're having lunch. What are you having? That's what I really want to ask. Anything. As long as it's not mango. The cat. Okay. So it's 1.37 and we do have several items to move forward on. I think that for you, for planning purposes, 11A will be rolled over. There's a little bit more work to do I learned during the course of our meeting and that's an executive session issue. And then, so I think 1140, I mean, 140, come back at 210 commissioners. I know that we've got at least one person in the office today. It's a little harder. Is this that work for you, Commissioner Maynard? 210. Okay. Thanks everyone. And to our guest, Jake, thank you. You blew solo today and we know how tired we are. So we appreciate all your input. Thank you very much. Thank you everyone. I appreciate your time and consideration. Thank you. Okay. I think we can take it down, Dave. Thank you. I'm just getting my packet back up. I'm going to sleep. Okay. I think we've got everyone. Good afternoon. This is a convening of the Massachusetts Gaining Commission. We had a good long morning. Thank you everyone. And we're holding this meeting virtually. So I will do our row club. Good afternoon, Commissioner Maynard. Good afternoon. I'm here. Good afternoon, Commissioner Hill. Good afternoon. I'm here. Good afternoon, Commissioner Skinner. Good afternoon. And good afternoon, Commissioner Maynard. Good afternoon. Okay. We'll get started. This is again, public meeting 490 and we are now turning to our community of the Fair Division. And Mike Shelley, wait patiently. Thank you so much. Thank you, Madam Chair and commissioners. This item should take slightly less time than your last one.  Just a little background. In 21 and 22, we gave the Springfield Police Department two different grants totaling $24,000 to improve data connectivity between the Metro unit, which is located over on Dwight Street, down to the GEU. It's basically putting in fiber optic cable between them to improve their communications. They just recently went out to bid on that and the price actually came in a bit higher than what was estimated. So they're now at $29,027 or $5,027 more than the total of the two earlier grants. Back in 2020, they received a grant the police department did for some purchases of equipment and so on. And there does remain an unexpended balance in there of a little under $19,000. And that was due to some savings that they had in their purchases, particularly on a vehicle that came in a fair amount below their original estimate. So there is some money in there. They are requesting that that $5,027 be transferred from the 2020 grant to the 2022 grant so that they can get that data connectivity project underway. So we are recommending to do that. Madam Chair. Any questions for Joe? I don't see any issues with this and certainly would lean in the direction of approving it. Right, same. Okay. And it's that 10% threshold and that's why you're revisiting us. Yeah, that's right. Okay, to have a motion. Madam Chair, I move that the commission approve the transfer of $5,027 from the 2020 Springfield Police Department Community Mitigation Fund grant for police equipment over to the 2022 Springfield Police Department Community Mitigation Fund grant to approve data connectivity between the Metro unit and the Gaming Enforcement Unit as included in the commissioner's packet and discussed here today. Thank you, Commissioner Maynard. Okay, no further discussion. Commissioner Bryan. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Commissioner Maynard. Aye. My vote yes, $5,027. Thanks. Thank you, John. Thank you to Mary. There you are. Lily, we know it takes your entire team, Jody Gall, and it's good work done. So thank you. Eddie, thank you very much. That's all we have for today. Thank you so much. Okay, then we're gonna turn right to item number nine, our licensing division, and it's great to see you, Chief O'Brien. How are you, Kara? Hello, good afternoon, Madam Chair and commissioners. So strange as it may seem, we are almost coming up on a year in terms of our application process. If you all remember, November 27th was the deadline for the general application last year. And so what we have here today is a renewal of the temporary licenses is of course a pursuant to 205CMR 219.04, the temporary licenses expired, the first temporary license expires after one year. And all of the operators must request renewal of their temporary license on form approved by the commission. That form is on page 135 of your packet. I wanted to also just make a note. I need, I would need, I would request a small edit in the form. It indicates that the form should be accompanied by the $1 million fee. That they actually have 30 days to submit the fee. The application fee, which is outlined in 2019.045 would need to be submitted with the actual request for renewal. And I'm happy to take any questions. And Kara, do you happen to have your language show? I do, and I can read it. I also have a draft. A request for temporary license shall include a non-refundable application fee as outlined in 205CMR 219.045. Payment of the 1 million license fee must be remitted within 30 days of temporary license renewal approval and then for electronic wiring instructions. Questions for care. Commissioner Brighton. The form has this going to Todd. Is that as interim ESGC? Should that be the licensing division? Yeah, so the regulation actually requires it to be submitted to the executive director. And so when we send out the form to the operators we will likely have it then submit to Todd as well as myself so that we can perform our review. Yeah, so my suggestion given where we are right now with Interim and everything is maybe the form should say to the executive director and the director of licensing and then you can put in the emails for convenience. But that way, if they happen to know one of the both of you are no longer here in those capacities, it's not lost somewhere. Absolutely. And Commissioner Brighton, I actually thought the same thing whenever I see a form where it includes a name. What's just the name? Yeah, and the same with Doug. I think for convenience you want the address but I think it's his title that is most important for there. You're right. Yeah. Yeah, just for consistency. It's quite a title as well. Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. Madam chair. Yes, Commissioner Schitter. Thank you. Kara, thank you. There also seems to be a typo in the attestation, the first line. It refers to this request for a hearing. Yeah, so we took that language from the original form because there will need to be a vote for the renewal as well. And so that's what this form is intended to do. Unless I'm misunderstanding the question. I guess I'm suggesting it should say this request for renewal. Instead of request for hearing. Okay. Right? I mean, I think it's a typo. Is there a hearing associated with this form? Yeah, the commission would still need to approve the renewal. It isn't that they submit the form and then they get renewed. The commission would still have to approve that. So in terms of whether that vote would be a hearing, I would take input on that from legal. Also, Kara, thanks. Just a quick finer point on that. I think consistent with what we had done with the preliminary licenses previously, it would be a public meeting, but of course I'll defer to other thoughts as well. Yeah, we're still kind of, I'm sorry, Commissioner's going to read about this. I am going to suggest again that the wording there, it doesn't seem quite right because it talks about the information provided as part of this request for a hearing. And a hearing isn't referenced anywhere else in this form. So I just, it's a little confusing to me. I understand that there will be some form of review, formal review by this commission, but in terms of the language of this form, I think that needs to be revised. Just to confirm pursuant to the regulation, the commission shall at an open public meeting either grant or deny leave to obtain a renewed temporary license. So it will be a public meeting as opposed to a new due to hearing. The commissioner's point though, Caitlin, would it be helpful someplace on this form to say that a hearing is going to be needed so that if you're going to reference that word hearing there, there's some context because I think right now this is just a request for a renewal of a license and they're not requesting hearing. I think we should avoid the word hearing because it's not, that I think lends itself to the idea of an adjudicatory hearing as opposed to a public