w, the riders that put in claims and that wind up getting, excuse my English shafted and whatnot, but there's issues. I need to make mention here that the president of the HBPA, I think it's for there, his business is insurance. I think there's a conflict there that is coming up, these things are coming up because when people don't do the right things and now you're getting the magnifying glass, put on you to check to see what's going on. Things come up. So I think I'm gonna be closing this document here by saying that I talked a little bit about, again, the commission shall determine how much shall be paid annually by the horsemen's organizations to the Thoroughbred Jockeys. You don't make no mention about Jackie's Guild, I mean, Jackie's Organization or the Jackie's Guild, any of that sort and I don't appreciate and I don't wanna be represented when I'm being misrepresented in this matter, in this matter only and I'll be addressing that with them down the road. We've been asking the Guild to lobby to include the retired Jockeys, because we know you can't do it, you gotta lobby the legislature, you gotta do it in that, what's being done. I'll let you know, nothing's being done. When this problem was brought to the attention, when this problem was brought to their attention, Mindy, Coleman, Terry Meek, Alex Lightbound, Gail Cameron, Todd Grossman, Colombrello, Anthony Spadier, and others, you made the conscious decision to co-do and cover this up. It's not right, it's not right. Let's cap this and so that it doesn't have to get, go any further or get any ugly up than what it already is. So I concluded this document, this memorandum, I already praised the honest people for what they're doing, the document. So in other words, this memorandum, 95% of it is trash, that's where it goes. So with that, I think we'll turn now to Mr. McLean-Ari, Mr. Cabasa. Okay, I'll just remind you that I didn't conclude my presentation, and I have a lot more to say for the record. And I hope that you would put up another meeting so that this could be addressed, and the people need to know these writers, these people they need to know. And if you guys ain't, not the commission, because the obligation is to put it on your website. If the jockey skill and the HBPA don't wanna keep them in the dark, we're gonna push, they're gonna find out the truth. And I'm not done, but I hope that I'm gonna be hearing about another presentation so I can conclude. Thank you very much. And I'm sorry that I'm having to call time right now, but I do have to because we wanna make sure to hear from Mr. McLean-Ari, and then we'll figure out next steps, and Mr. Kavasa, I am very pleased that you were able to present today. Mr. Mollinari, do you wanna follow up with your colleague? Yes, can you hear me? We can. My name is Edwin Mollinari, I am a disabled jockey from Suffolk Down. My first question is, is Mindy licensed in the state of Massachusetts? I'm gonna... Mindy, could you repeat the question one more time, please? Is Mindy Coleman licensed in the state of Massachusetts? You know, it's fair to ask questions, but it's gotta be questions that are in our realm, and yeah, I should... Okay, Anna, I want to know if the law said that the commission shall determine how much shall be paid to the jockey's organization, or if say, if any, like Mindy Coleman said. So I think the question is, we have, do we follow the law, or do we do what we hear from other folks who weigh in? I think commissioners, we probably all agree that we do hear from all stakeholders and we take everybody's opinions into consideration. Is that fair, commissioners? Did you hear that question presented that way? I think that's the best answer I can give, and I've been sort of answering, but my fellow commissioners chime in too, but I think Ms. Coleman has had the opportunity to speak, and we've heard from other stakeholders over the course of time. So the law said that the commission shall determine how much the horseman organization shall pay the jockey's organization, right? And you said that the committee didn't get to there because one of the, in two years, because one of the persons retired. I think what, I don't want to be misinterpreted. There is another body that does not have to meet, think, they did establish that 50-50, which has not been really challenged until now, and that's why we're having this, or the issue has come back up, and that's why we made sure to put this matter on the agenda for today with you and Mr. Kibasa joining us. So, thank you. But what happened with the ward in those two years? What happened with the, with shall determine in those two years? That's the commission. And the years before, and the years before the law was established, the commission failed to determine an amount for the jockey. They didn't follow the law. You're, you know what, Mr. Monterey, you've raised a very fair point. And the other day when this topic came up, I know that at least one of the commissioner joined me in saying, we need to be timely on this and we are meeting today on it. It came to our attention. So, and we recognize that we needed to go forward. So you are raising a good question. Last year, it, last year, this matter did not come before us. And we, You know, Mr. Monterey, I will take responsibility for that. I am as chair, I do need to hear from the team on certain matters. I probably should have inquired about this and I did not. So I will take full responsibility for that. And what can we do with those years that they never determined, that the commission never determined an amount for us? I can only, I can only address my work. So you're not gonna do anything about it. No, I'm right here right now hearing you and I am. We did, we did make a decision in 2021 and you're well aware of it. And my understanding was that status quo was in place and it had not been disrupted and did not need to be disrupted. However, I think I'm right that in this provision and what I was told the other day was that this is an annual requirement. And when I heard that the other day that I said, we need to get this on the agenda and so we're here. Yes. So what are we gonna do about the money from before? So what I'm hoping right now is for you to give us any, as I appreciate you're pointing out that we didn't do it. And so I'm taking responsibility for that. But for today, if you're able to shed any light on what you would recommend, but it is the commission, not that committee that determines this amount under 23K. You're aware of the decision in 2021. If you had been there in 2021 and I'm sorry, I would have had you there if I hadn't known that you wanted to speak. Instead of the $1,000, the $4,000 amount, what would you have recommended? Well, what is fair, it made me sad when the owner's organization knows that they are receiving more than us because when they were raising, we were getting from the $65,000, we were receiving like 2,500. And the horsemen organization, if we divided how much they get and we divided between their members, it comes to like $7,000. So it was like a difference between what we received, the 2,500 and what they received, you know, like 7,000. And we would like to, we take more risks. We work harder and our careers are shorter and we still don't ask for more than them. We wanna be equal, you know, we wanna be 3D equal. We don't want to get more than owners and trainers even that we take more risks and all that I said before. We want equal, equal money. So you just have to see how much they get in total, divided between the members. And that's the same thing that we should get. My opinion also from the 23K section 60 is that the money should be divided equally between the members of the New England HBPA and the juggies, now they're disabled but the years before for them is the active juggies because like Kavasa said, the retired juggies are not included. I've been trying with the commission and with the juggies guilt to include the retired juggies in there because it's a mistake that they're not there. There's not a reason on why they are not there. They are in there in the 128 and they should be there in the 23K section 60 also. So another problem is that this commission is allowing the juggies guilt to break the law because the law said that the money is for health insurance, accident or life and other benefits. The juggies guilt saying a letter every year with the 1099 saying that if we don't use 100% for health if we don't send receive totally in the amount it's not that we can send half or no, totally in the amount that they send us that they would report it as income but not as income that come from the state of Massachusetts. Income that come from them is like they are paying us with their money and it's not like that. I contact the governor's office, they refer me to the Department of Revenue and I spoke with Leona Orongizum and after I sent her copy of the 1099, copy of the letter from the juggies guilt and copy of the law, she agreed that they cannot do that they are breaking the law because the lawmakers made when the lawmakers put that it was for health insurance accident and other benefits. It because they understood that we only live from health insurance, we need food, we need a place to live electricity, water and having the juggies guilt without asking the juggies they are putting the criteria by themselves and approved by you because you have to approve that that that area but illegally, illegally taking the other where fairs out and just put 100% for health. And that's illegal by the Department of Revenue. And I say, I sent you an email and I told you about it. You couldn't contact the Department of Revenue and even the special concert from the juggies guilt but when you don't want to find the truth, you don't call. You should know, the only thing you have to do is call them and say, this is true because the money is coming from the gaming commission from your commission. So they are illegally changing the law, breaking the law to make us, to fit their benefits because without that they wouldn't be able to report as income. So we should check with the federal government is they are reporting that 65,000 completely like is their money and because at 1099 is from the people who pay you like your job and things like that. If we were to pay taxes, we should be getting the 1099 from the state of Massachusetts, not from the juggies guilt. And you approve that criteria. The commission approve it knowing that they are stealing from the state of Massachusetts because that's stealing from the state of Massachusetts. And then, like in our agreement that the juggies guilt have with the horsemen organization not to go after the money from the 23K Section 60 to help them pay for an insurance that is not an insurance for us, it's an insurance to protect them from being sued by the juggies. Like I said, I'm gonna sue them, I don't qualify. I call it from because I didn't sue the owner of the clinic. So it's not that they are putting the insurance for to protect us, it's to protect them. The juggies guilt never inform anybody. Mindy violated the rule 307 Massachusetts rules of professional conduct, the part one client and lawyer relationship. She never informed any juggies. Mr. Molinari, we're gonna be very careful. Mr. Molinari, the one thing I'll ask is for you to be respectful. Again, we're not pointing at particular individuals. This is all about so that we can understand how we can do the best policy. So... No, but I know what I am explaining to you. Why is she changing the law? Why the juggies are breaking the law because they didn't inform anybody. Okay. All right, so that was helpful, Mr. Molinari. And I think we've heard quite a bit, commissioners, I'm gonna pause now to see if you have individual questions for any of our guests, as well as for Dr. Lightbound. I'm also gonna pause myself, but