meeting. And so we can put in more information about process to make a decision by the commission, whatever. But it's not what they say this request because the header says request for renewal of temp license. And so if you just said, as part of this request is true and accurate, then it takes away the kind of distraction of a hearing, right? Or the process, yeah. Yeah, it just kind of refers back to the header. So Nikesha's point doesn't give you a reference to a hearing that hasn't been mentioned before. Yeah, I think we can easily change it to renewal. This form is pretty bare bones. There's nothing that's really, people need to swear to particularly. No, of all you have to do during Nikesha's point is just part of this request. If you take out the for a hearing, I think it solves it. Yeah, I agree. All right, less is maybe more. Less is more sometimes, right? I mean. Yeah, yeah. I don't understand why this is so complicated. It's clearly a typo. So I think we should just, you know, consistent with my recommendation earlier as Commissioner O'Brien recapped, we need to change hearing to request for renewal or just request or something that makes more sense. Done. Absolutely understood. We can do that. This should not take longer than Joe's item though, yeah. Agreed, agreed. Agreed. Okay, any other questions? Thank you, Commissioner Skinner. Anything else? Do you need a motion? I have a weird box that just popped up. Chat or pin, and I don't want to do either. There, a bit away. Thank you. Now I can see you again, Commissioner O'Brien. Thank you. Sure. I move that the commission approved the request for renewal of a temporary license to conduct sports wagering form as included in the commissioner's packet and it's discussed and further edited here today. Commissioner Skinner, thank you. Hi, Mango. Mango voted already. Okay. Thank you, Chief O'Brien. Any further discussion? Commissioner O'Brien. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. Hi. I vote yes. Five, zero. Thank you so much. We got that process going. I think that we'll talk about future meetings and the renewal process going forward. Appreciate it. Thank you, Heather, as well. Thank you. And the legal department. All right, now we're turning to back to legal and IEB. They've come forward, legal and IEB, and I guess I was supposed to say she has come forward to a sponte for a policy and procedure for us to consider. So I'm not sure who wants to take the lead on this. Well, let me, Madam Chair and commissioners, I'll jump in and then we'll have a bit of a team effort in presenting this proposal. This begins on page 136 and then 137 of the packet, just for reference. What you have before you is a proposal to establish a protocol for the handling of all matters that implicate compliance related issues in the sports wagering context. And there are a series of regulations that govern part of this protocol, but it seems to us and to me that it will be important that we have a clear protocol in place for the handling of these types of matters. And when I say matters, I refer to any type of compliance related issue, regardless of where it comes from or how it came to us or the scope or magnitude in that they be handled in a similar and uniform fashion. And so it's those principles that are the guiding force behind the protocol that you have before you. And I'd like to ask that a number of our team members jump in and walk through the protocol with you. And so what you'll be hearing about first is the overview and some of the introductory principles from Caitlin. And then we will turn to Heather to talk a little bit about the IED and investigatory role in these matters. And that's where some of the regulations come into play as well. And Bruce Vand is here as well as this directly affects him and his team in the sports wagering division. So of course, this is designed in part to be an interactive process. So if there's any questions or comments, concerns along the way, as always please do jump right in. But with that as an overview, I'd like to first start with Caitlin, if I may, and ask if you would just introduce the document and begin the discussion. Absolutely, thank you, Todd. So this protocol was developed in order to implement 205CMR232, which is the reg governing discipline of sports wagering operators and other licensees and registrants. So it takes that reg and it makes an internal policy for how different types of non-compliance matters are to be handled or rooted. And one of the things that I will do in my section here is to talk about the different, what we've done is create different groups of potential non-compliance events based on the severity of the potential non-compliance event. And so what I'm gonna do is walk through the different types, the group ones, group twos and group threes, and then I'm gonna turn it over to Bruce and Heather to discuss how each of those groups would be dealt with under the protocol. And again, this sort of is constantly referring back to 232 the discipline reg. And in creating this protocol, one of the things we did look at was what goes on with regard to gaming. And so took a lot of the principles that are used currently in our IEB over on the gaming side with regard to how these type of non-compliance events are handled. So the first thing that I will say is that any, what will happen first is a non-compliance event will come into the agency in one way, shape, or another. Maybe it comes in because it's reported, we get an email through one of the agency's websites, maybe one of our non-compliant or our compliance agents in the sports wagering department find something. Regardless of how the issue is brought to us, it gets directed over to the sports wagering department. And the sports wagering department will make an initial determination as to whether it's a group one, group two, or group three type of incident and it will then log it on a non-compliance log. And the commissioners will have access into that log. So at any time the commissioners wanna go in and see what's in the log, what's been recorded, what's being worked on, they can see that. So the first category is a group one. And these are matters that involve relatively low level incidents, which may be handled directly by the sports wagering department without any referral to the IEB or the commission. And so examples of types of hypothetical group one incidents could include an advertising violation where required language is missing from one advertisement, a one-off mistake, or a situation where there's failure to submit information required by the internal controls in a timely fashion. It could also include one-off instances that are raised by patrons that we get through sort of patron complaints. And those are the type of things that the sports wagering department can take, get some more information on from the operator and just handle and just resolve the issue and move forward. And what we've done in the protocol as you'll see is we've include factors for the sports wagering department and those that will be advising the sports wagering department to consider in determining whether a particular event is a group one, group two, or group three. So here, the types of non-exhaustive factors that the sports wagering department would consider are whether the issue arose from the licensees reasonable, but mistaken interpretation of the statute, regulation, condition, or order, whether the issue was promptly detected and addressed by the licensee, whether it was self-reported by the licensee, whether there's a previous history of this type of violation by the licensee and whether future occurrences of the issue can be avoided by instituting clear remedial measures. So again, the group ones are sort of low level issues that can be resolved in a relatively straightforward manner. The second type of issue is a group two. And these matters involve significant and consequential incidents which shall be promptly referred to the IEB for handling. And here, again, some hypothetical examples of group twos could include a situation where an operator allows wagering on an event that's not included in the sports wagering catalog or a large scale or repeated violation of an advertising regulation. So as you can see, we're moving away from the one-off issues into more severe issues or recurring problems. And again, when we look at the factors to be considered here, you're looking at whether the potential non-compliance event relates to any of the issues set out into a five CMR 232 which sets out some of the more serious types of infractions that would be dealt with under that reg. Whether the facts or the impact of the matter are unclear and require further investigation. If the licensee is non-responsive or uncooperative, if the explanation for the reason for the incident is unsatisfactory, whether they were trying, they had tried to resolve the matter as a group one, but it didn't work. And the prior history of violations. And that's not a full list. You have it all in your packet, but that's just giving you a sense of the type of factors to be considered in deciding whether it's a group one, group two, or group three, and here, here are group two. And then you move on to the group threes. And these are matters that would involve severe incidents of which the commissioners shall promptly be notified in determining whether a matter is severe. The sports venue department will consult with the IEB and make sure there's some sort of agreement on the level of severity here. So examples of group threes would include a situation where there's a serious allegation made against a qualifier, or a situation where the license suspension or revocation is a realistic possibility. That's the type of thing the commission would want to take up in the first instance and adjudicate. And again, some of the factors, they do overlap with some of the group two factors, but everything is very fact specific. And the factors, as I said, are not exhaustive. So again, you're looking at whether the non-compliance event relates to any of the issues set out in 205-CMR-232, whether there's a statutory violation or a violation of the condition of the license. Again, whether suspension or revocation may be implicated, whether there's a cause for public concern, whether there's a history of prior violations, and whether the incident goes to the heart of the integrity of the industry. So with that, happy to take any questions or to turn it over to Bruce and Heather to walk through how each of these groups is then handled. I'm sure if you wanna ask Caitlin questions now, you wanna hear from Heather and Bruce. Just keep on going. Yes, please, go ahead, Bruce, go ahead, Heather, thanks. All right, for the group one determinations, it's usually very minor issues that we deal with and our main goal is to get the licensee back into compliance. These are things that are usually kind of one-offs that is first-time things. We might issue a sports wagering non-compliance form to the licensee where they tell us how they're gonna rectify the problem. We record everything in our sports wagering incident tracker. If we get too many of the non-compliance things, we would elevate that up to IEB for action with it. You have any questions on those or? And then we move to the level two. If we have anything in up to level two, which I'm gonna turn over to Heather, I would turn it over IEB. I will say that we meet rather regularly with IEB to discuss all these incidents and determine if any of these really should have been moved to a level two to begin with. We have regular conversations between IEB and ourselves and legal for that matter. Heather? Thanks, Bruce. Thank you, Chair and commissioners. So as Caitlin and Bruce kind of delineated, there are these different levels and Bruce has talked about how we approach a group one determination. With respect to the group two determinations, as Bruce indicated, those would be forwarded to the IEB and they would be referred over. And then if the IEB is evaluating it and determines that it gives rise actually to a group one or a group three classification, then the matter could be reclassified and handled in accordance with that relevant procedure. So upon doing an investigation, the IEB then takes their different variety that the process allows for with respect to particular actions by the IEB. The IEB could resolve it with a notice of non-compliance, which is a level above what Bruce and Caitlin described with respect to the sports wagering non-compliance form. This is similar to the gaming landscape in terms of how we approach the non-compliance and the different kind of progressive levels. So this would be a sports wagering notice of non-compliance. It's a document that is essentially a warning. It lays out the facts, the history, the regulatory and statutory provisions that are implicated and any particular corrective actions that the IEB is asking the operator to comply with. Now, if the operator finds that there is, excuse me, if the IEB finds that there is a more significant violation, the IEB can then provide a written recommendation to both the operator and the commission. And the IEB can recommend that there is, that the commission take the action of either suspending, revoking or conditioning the operator's license or so either in lieu of or in conjunction with that, the IEB could also recommend that the operator be issued a fine. And keep in mind too that the process does call for the ability for the IEB to negotiate with the operator. So in certain circumstances, this may be an agreed upon recommendation that would go up to the commission for the commission's determination as to whether they agreed with the recommendation. And just by way of reference, I think it's important to know it. And I think the chair and commissioners all know essentially the IEB's process. We would, in determining kind of the recommendation for, if we were gonna move forward with a fine recommendation, we would look to the prior commission's decisions, both for this particular applicant and other applicants or operators that maybe had a similar non-compliance issue. We'd also look to other jurisdictions and how those matters were handled by other jurisdictions kind of by way of comparison. Then we would also look at the history of this particular operator and the facts of the incident itself. So all of that would be going into the IEB's recommendation. So with respect to if it's an operator, that's the process that's described in the memo with respect to that particular type of licensee. Now it's a little bit of different process if it's a vendor or an occupational licensee or a registrant. In that case, if the IEB finds that the entity has violated 232, the IEB may issue a written notice to the entity and the commission with a copy, obviously to the general counsel's office of its intent to reprimand, suspend or revoke. And in that case, obviously the notice requirements would have to comply with 232. And that would be the IEB's ability to go forward with that action if it's not an operator. Now in the circumstance where an operator, excuse me, a vendor or an occupational licensee appealed, then that would end up potentially before the commission. The other options that are set out are that the matter could be referred to the attorney general's office or the IEB could determine that a non-compliance incident actually hasn't occurred. And so I guess I would pause there because I know there may be some questions. Well, then I just missed that last line. I'm sorry, it could be referred to the AG's office or what was the next one? Sure, it's determined that a non-compliance incident has not occurred. Thank you. So any questions on the group two determinations? Okay, so I'll move forward on to the group three determinations. And as Caitlin noted, these are the more severe types of non-compliance and more rare. So ultimately the initial process is the same for the group one and the group two in that the sports wagering division triages these. And now, to kind of follow up on Bruce, what Bruce said, there is regular communication between the IEB and the sports wagering division. So there would be that communication Bruce would reach out and say, hey, we have this situation, there would be a communication. And then we would inform the commission as soon as practicable of this issue, the IEB would then perform a preliminary review or investigation in a preliminary way. And then at the commission's next scheduled meeting after that preliminary review has been completed, the IEB would brief the commission on the matter. And then at that particular point in time, the commission would review the IEB's review of the matter, not deliberate at that point, but then essentially relate to the IEB and the sports wagering division, how it intends to proceed. So the commission could then direct the IEB to further monitor or further investigate to prepare a report and to share the report with the commission for further consideration as to how it would like to proceed. It may also schedule an adjudicatory proceeding after the IEB's investigation is complete and it