I would like to make the recommendation that after our questions, we decide to table this, digest all of this before we take action on this matter today. That's my suggestion. Why don't I go to questions first? Questions, commissioners, for either of you. Can I just say one more thing? Yes, yes. I finally complain to the attorney general bureau of criminal investigations against the commission and the Juggies Guild and the New English BPA because you are involved in criminal activity. The commission and the Juggies Guild, they are trying to cover up that you didn't follow the law and determine them for us. They are trying to say that is an agreement and it's like... Well, Mr. Molinari, I am appreciative of the fact that you've pointed out very clearly what the law is. And I also have that clarification made just last week. And so I appreciate, as I said, you've been very helpful today. So commissioners, do you have any questions? Any questions for Mr. Ombrello? He has his camera off, but I understand he's available. We've got Mr. McHugh, we've got Ms. Coleman, and we have our two members of the Jockey League. And I know you join me, commissioners, in recognizing that these gentlemen have really suffered significant injuries from the sport that they loved and also the sport that provide entertainment to so many. And so we just wanna extend, I wanna extend on behalf of my fellow commissioners, appreciation for what you've done in the past and also for coming today. So now questions, commissioners. Any questions? Councilor Grossman or Dr. Lightbound, do you have anything that you wanna add today? I mean, I could add a lot. I will just say, I think the one thing I will point out is that it's wholly unfair to accuse Mindy Goldman of any kind of criminal wrongdoing. There is no evidence of that. Councilor Grossman, I don't think... I just didn't wanna disturb. I don't wanna leave that unaddressed. I just don't think that's fair. And that's all I want. I have proof, I have evidence. You know what? We're not, I think Ms. Coleman is here. I think that we understood that it was, there were some personal attacks made and that they were inappropriate, but we understand that their point of view was delivered. Mr. Grossman, do you have anything else that you could advise the commission on? I mean, there's a lot to unpack there, obviously. I don't even know where to start exactly. Okay, we won't start then. Dr. Lightbound, do you have anything else you wanna add? Yeah, I would just like to add that we, before this meeting and before the meeting we had in 2021, we did put out for public comments on this issue and we did get lots of written comments, both times. And the comments from the two jockeys that spoke today or in the commissioner's packet, if you wanna, I believe you've read them already. We did receive comments from some other jockeys and for the most part it was about eligibility issues. And so I did speak with Mindy Coleman about that and she's going to follow up with the individual jockeys and describe the qualifications. And if they have any questions or anything, I will follow up with them as well, but that was something that was beyond the scope of this meeting to address. But I just wanted to let anybody who did comment, both Mindy and I will be following up with them. May I say something in response to Alex's statement there? Yeah, we had no other choice but to make a public comments because we had been asking to be heard in person that gave you the opportunity to do what you did. It's wrong. Alex? Okay, so Mr. Cabaza, I think that we've addressed that point, so I'm gonna close on comments. I appreciate my colleague, Attorney Grossman's desire to correct the record. Today, we heard a lot of opinions and I think part of our job is to, as the five of us commissioners, it's to digest this meeting and return after we digest and reflect on both the written materials and on the oral comments made today. And I know that my fellow commissioners, you will exercise your judgment on determining what you need to get further clarification on and what probably is things that you don't need clarification on. So we really appreciate everybody participating in this meeting, and I think it's a great opportunity to, I know it's an emotional matter for you all. And the one thing I can assure you is that in Dr. Lightbaum, there's such commitment to the horse racing industry and the integrity of the horse racing industry. And that, I don't think there's any debate and even if you don't always agree in Massachusetts, really prioritize it. And also the safety of the individual athletes. And that includes, of course, the horse athletes, but also the drivers and the standard bred. We don't have any live thoroughbred racing right now. But if we did, we would be right there supporting you as well. And we're just going to have to figure this out. Mr. Molinari, Mr. Caposa. And I'm concerned that we may not have the jurisdiction and full authority to solve all of your questions or issues, but we'll do our best. And we very much appreciate the representatives from the associations and what your hard work is. And we appreciate everyone's patience today. Okay. Yes, Ms. Chair. Yes. Yes. I just like to say that with all the respect, you just did what you just asked Todd not to do. And he stuck up for Mindy.  And Alex may have done a lot of good things in the game in that. I've been around New England for more than Alex. And so you just finished doing what you just asked and had to do and depending on her covering up for her. Mr. Caposa. You've got to be a little cautious with what's going on because this is what we're talking about. Okay, Mr. Caposa, thank you. I think to the issue around Ms. Coleman, I think she knows exactly how we feel she. And so I appreciated Attorney Grossman's point. And I think Ms. Coleman understands. That's why it's created a problem here. Well, you know, I just think that we have to be really careful when there are personal allegations made. And I think we have an issue with facts. And all we're doing is addressing it, nothing more. I don't take it personal, even though some of it might be personal, but their behavior, it goes far beyond this issue at this moment here. Okay. I'll leave it at that. And Mr. Caposa, we have heard you today and a lot of what you have said has not been personal. And that's, and that I appreciate all of those comments. I understand it's emotional too, and that's where personal may fly around. But the other information that you've provided and Mr. Molinari provided today, very helpful and we will be able to reflect on it. Okay. I'm gonna move on now, commissioners. And we thank all of our guests. It is now 10 upon, thank you so much, Mr. Molinari and Mr. Caposa, Mr. Umbrell, Ms. Coleman and Mr. McHugh. Thank you. And Ms. Tisbert, thank you. Thank you. Okay. So we are gonna move into sports wagering and we've got quite a few matters. We've got guests who I might be standing in the way. Oh, I forgot. Why don't we finish up with six B and then maybe do our lunch break, right, commissioner Maynard? Does that sound good? Yeah. And I think it should get relatively quick though. All right. Thank you. That's a light boundy. You mind if I start? No, go ahead. It's all yours. So Madam Chair, fellow commissioners, this delegation of authority document that's in the packet today captures a series of conversations that commissioner Hill, very far bound and director Grossman, I had leading up to the May 16th, 2023 meeting where the topic was presented, as well as the discussion that we had on May 16th from three, specifically when we looked at the document, commissioner Skinner wanted to, and I went back and watched this commissioner Skinner, which I rarely watch our meetings afterwards, wanted to clarify that when the director of racing exercised authority, there'll be a notification at the next meeting, which is in addition to the yearly update that we typically get from Dr. Lightbound. I think that was capturing the last sentence of the document as well as section 10. But I also want to point out that Todd and Dr. Lightbound got this finished pretty quickly and it took me a month to review it because again, I went to rewatch the meeting and after some of our other meetings and other things we were working on, one of the last thing I wanted to do was rewatch the meeting, but we did it. And I tried to make sure that it was captured in there and they did accurately capture everything that's in the May 16th meeting. That's all I have to say. Commissioner's questions and excellent work. Dr. Lightbound, I'm glad that we've got this project done. Yes, thank you very much to everybody who contributed. Group effort. Group effort. Any questions or suggestions on the delegation? And it's particularly meaningful today given that Dr. Lightbound was having to turn to the old delegation for yesterday's call. So. Yeah, the example she used in the meeting was if it gets hot on a race day having to cancel. So I thought that was pretty, pretty awesome. Yeah, yeah. That was what I think made me ask last year. Yes. It was when it started, yeah. Yeah, yeah, it was hot. We had those hot days last year. So is there any, any suggested changes? Commissioner, we had a chance to review it. That Commissioner Skinner looks like you're all good. No, I'm all good. Commissioner Maynard, thank you for doing that. Do diligence for us both. I actually tried, but just like you referenced among the many documents and items we had to review for today, I just didn't get around to it. I did call up the May 13th, not May 13th, the 2013 delegation that we worked on on May 16th and compared the two and there's some cleanup that was made and so, but it's essentially the same document. I really couldn't remember what my concern was when we met and I did want to go back to refresh. So again, thank you for doing that. One of the things was to memorialize it as just informed alone. That was going to be really helpful for Dr. Leipa, which you accomplished. So I know that was one of Alex's desires. Okay, so do we have a motion? No, Madam Chair. I move that the Commission approve and adopt the Massachusetts Game Commission authorization for greater embracing as included in the motion packet and discussed here today. Second. Any questions, edits? Michelle Brie. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Commissioner Maynard. Aye. And I thought, yes. Five, zero. Okay, so it's five of one. Should we return at 130? Is that too long? Is that just right? That is just right for me. Good, Commissioner Skinner. Okay, so for the public, we'll return to our sports wagering and we've got some waivers, got some house rules and then we've got some internal work as well as a look at our responsible gaming framework. Thanks, everybody. Thanks for a productive morning. Appreciate it. Looks like it's getting warmer out there, Brad. I just read where the electric grid is pretty full right now. So if you can take down the screen, thank you. It's about 92 degrees here. 91 here in Revere. And I'm two blocks from the beach. Bruce, if you come back with a little bit of wet hair, we'll know where you were. Yeah. That's wishful thinking on my part, Kathy. This is when the locals like the beach, Kathy, because all the tourists are gone once Labor Day hits. I know, I know. Okay. Thanks, Susan. We are streaming live now? Yep, we're all good to go. Okay, great. So this is a reconvening of the Master's Game and Commission and we met early at nine this morning and we've gotten through much of our agenda, but we'll have some good work ahead before we get started and we'll do a roll call. Good afternoon, Commissioner Ryan. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Commissioner Hill. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Commissioner Skinner. Good afternoon. And good afternoon, Commissioner Maynard. Good afternoon. All right, before we get started, I wanna correct something that I can't really correct it, but I want to clarify that over a lunch break, I learned that perhaps the chair of the First Racing Committee has not resigned. So we need, I don't know the status. I may have been told something that might not have been completely accurate. So we'll check into that and because Commissioner Maynard, I know you are so familiar with the appointment, maybe you and I can just follow up on that and then we'll circle back. Commissioner Hill is the designee on that committee and determine whether or not there needs to be any appointments and maybe everything is in place. Okay, so just we'll follow up. And then Commissioner Hill in order to make sure we comply with open meeting law up a way again. Okay, but I do wanna make sure that the entity itself is all intact. And then the second thing I wanna note is that I understand from Director Vandal-Linden that an issue arose with respect to item number nine on our agenda and he would ask that we roll that over. There's a question that arose with one of the suggestions for the research agenda. So we'll plan on rolling that over to the next meeting or whenever Director Vandal-Linden is ready. Okay, so we're gonna turn then on and thank you again for getting that delegation of authority memorandum done, that's good work. And again, we appreciate all of the input from the many participants from the horse racing community and we wish the horse racing community good luck tomorrow as racing resumes today. They're taking a break and playing rich because of the heat. So now we're turning to item number seven and that all starts in our packet on- To 126. 126. 126. Thank you. At the packet I'm looking at. Okay, thanks Crystal. So we'll turn back to Director Van and I would know we've got Crystal and Andrew waiting in the links. Yes, we have waivers for you today and house rules and once again, a whole smorgasbord of sports-waivering items for you. Right, we'll go first. I think in the packet, it's kind of a little bit out of order, I believe. So you said 126, Crystal. Yes, 126 is the first waiver on 248.04 from BETTER. Okay. Yeah, I think there was a good reason to go slightly out of order. That's just fine. Is that the order? Is that where you want to start? I think we start with the item on the agenda which is the BETTER waiver request, thanks. Take it from here. So BETTER put in a request for a waiver from 205, CMR 248.044 which is the Agent Identity Verification Regulation related to the authentication questions and or an alternate method of authentication approved by the commission. That latter part is an important piece here because we internally went through a process reviewing some of these alternate methods with IT and BETTER was one of them who approached us for what their process would look like and was approved for it, but now they do need time to implement that. So that's what this request really is. It's to give them a temporary waiver through December 6th, 2023 to ensure that that implementation takes place and puts them into compliance. Questions, commissioners? Yeah, so Crystal, I assume they're otherwise in compliance with KYC and verification and this is foodstrapping? This ensures that they move, yes, they are but this would ensure that they have the time to move into the approved, we're calling the flow of how the KYC process will go. Okay, I think you're just gonna have to indulge me and walk me through what's gonna change when they finalize what they're asking to get an extension on versus how they're functioning now because they're doing KYC now. So how does this change that in 90 days? So they, and I think that's all detailed in their, the alternative method which is the lower part of page 128 but essentially right now, I believe right now they're using ID comply but I think this allows them to move the flow of this to give them the like selfie and ID check as component of this instead of the very basic KYC that they had come on board with. Okay, so it's ratcheting up. They might end up running out of time when they get it done for summer. Okay, thanks. If you want further detail on what that tech actually looks like, I'd have to pull someone in but do a while we could get answers as you need them. I'm just looking at the timing and that one is through December 6th. This one is through December 6th. 90 days, 90 days, yeah, okay. Commissioners, there's a few speaking the same. Do you want to go through them all first before so we can think about this or do you want to do them in individual? So I'm wondering if we do all of them just because I know the last time we had questions about the date. Whether it was going to be one universal or whether they all needed to be different. Maybe it helps to go through them all and explain why they have maybe slightly different dates. I think that makes sense too. Commissioners, everybody else agree with that? Yeah, okay, good. All right, then Crystal. And just for a little history on that, when they first came to us they were all concerned about how they would actually implement or evaluate. So we gave that universal date just so that they could check the mechanic, get it set and if they couldn't, they came to us but it also gave us internally that period of time to review the alternate methods because a lot of them had much more secure methods than the security questions would be. So to do that in-house with the IT team that just took some time. So these are sort of the above and beyond time frames based on us getting those approvals. But the next one that would be the FBG in 131 is the page that I have in the packet. That's the FBG Fanatics Request. In this case, they actually intended to launch on time and then ran into some issues when they went to turn on the system that had been approved. So now they're just putting in an emergency request to just give