may elect to assess a civil administrative penalty or perhaps reclassify the matter as a group one or group two and then the applicable protocol would apply. So with that, that's essentially the summary of the process memo that we have put forth to the commission. And, you know, as we've said, we're happy to answer any questions that the commission may have. Commissioners, impressions, observations. I have a question with respect to category two. I think we all had an opportunity to be briefed. I don't know, Commissioner Heller, you might have had a conflict. I want to. So you've been briefed. I was briefed, I think I was briefed by myself. I did during that briefing raise a couple of things. And one, I had hoped that the team would say that this commission as a whole did, we have passed that regulation and the regulation starts with that the commission has the authority over non-compliance matters and it reflects the statute in a way that's not reflected in 23K. And I remember that meeting very, very well, that it was critically important to the five of us to set the tone around these issues so that we, as a commission, could deliberate and make these decisions as we stood up this new industry. I have a technical question, Heather, because I understood the reason that came out that the team decided to do this policy was to create efficiencies. I kind of understand that from category one. I don't see the efficiencies in category two because I feel like we still have to approve because the statute requires us to approve. We can't just delegate our authority. And so the approval process will be after IEB does their whole review. I wonder, won't it just be that we have to have that do that process again when it comes to us because won't we want to know everything that we would want to know if we visit the ciders to begin with? So I don't see the efficiency in category two. Sure, Chair, thank you for the question. I think one of the efficiencies is that the process allows for the IEB to negotiate with the operator. So that's a situation where the IEBs can communicate a student with the operator. And if the operator, as does often happen on the gaming side of things, if the operator agrees, then the IEB would present that recommendation to the commission. So that's an adjudicatory hearing that doesn't have to happen before the commission. I think it would save the commission time as well as others involved in preparing for the adjudicatory hearing. The other piece, too, I would just note- Could I just minute, Heather? Excuse me, just a second.  But I thought they had to come back.  Right, exactly. So now, play that out.  These are hard issues that we're dealing. We just spent almost two hours, right, on this other issue because they're hard and we're trying to create fairness. We're trying to be rigorous. We're trying to create consistency. We're trying to address the interests of the commonwealth as well as the integrity of the betting framework. So now you come before us and you're gonna say, hey, the operator agrees with us, our recommendation. I'm not sure of this particular makeup of these five my fellow colleagues who each and every one's opinion, I think we all respect everybody. We always agree, but we all respect each other's thinking and our decision-making. So you're gonna come before us. Are we just gonna say, okay, or what will we have to do? And will it need to be in a judicatory hearing because it's a risk of a license issue? Well, I think you raise a fair question, Chair. I think at the end of the day, these are hard matters. And I think it's appropriate to let the IEB do its work. Like I said before, we would consider the facts and circumstances of the particular non-compliance matter at hand. As we do with gaming, we would consider the prior history for that particular applicant. We would look to other non-compliance by other operators to determine what's fair. And we would also negotiate with the operator. So all of that would go into the ultimate recommendation to the commission, which the commission could review and determine that it found reasonable and fair and then affirm it. Or the commission may decide that it wanted to do something differently. But I think that you're right in that these are hard issues, but there are issues that the IEB is particularly versed in dealing with. We have a lot of experience folks in the IEB. We also have a lot of experience in the sports-wavering division and we're working collaboratively. So I think ultimately the product that would be before the commission would be one that had a lot of work that went into it. All of that, Heather. So now let me take the example that Caitlin, and then I'm gonna turn over to my fellow commissioners, that Caitlin led with an example of an event that was illegally wagered on. We've had a few of those where we've issued a few opinions on them. Let's say that comes across the IEB director's desk. We delegate, isn't that what we've done where you've done your investigatory work for us? Then it comes to us as a decision maker and then we do it in an adjudicatory form so that we can deliberate. Isn't that what we've been doing? Is there a distinction, Todd? That is correct. No, I'm sorry, Heather. No, that's correct. That is what the commission has been doing. And I think that initially there was the desire to have the process proceed that way. And I think at this point, after several months, it's time to consider whether it may be a different process is appropriate. What's the distinction is, I guess I'm saying, because you're gonna come before us and I'm just wondering what you want us to give up in terms of our process for deciding or approving. Commissioners, you can weigh in. I think I've made my, Madam Chair, can I just add one point? I think you already referenced this. I just wanna make sure we're all on the same page here. One of the backbones of this proposal and as a background was the commission's regulation, which is in 232.02, which talks about how the matters that go before the IEB are handled and that it makes a recommendation, sends the recommendation to the operator and to the commission. If we delegate it. Well, you can call it whatever, but that's what it talks about in the regulation. So that was, it wasn't something that we just kind of created here in the protocol. The whole protocol was kind of built around this regulation. Yes, it was. The initial paragraph was added at the last section because it did not, the rest of the regulation reflected 23K. It did not reflect 23N. And I know that precisely.  Do you wanna help add in? Not necessarily help me out, but I may not be being that clear. Madam Chair, I also had a one-on-one. It was a two-by-two, but it was me. I raised some of the same issues you did and I'll raise them here just to be clear. I'm, first of all, the category one makes total sense. It should have been there to begin with. Bruce has, I have full confidence in Bruce and his team to address those issues. What is category two and category three? It does, I still want the ability to review it. And I don't want it just to be on the books ability to review with really no way for me to get into the meat and potatoes of the issues. And so that's what I want to address. And that's at the end of the day. And I shared this with those that I spoke with. We, the commissioners, I like how we get to decisions and policy and hearing Commissioner O'Brien, hearing Commissioner Skinner and Brad, it helps me and I think it makes, at the end of the day, really, really good policy. And that's what I'm worried about losing. If there's not, if there are not enough safeguards in place to make sure that we see it, and it's not just on the books or perfunctory, I actually want to know what's going on. Commissioner O'Brien, it's Commissioner Maynard's ready. But that was really helpful, Commissioner Maynard. I'm particularly much better than I did. Thank you, Commissioner O'Brien. I apologize for the dog. So this came up in the briefing that Commissioner Skinner and I had. And one of the solutions that we had bandied about was the idea that we would, as a body of five, flag certain areas or types that we thought were potentially particularly egregious or policy related and that this would be amended accordingly to say, to basically tag those to come up to us. And I would also suggest that, you know, there's a tracking system for what comes in and there's a way to do that. I almost, Madam Chair, we have this conversation about IV in general, right? It's having something that's essentially a docket. So you could go up and any commissioner could have a read access to it and see essentially what is in the pipeline. And if there's anything that we deem of interest, we absolutely have the authority to bring it forward even though it's a, you know, category two. So those were a couple of the ideas that came up in the two by two that I was in that I throw out for discussion. I appreciate the idea of the tracker. And I heard that from the team that was briefing me, you know, look at the tracker and then, you know, agenda setting a commissioner can sort of throw it out. I want that to come forward. I caution against that because, you know, we really govern by majority rule. So I don't think, you know, I think it really would have to come into a meeting through a commissioner meeting update or something. But again, this is to create efficiencies.  And it was written without that first paragraph. And it was written to reflect 23K without recognizing that for whatever reason the legislature decided that the commission would own these decisions. I don't see any member of the team asking to take over house rules. But the commission has to decide the house rules. I don't see, there's another thing that, Bruce, what else does the commission have to do besides house rules, new events? Yeah. And the reason why it's because these are tough issues, I'm not ready from my perspective to just say, let's disrupt this before we've even had a year's worth of decisions and before our decisions have even been made so that I know where my fellow commissioners are on all these issues, you know, we had a really good discussion around this issue that, you know, Ohio had just issued its $350,000 fine. And we have appointing officials. I'm not prepared to say to my appointing official, I'm just delegating this obligation away. It's a big one. And we just, like I said, we just spent a couple of hours on a really tough one. That doesn't mean that I do not appreciate IEB's expertise and its work. And what it does under 23K, that works. It works well. You know, fines get issued and we don't get involved. We don't have to do any approval of those. IEB issues them. This would be distinctly different from what IEB is currently doing because we would have to approve them. And that's where I'm hung up because I think, I think it's commissioner Maynard's point, like what is our process of the approval? Because, you know, I don't like the term rubber stamp because we are not rubber stampers, but there's going to have to be some degree of re-curture patient in any case to get this commission to approve anything. Chair? Yes, commissioner's going to thank you. I appreciate your referencing the statutes. When I was briefed on this, one of my questions was how does this process differ? This proposed process differ from what is already in place on the gaming side. To shame, I didn't think to, or anyone for that matter during the briefing, didn't think to track it to 23K and 23N and highlight the distinctions. So that, could we spend a little bit more time just understanding what those distinctions are? That's helpful to me because I think we should be tracking in terms of what our protocol is, what is provided for in the statute. Commissioner, I could speak to that if- Yeah, I think Caitlin went first. I'm going to let Caitlin go first. Thank you. I absolutely, I defer to Heather and then I can jump in if there's anything else I think should be added. Okay, go ahead Heather. Thanks chair and thanks commissioner Skinner for the question. So the difference is under the gaming landscape, the IEB has the authority to issue the civil administrative penalty without prior approval from the commission. So essentially the way the process works is that the IEB under 23K section 36 is required to produce a notice of intent to the operator or whoever the licensee is. So we send the notice of intent and that's generally after conversation. So we don't generally send these without some prior notice to the operator. That notice of intent is sent then that's essentially what starts a negotiation process. Now not always, but that's generally how it has unfolded in that the negotiation process goes from there. Now during that negotiation process there may be mitigating circumstances that the operator lags for the IEB that the IEB wasn't aware of. Those mitigating circumstances would be factored in and then we in most cases would ultimately reach and agreed upon it would be a civil administrative penalty and an agreed upon amount. And then as has been our practice we would certainly update the commissioners with respect to that both individually or in two by twos and then add an open commission meeting depending on the type of matter that we're dealing with. It may be that it would have to be executive session but it would depend on the type of non-compliance. And I think what I would add here is that as Heather just explained under gaming there isn't actually for some of the matters there isn't an approval process by the commission. The IEB isn't allowed to issue the fines or the discipline and then it notifies the commission. Here for the category two incidents every time that the IEB if something is delegated to the IEB and the IEB thinks that there is a moment where discipline is necessary it goes to the commission in one way shape or form. So the recommendation goes to the commission for if you're an operator the recommendation goes to the commission the commission then either has to approve or not approve. And that would happen not in a full-blown adjudicatory hearing but presumably in a meeting where the IEB's report could be presented with regard to licensees that are- Can I ask a question about that though? Sure. Are we sure it's okay for us to approve a fine or something that could be a conditional license without there being an adjudicatory process Caitlin? Yes, we went through this when we created the reg and there's also the opportunity for appeal. So if the operator wanted to appeal the disciplinary measure then it would go to the commission. That's a second way that it would go to the commission potentially through a full adjudicatory hearing. So there would always be the opportunity for an adjudicatory hearing should the operator want it. When it comes to non-operator licensees the IEB could institute a disciplinary measure but that has to be reported to the commission. So it has to come to the commission you have to see that it happens and there is also an opportunity for appeal that would come up to the commission through a full adjudicatory hearing. And the other thing I would note that is, again, you're gonna have full insight into the database of ongoing issues. And at any point a commissioner could bring to the commission one of those issues and say, hey, I really think this is a category three. So it can do it on one-off instances or as commissioner O'Brien noted the commission could decide there are certain issue areas that at this point it doesn't want to be classified as category twos and we will always bring those forward as category threes. So basically for each of these- In the clarification though, I hate to interrupt but I want to, because I mentioned this during our briefing, one commissioner could bring it forward but it would take a majority to act. I just want to make sure to be clear, often we do work in consensus but one person it might really bother and they may never see it even if they're bothered if the other commissioners don't move to move it forward. Yes, the commissioner would bring it forward to the meeting and then present the issue to the full commission. And if the commission wanted to take that up as a group three, they could absolutely take that up. So basically there's a lot of fluidity here. There's the opportunity for reclassification and at the end of the day the commission is gonna have insight into every matter that is moving forward. Clarification on that, Chair. Yes. So I understand that there will be the log that all commissioners have access to. My only concern with that is it requires commissioners to affirmatively go in on a regular basis. And that is not always the best way to get notified of things. Because I mean, you're talking about commissioners having the opportunity to bring things forward. That assumes that they have timely reviewed the log and can raise the issue at a public meeting before IEB acts on it. So I think that's something we have to deal with. You know, it's a concern when documents are distributed to prepare for these public meetings, right? Sometimes if you don't go