themselves a couple more weeks. I think this one's through September 15th. This would give them time to go back, specifically they address finding the root cause and analyzing the root cause and then implementing the fix to the issues because it caused waves across all of their jurisdictions. As far as I understand that conversation actually happened while I was out last week. So Director Band could back me up on that on exactly what those details are but they really only need two weeks to just review and make it properly. Director Band, did you want to add? Yes, they were concerned about it crashing their systems in all their jurisdictions when they started to implement it. And that was why the emergency requests came in. All right, do you want to go to the next one then, Crystal? Yeah. So similarly, the next one is on page 134 that comes from VetMGM. Again, they went to launch the system that they had developed to match with the approved OIC verification. And they again, they need about two more weeks through September 15th to identify what happened there. They have a very detailed analysis of what happened in their request. Same thing, they just need to make sure the technology is working and then turn it back on. They've gotten all those bugs out. Then, age, sorry. That's through just September 15th as well. September 15th, yes, take a time frame there. And then, WinVet actually slightly different but they had been part of the uniform waiver when it was considered, though they had originally identified late September. And so when the temporary waiver was only approved through 9-1, they're just unable to make that work. So they're requesting, still to late September, so we would recommend giving them through the 30th. They might go live sooner than that, but that's the history on that one. The better is asking for 90 days. The better is asking for 90 days. They're a smaller shop, but they also have to, they have a large waterfall of systems that they're putting into play, including that selfie ID check, which I really like, but it's also a lot more to implement. A couple of them have that process in there, so it's nice to see that they came through. Some of these processes that we were verifying were really thorough, so it's good to see. Questions, commissioners? So that is the 248.04 requests. Sherry, I don't know if you want me to go into the one that follows this, but essentially it's just related to 248.04, for it was a request we got in to tie it into some of the internal controls. We're not sure that's necessary, but it did come in, so we wanted to put it in your packet, and it's just really related to the waiver being approved. And so that's on page? That's on page, should follow. One 39. Thank you, one 39. And so essentially, only bit MGM came in with it, they were just very thorough because 238.39 relates to all of the internal controls for 248. So they were just saying that they would need a waiver of that if in order to not be out of compliance, but essentially I think it would be covered by having a waiver for 248.044, if that's the reason that's in your packet. Right, and I just noted that we haven't, just a slight typo on our agenda, because it says better, but it was bit MGM that made this read fast. So I'll just note that, okay, that MGM. So as I understand this, this would be applicable whenever there's a request for a waiver, right? I don't know if legal has looked at this, Todd. Yes, I'm sorry. So you're referring to the 238.39 issue that we're discussing? 139, 238.39, and I see Carrie. Yes, I like Carrie just. Yeah, good afternoon Madam Chair and commissioners, happy to chime in there. So I think that, I don't really think that the 238 waiver is necessary. It seems sort of duplicative where the waiver would be in place for 248 and then 238 sort of bootstraps in the internal controls. And of course, 248, we've had a waiver in effect since June already on that item. And we didn't have a waiver in place on internal controls. It does seem like we could potentially open the door to future, a slippery slope a bit if we are always needing to add in any sort of internal control item as well. And again, it seems a bit duplicative to me. I don't really think it's necessary. Does that mean our reg might need to be tweaked? How do you mean? Well, is it the reg that's saying, I haven't looked at the reg that they're asking if our waiver from this reg, right? Because it implicates the internal controls. So they're asking for a waiver from the section of the internal control reg that requires compliance with 248. But I think if a waiver is in place for 248, then it's sort of, by default, you would also have the waiver from the internal control. It's not in non-compliance. Exactly. Okay, that's another way of saying it. All right. We don't think there'd be a concern of because we know they have a waiver. That's wrong, yeah, they're not in non-compliance. Got it. That was very thorough on their part. It's not similar ones with play management, but it was directly related to the reporting. But in this case, it's related to the internal control. So I don't think we would know they have a waiver there. Okay, good. So we, so back to item number 7A. Commissioners, do you have any questions? All right, we probably shouldn't, they're each asking, two are asking for September 15th. When that asked for later in September, Crystal was recommending end of September, betters asking for 90 days. So I think we have to have different motions. Commissioner Hill. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move on one amendment. I moved that accordance with 205CMR 202.032. The commission initial waiver to better holdings, Inc. doing business as better from the requirements outlined in 205CMR 248.044 as included in the commissioners packet through December 6th, 2023. As granting the waiver meets the requirements specified 205CMR 102.034 as consistent with the purposes of GL chapter 23N. Second. Any edits? Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Mr. Skinner. Aye. Commissioner Maynard. Aye. That's well, yes, five, zero on that. Commissioners, do I have another motion? Madam Chair, I move that in accordance with 205CMR 202.032, the commissioner, excuse me, the commission issue a waiver to fanatics, betting and gaming from the requirements outlined in 205CMR 248.044 as included in the commissioners packet through September 15th, 2023. As granting the waiver meets the requirements specified in 205CMR 102.034 and is consistent with the purposes of the general laws chapter 23N. Okay, again, under discussion, Madam Chair. Yeah. So did I hear Crystal correct that maybe we should would put all of these at September 30th, that you felt comfortable with that or not? I certainly, that's not to you, but they're slightly different. I wouldn't put betters under September 30th because they do need the implementation time, but the other two are an emergency and WinVet originally came in. So if you think it's simpler, identify it. Emergency ones anyway, we're hoping wouldn't come back. Good, but it's the times they've identified in this case, it's a little bit different because they all have been approved for different processes. So see you guys. Madam Chair, I have no further concerns. Thank you. Okay. And I have a second from Commissioner Maynard. Discussion, any further discussion at its questions? My discussion is, did we all move it? No, I didn't hear the, I'm having trouble hearing you. Sorry. You're garbled on my, maybe it's just my computer, but. Mine too. None of us could, you might just have shifted your microphone slightly, Commissioner Maynard. That's fine. I also have every air conditioner in my household. I said, I was trying to figure out if we agreed to move the date to meet one standard date or not. No. No. You did not. September 15th was the motion and I'm okay with that. Okay. Just as the motion was made. Any further questions at its discussion? Okay. Commissioner Bright. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Commissioner Maynard. Aye. And I vote yes. Five, zero. Okay. So then next. Yep, Chair. I'm gonna be taking the request for 248, 16. Continuing with the theme here of waiver requests, the sports wager and the vision as received two. Sorry, Andrew, I think we have to vote on. Yeah. I think you, I couldn't tell who was speaking. I was like, is that commissioner Maynard asking a question? No, I apologize. Then I saw your vote. No, I said next. I said next and that's fair. I should have said, because yours do we have a motion for the next item. So, Andrew, thank you. We're on bed MGM, is that where we are? Yes, bed MGM. Sorry. I move that in accordance with 205, CMR 202.032, the commission issue a waiver to bed MGM from the requirements outlined in 205, CMR 248.04, and is included in the commissioner's package through September 15th, 2023, as granting the waiver meets the requirements specified in 205, CMR 102.034 and is consistent with the purposes of general laws chapter 23 in. Second. Okay. Any discussion on this one? Okay. Mr. Ryan. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Mr. Skinner. Hi. Mr. Maynard. Hi. And I vote yes. And then the last one, Wendat, and then we'll turn to Andrew. I can take that one. Thank you. I move that in accordance with 205, CMR 202.032, the commission issue a waiver to Wendat from the requirements outlined in 205, CMR 248.044, as included in the commissioner's package through September 30th, 2023, as granting the waiver meets the requirements specified in 205, CMR 102.034 and is consistent with the purposes of general law chapter 23 in. Second. Thank you, commissioner. Okay. Any questions on that? All right. Commissioner O'Brien. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. Hi. And I vote yes. 205.0, Commissioner Maynard. I was glad that you asked the question you did because I wasn't sure I heard it either. So thank you. All right. And so item seven B, we're all set on given carries advice, right, Crystal? Okay. Yes. Yes, that's correct. And now to our interim sports waitering operations manager who earlier appeared in his other capacity. So thank you for hanging in with us today, Andrew. Yeah. Madam chair, I think we are on item seven B. The item that Crystal was discussing was encompassed in item seven A. Oh, you know what? Oh, oh, my mistake. Sorry. Thank you. Thanks, Grace. So it was encompassed in, it was the MGM. You know what? That's what I'm not interested in. It was the MGM part of 24844. Apologies. I meant, yes, we're good. We don't, I guess that's up to you. Grace, no, I had missed it. I had asked about that at lunchtime. I've missed it. So thank you. All right. So now we're turning to item seven B. At what page, Andrew? Page 119 of your packet. Thank you. I have your handy-dandy list, but we've got so many things. All right, I'm all set now. Okay, ready? I'm ready. Okay. So continuing with the theme here of waiver requests, the sports wagering division did receive two temporary waiver requests in relation to 205 CMR 24816 responsible gaming limits, section one. And this allows the patron to set self-imposed limitations on sports wagering at any time and the operator must offer daily, weekly and monthly deposit and wager limits. And going in order of the agenda, better is up first. And as we said that because on page 119 of your packet, better has submitted a request for waivers from certain provisions of this regulation. They are requesting extension of the waiver for an additional 120 days through December 30th, 2023. This timeframe better feels would be sufficient to allow their software engineers and product team to further test and implement the requirements of the regulation, specifically the implementation of a clear and conspicuous notification, which informs the patron that can set self-imposed limitations when they play their first wager. And on page 124 