into that folder, the commission meeting folder, you're not gonna know when a document is available because it doesn't always get distributed. So I think, you know, if we're... So that's a concern. Yes, and I raised that one too, Commissioner Skinner. So thank you. I thought it was just maybe me. Thank you. The other thing is on the group one, matters, is there anything in 23N that requires the commission to review any of the group one matters? Or does 23N deal with only group two and three matters? Commissioner Skinner, the non-compliance issues is all under the commission's review. We all have all. Unlike 23K. And that's why that's a first paragraph in our regulation. So the categories were determined by this document. We, there's no category one, two, three, anywhere in our brag or section. No, I understand that. It's just in terms of the revised memo that we got that sets forth what the sports wagering division is doing now. You know, I, in particular, the review of concerns on the underage access, review of concerns of underage access complaints. If those are being handled by the sports wagering division now, how is that, how are those complaints being communicated to the commission? How does, and I realize it's unfair for me to ask that question in this capacity. You know, I don't need the answer, just in terms of the considerations here, I think that there are some, even now, some group one items that I might wanna be aware of, be made aware of. And I don't know that we've had the opportunity to have those items come before us. The specific ones listed here. And so I don't know how we move forward with this proposed protocol until we kind of nail that down. And reconcile that protocol, any proposed protocol with what's required by statute or provided for by statute. I mean, I would suggest that I think this is all helpful. And I think to the extent that the commission wanted to institute some kind of regular reporting, we could work on that. So, you know, a monthly report, a quarterly report, something like that. And I know the sports switching is doing that already to some degree, sending those around. But I have to imagine there's a way, there's something between, you know, you having to go into the database and look at everything, which I understand the concerns there and, you know, daily reporting. There has, there's something we could figure out in the middle there. I think, Michelle Skinner, to your question about what's been going on in the past, I have to thank Crystal Bushman for her first report, where she did lag that these issues were coming in.  Now, the policy and procedure that's before us will address, will help address that. You know, and Director Bann, I think is looking for that direction because he's been handling them. And, you know, Legal has developed this now that will address these category one but to your point, what I'm hearing is we really didn't decide what was category one. And so maybe we might not be really ready to delegate the minors, the issue of underage. So I appreciate your question. I have to say to Crystal's credit under direction of Director Bann, we got a glimpse of what's been going on. And then that was incorporated into this memo with that revision. But in terms of monthly reporting or whatever, I think that's what Crystal was gonna be doing quarterly. And then the tracker would be available. But again, are we okay with how that category one is defined even? Oh, go ahead. I was just gonna add that I think we're gonna be down the road breaking that more into a monthly report for you. But as you well know, there hasn't been a lot of underage reported at this point, which we're working on right now. So... Yeah, that did come up the other day, didn't it? Yes. Commissioner Hill, Commissioner O'Brien, Commissioner Maynard.  I don't think I've ever seen your lighting do what it's doing right now. I'm sitting on the opposite side of my... I feel like I'm watching a Taylor Swift concert with the lights going up and down and all around. Can I tell you, Brad, I would so much rather be at a Taylor Swift concert right now. These are hard issues that we've had today. So I appreciate everybody's time. Doesn't matter if you're trying to get efficiency and keep it moving, you know? So at a certain point, I do think we have to come up with where do we think the line is to let that... Commissioner O'Brien, that is my question. I did ask that question during my briefing. What is the bottleneck right now? Where is the inefficiency? I get it on category one. I'm not sure I get it on category two or whatever is how it's being defined. Category three, I mean, I feel that this is a really important function of the appointed officials. Really important. And it's going to very much limit this commission. Of course, right out, of course, if the policy and procedure be given anyway, but it could always be, you know, rebuilt to any authority. So, I mean, a question for Bruce and company is if really all that comes out of today is group one, what does that do to the chair's point, which is the bottleneck, what's in the queue? It's still Bruce. That's a good question. I still can't hear you. Bruce, you're on me. You did myself a Q time shift. There you go. It would be more of a question is what do I do with group two and group three? You know, I've been turning them over to IEB. Okay, so that's how that works right now. Yeah, right now that's what I've been doing. And some of them that need further investigation before you act on them or to see that they have credence to them. Go over there. Yeah, and I wouldn't want to bring them out publicly to we're sure that there really is something there. Okay, so then I guess the question's over to Heather. I mean, if, so right now what's been functioning is as is group one is vetted by you, two and three go over to IEB. Heather, is that what you've been getting? Yeah, that's essentially how it's been flowing. We haven't had any threes, but we've had, you know, an equivalent of two's. But they came to us, the two's came to us in the public meeting. And then we asked for an investigative report or have there been other, I know. No, we would actually do the report and then provide it to the commission. Then there would be a public meeting and this kind of goes to the efficiency piece. The way it's been growing right now is that we do a report and provide it to the commission. Then there's a public meeting and the commission decides at that point whether they want to send it to IEB or go forward with an adjudicatory proceeding. And thus far, the commission has decided to go forward with an adjudicatory proceeding in each of those that have been brought to the commission. Right, so what's the efficiency piece? Well, essentially you're having two meetings of the body, right?  Well, the efficiency is essentially that the IEB makes a recommendation to resolve the matter and the operator may agree to it and then the commission can accept that or not. And so there need not be an adjudicatory hearing. Those are the time-consuming parts of the procedure that we're trying to address. The adjudicatory hearing, is it more time-consuming for you? Far more time-consuming. Why? We have to write notices. We have to meet with the parties. We have to gather the evidence. We have to write decisions. I mean, there's all kinds of stuff that goes into adjudicatory proceedings. It is an adjudicatory body, though. No. Giving commission is a regulatory and an adjudicatory body. Absolutely, this is just a proposal. We can continue doing it the way we're doing it. That's perfectly done. Commissioner Maynard? I was gonna follow up on Commissioner O'Brien's question, which was how many are in the queue right now? Yeah. Are there any in the queue that we've not seen? You're talking about the category three is commissioner Maynard? Oh, no, I'm saying anything. Right, category two is two or three, yeah. Yeah, so there is a category two that is with you that is supposed to be cured on the December 14th meeting. There is another one that we just got recently that will be coming to you. One thing I do wanna just note is most of the matters that have come to the IEV thus far and then been forwarded onto the commission have involved unauthorized events. They were matters that were self-reported by the operators and the IEV had essentially reviewed the matter, reviewed the self-report. They were for all intents and purposes generally straightforward matters. That is not going to be the only type of non-compliance that is going to come through this process. So there may be the need for more significant investigation. And again, that would go to the efficiency piece. And maybe that's the point where the commission says, well, we want the IEV to do more of an investigation after there's a preliminary conversation. But I think it's important to note that the types of non-compliance that the commission has addressed thus far are not necessarily the ones that would generate a many, many page IEV, you know, lengthy investigation but those could come. I just have one more comment that I'm actually going to stop on this because I know how I feel. I guess what I would suggest isn't much different than what we're doing except maybe I would put some mechanisms in place for us. But I would start with the premise that every two and three should come to the commission. Then it could be delegated to the IEV once the determination's been made on, you know, what to what degree does the investigation, what's the invest going to take? What are we going to move forward? But that would address the piece that I was worried about that commissioner Skinner brought up, which was, you know, I would have an opportunity to see everything, to meet and listen to everything and then make a decision versus it being screened before I see it. My biggest issue, and I said this to you the other day, Councillor Hall, is something happening at this stage and level that I have no idea that's happening. That's my biggest fear. And, you know, to curtail that fear, I'm happy to put something in place and work on this and it not be as it is today. But I still want to be able to meet. And then the other piece, last piece is, I would want to be able to meet with my fellow commissioners and I would want the mechanism to exist for us to go into some sort of executive session because I don't want to be put in the situation of being in the public meeting and having to maybe disagree with you, Heather, maybe agree with you and just not have that free flow of information right now. It's one of the few places where all five of us can get together and make good decisions. And I've been really, really, it's been the best part of the job so far that we've been able to really go through this together as a bot. Commissioner Mead, could I just clarify that though a bit? We went through this, Commissioner O'Brien, and actually Commissioner Hill and Commissioner Skinner, Commissioner Skinner, is right when you came on with respect to when somebody needs to be made a qualifier where we deem them suitable. That used to be done in a public meeting, but we weren't able to ask the tough questions. And so we ended up making those judicatory hearings and it took a long time to convince IEB of that change, but now we do have the right to go into a private session for deliberations so that we can ask the questions that really are so important for us as commissioners. I kind of see this the same way, and this is why Caitlin and I pressed on the adjudicatory hearing, because if we give that up, we're back at that point where commissioners have their hands tied to ask critical questions and to deliberate as an adjudicatory member of the commission. Hi, I respect what 23K did, but I also respect that 23N did, and there may have been a reason for that. So, I guess I would just say you can, again, you can pull if an issue was delegated a group to and the IEB came to the commission with a proposed recommendation, and that's reviewed in a public meeting. At that point, the commission could decide to change that over and into a adjudicatory hearing. So it's one of those situations where it absolutely has that ability to do it, but there might be a bunch of them that are really straightforward, they're agreed to, and you just, you know, you don't have to go through the whole process of an adjudicatory hearing, which is a time-consuming process. If there are a whole bunch of them, we're gonna wanna know that too. Yeah. Yep. So I'm okay with what Caitlin just proposed. I think the tension is just, I think commissioner Maynard laid it out, just knowing what's out there and our ability to do that. Is there a log currently for even the category one matters? Because I think it's important that if there's a category one matter being reviewed by the sports wagering division that I believe should be reviewed or requests to be reviewed by IEB, I wanna have the opportunity to do that. If I think it should be escalated from a category one to a category two. Commissioner Skinner, there's a log on anything, everything, I was gonna show it to you the other day, but we didn't hook up by the afternoon, but I would be happy to review it with you next week. So the proposal is to grant commissioners access to that log. Oh, yes. And where would the category two and three matters be logged? Actually, everything that we deal with is logged in our incident log. Okay. Okay. You might not, the two and three might not have all the details in it because that would be an IEB investigation. Which I think we can't know it because of the due to correspondence. Not exactly, but that we could put those in a separate spot that you just would go to. We cannot do that. That's why it has to be more, in that sense, that has to be more like a docket list with the fact of it. Because anything more than that, you're risking a due to court bias. That's the problem. And you can't ask questions about it anyway. I mean, I deal with it as Heather reports to me as chair for the IEB and we're very, very careful. Caitlin gave excellent advice on that. So I don't walk over that, but the twos and threes, I mean, I suppose even with the category three, we're not going to revisit, I mean, category one, we're not going to revisit those. So there's not that risk, but there could be, let's just say commissioner Skinner, the category one had to do with minors and it was decided, we all see it. I don't know. I have to turn to legal. Is it decided and can we still ask to review it? That's right. I'm concerned that the answer to that is going to be no. That's a really good question. I'm sorry. Let me have missed the thrust of that question once. I will, if this is what you're getting and commissioner Maynard mentioned this, I think also just an area of concern, which is why in part the protocol came from, if we come before the commission with a matter that has not really been reviewed, then you make a decision that it needs to go to the IEB. You got it. You have to be very careful. Not to deliberate over the merits of it or express any opinions as to how bad it is or it is not. So that, you know, these are all issues that we're talking about. That's not the issue. I don't think exactly. I think the issue was if we're looking at a log or and we want to be informed about what's being categorized as two and three and even what's being categorized as one, we're putting ourselves at risk of adjudicatory bias. I mean, I think you can, with regard to the adjudicatory bias issue, you can certainly have as commissioner Maynard saying sort of a docket and what is this case about in two sentences without the facts, the evidence, the investigation, that's perfectly appropriate. It's just that you can't, you know, have access to the investigation file because you could end up being the ultimate arbiter of it. So that's it. So, but you would see the issue and you say, oh, this looks like a really timely, interesting issue. Oh, it's a fourth offense. I think we want to take that. That's what that's what we're saying. Yeah, and the other part of that is that you not have access to information that the operator or whoever the accused, if you will, wouldn't have access to at some point as well. So we need to be careful about that. Commissioner Hill, I've done more talking than I want to. What are you thinking? Well, I was about to make my comments and commissioner O'Brien said them for me. I agree with everything that's been said today. And I know commissioner Maynard, you already said this today, but this isn't ready for primetime yet. I think the staff has heard what we are thinking and I think we can have a further discussion about it. I'm not comfortable moving forward on this particular issue today. Yeah, I think I can get on board with the concept of what's being proposed, but I think it needs a little bit more tweaking. Commissioner Maynard, commissioner O'Brien. Yeah, so I think I might be a little closer to wanting to do something like this. Maybe my background in terms of vetting investigations being familiar with court dockets, I'm more comfortable with there being a docket that is accessible and or pushed out. I mean, to your point, commissioner Schenner, if that's something with everything we've got going on to have a consistent sort of prodding on it. I'm comfortable with the ones as they've been done. I may be a little more comfortable with this going to IB and us having the role of fulfilling our statutory role than everyone else, but I respect the fact that other than I think all of us saying we're comfortable with the category one process right now, we need to keep talking. Commissioner Maynard. I think that's, I think all of my fellow commissioners captured a good piece of what I'm thinking about. And at the end of the day, I just, I'm not ready to give it up yet. And if it takes changing the pieces a little bit for us to have the first C and then the second C, I'm open to how that happens. But I would feel like I was going to bed at night not doing my job if I didn't know what was happening in that category two, three space and how those decisions were being made, much less what's being elevated from a one to a two, but I think Bruce has been taken care of that. I feel comfortable with the category one, but I'm very cognizant of Commissioner Skinner's point. Do we want to have any say as to what exactly each issue is? I think we should have access to the tracker and category one to the extent that we'll interfere with any decision-making. I think the document needs to be revised to really take into consideration the differences between the two statutes and also to recognize the whole regulation that this would be a delegation of authority. The reason why we can't, we don't delegate completely, there has to be an approvals because 23N does contemplate us making these decisions. I am all for creating efficiencies. I just haven't yet heard that there's that need yet, but what I have heard clearly and it's not even a year is that the commission did want to set a tone and I am looking forward to still being part of that decision-making with my fellow commissioners as we set up this framework. So I would say the document needs to be revisited on process. Judicatory hearings, not making sure that it reflects the statute. And then when the commission's ready to delegate away, it should, but they should always reserve the right to revoke, which I know is a given. So I think similar homework as well. We're not ready for primetime. Anything else? I think that'll do it for this one. Okay. We're going to move on to item number 11A. Heather, you thought maybe it makes sense to roll it over. I mentioned that before lunch. Is that still the case, right? Yes, that's the case, Chair. So we could move into item A, sorry, 11AB. I would just like a five minute break because I'd like to let the operator know that we are moving into this. Heather, I want to do a check in with legal on process. Before we break, I think Caitlin or Carrie, is it okay for us to decide on moving into executive sessions where there are multiple ones and then conclude the public? If we don't anticipate coming back to the public, should the commission vote to go into those executive sessions? We could vote on all of them. Yes, that's fine. Absolutely. Okay. I was looking at Caitlin, I'm so sorry. So Todd, you're all right. So then if you could just hold for a second, Heather, we'll go through these. We'll determine which ones we're gonna move on in the executive session and then you can line up your people. And I think we've got Dave or Tom directing us virtually. So with respect to item number 11B, Heather, you want to introduce that one? Sure, Chair, and just I'm just notifying folks that we're moving into this. So this is the MGM Springfield matter that we have talked about previously. There was a letter sent by the commission and a response from MGM's Resorts International and this executive session would be to further discuss safety and security measures at MGM Springfield. Okay. Wishers, you know, we have to read this into the record. If you decide to vote this way, the commission anticipates that it will meet in executive session in accordance with GL Chapter 30A, Section 21A4, to discuss a use in deployment of security personnel or devices or strategies with respect there too. The MGM Springfield specifically will be guarded by arms. The public session and the commission meeting will not reconvene at the conclusion of the executive session. Do I have a motion on that? Commissioner Bryant. Madam Chair, I move that the commission go into executive session on the matter related to MGM Springfield, just described by the chair and for the recent stated by the chair on the record. Second. Thank you. Commissioner Bryant. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Mr. Maynard. Aye. And I vote yes. All right. Then we have item number 12, which also contemplates or anticipates a executive session. Do you wanna just line that one up, Todd and Marianne? Absolutely. So that one pertains to the renewal of our lease at the Boston office. There is a, oh, there's Marianne, hello there. There is a proposal on the table that we would like to share with you and go from there. Any questions? Okay, again, the commission anticipates that it will meet an executive session in accordance with General Laws Chapter 30A, Section 21A6, to consider the lease of real property, specifically the commission's office space at 101 Federal Street in Boston and associated considerations, as discussion at an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the negotiating position of the commission. The public session of the commission meeting will not reconvene at the conclusion of the executive session. Do I have a motion? Madam Chair, I move that the commission go into executive session to discuss and consider the lease of the real property referenced by the chair and for the reasons stated by the chair on the record. Second. Thank you, Commissioner Skinner. Thank you, Commissioner O'Brien. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Commissioner Maynard. Aye. I go, yes, five, zero. And then we have two commissioners involved with the executive session meeting minutes. So I'll turn first to Commissioner O'Brien. Which ones are under you? I believe they were all put together in a document. Judy's on, she would know off the top of her head. Okay. Are they all me actually? No, so Commissioner Skinner, it is the triplet set from December 16th, the 20th and the 21st, 2021. Okay, so the December nine would be Commissioner Hill and the others would be clustered together with what I did. But he came in after you. Yeah, I didn't review the nine. I reviewed the other cluster. Okay. I actually reviewed them all as well. Good. Yeah, I know that for three of them, it was yourself, Madam Chair and Commissioner Hill and I were the quorum that are still here. Yeah. Okay. So we'll deal with that and should we go into executive session. So the commission anticipates that it will meet in an executive session to review minutes from previous executive sessions as their discussion. At an open meeting, they frustrate the intended purpose for which the executive sessions were convened in accordance with GL Chapter 30A, Section 21A7, to evaluate, excuse me, to evaluate a matter relative to the non-disclosure agreement between the commission and Windmass LLC presented to GL Chapter 23K, Section 21A7 and 205CMR 139.02 in GL Chapter 30A, Section 21A3 to discuss strategy with respect to collective bargaining and litigation. Public session of commission meeting will not reconvene at the conclusion of the executive session. I have a motion. So Madam Chair, I believe there's a typo on that other December. That's why they're separated. The December nine is 2022, not 2021. Oh, okay, that's right. Yes, that's correct. I'm sorry, I missed that the first time. That's okay. So I would move, notwithstanding that sort of- That makes sense now, yeah. I would move that the commission go into executive session to review the four sets of minutes that are delineated and as you stated on the record as to why we need to go into executive session. All right, only that typo, my apologies and I didn't even get my own confusion. Thank you so much. So thank you for the second, Commissioner Hill. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Commissioner Maynard. Aye. And I vote yes, five, zero. Okay. So this concludes at 3.36 our public meeting. We'll thank everybody, including every member of the staff involved here. We'll go into executive session meals. Do you want to give us some direct time? Chair, folks should have a executive session meeting invite on their calendars.