of your packet, better has attached an image of the notification they will implement. And it should be noted that better already has in place such notifications when patrons register for a new account and when they make their first deposit. Furthermore, better is also seeking a permanent waiver related to 205, CMR 248, 16, section two. This section of the regulation states that a change to make these limits less restrictive shall become effective the next business day after the time period of the previous limit has expired and the patron reaffirms the requested increase. In an effort to better promote responsible gaming, better does not allow patrons to make their self-imposed limitations less restrictive for at least 30 days. So better is going above the single business day in the regulation and sets this timeframe for 30 days to make such limitations less restrictive. The detailed waiver request is in your packet and after review, the sports waiting division has no issues with this request for a waiver for 248, 16, section one. And then lastly, we would like to commend better for requesting more permanent, stricter responsible gaming limits than what's currently required in section two of the regulation. And after speaking with responsible gaming director, Mark van der Linden, the sports wagering division would recommend granting this waiver for initial time period and review the data in the future. Questions or comments? Commissioner O'Brien. So yeah, no, the comment that I have is, I agree with you in terms of lauding them for doing this. This is also more consistent with the AG's office regs on fantasy sports and how they do the 30 in terms of making it less restrictive. So I like that better is going in that direction. I do think it's also something we need to talk about if we wanna circle back and look at our own reg and whether we wanna follow suit. But in terms of this, I think it's a good move. I think we should grant the waiver. We brought that up when we were looking at the reg. Remember, Commissioner O'Brien? Yeah. So, Commissioner Skinner. Can I just get clarification, Andrew? You said that better is requesting to impose more restrictive measures for section two there, 248.162. Correct. Correct. The regulation states that if you wish to change yourself and impose limitations and make them less restrictive, our regulation says that does not take place until the next business day. Currently, better has it in place where it changes after 30 days. And better is requesting a permanent waiver to this regulation. So I'm still confused because that second sentence does not come into play unless the operator is imposing less restrictive measures. And because they are not here, why do they need a waiver at all? Crystal, are you gonna jump in? I was gonna say, I'd have to have you clarify the question, but I did wanna add that director Van Der Linden was brought in on this when we started talking about it and had some of our own recommendations, which I included in the memo, but he could probably answer some questions, I think he's on. Yeah, I'm right here. If you could clarify your question, Commissioner Skinner, I'm sorry, I kind of only caught the latter part. Rather than do that, Andrew, could you explain the waiver again? And that might help me the second time around. Yeah, of course. So better is seeking a permanent waiver related to 248.16, section two. And section two states a change to make these limits less restrictive. To become effective the next business day after the time period of the previous limit has expired and the patron reaffirms the requested increase. Better does not allow patrons to make their self-imposed limitations less restrictive for at least 30 days, that is their current process. So better is going beyond the single business day in the regulation and has this timeframe set for 30 days to make it less restrictive. They are requesting a permanent waiver to the regulation to keep it at 30 days. We are recommending an approval of this for a time period to review the data in the future. To review them. To review the data in the future. The data, yeah. And Madam Chair, may I weigh in on this a second? Sure. I think it's an interesting proposition to extend that time period. So I think that if we should measure it, I don't want enrollment into play management settings to be seen in any way as punitive or when somebody comes to the end, feel very frustrated if they need to make wait an additional 30 days or it may be that it would be a disincentive to enroll. So it may be a positive responsible gaming tool. So I think that it's something that we should measure to see what the effect of that 30 days is. Madam Chair. Yes, commission. So thank you, Andrew, that second time around I knew would cover it. So I am clear on exactly what this request is about. And a question to Mark on your note just now, is it your recommendation then that the commission not grant a permanent waiver here and instead for a shorter duration to allow some review and assessment? That would be my recommendation. Commissioner Skinner. So can I actually add a procedural question here, Commissioner O'Brien, excuse me. A request for permanent waivers, kind of a funny thing, right? Because that assumes that they will, that nothing changes. So they wouldn't be waived, we wouldn't actually get a permanent waiver. I'm understanding commissioner, the director on fandoms request, but I wonder do you, assuming that they continue with what they're doing, the permanent waiver makes great sense, if they changed it somehow, right? The way the right would still be in place. So I don't know, do we give permanent waivers? I guess that's really my question. Didn't we do this once already with better because they do 25 and up? Did we give it a permanent waiver? Is that what we said? I thought we did. That is correct. It's just process, you know. Right. But you get my point, it's very articulate. Yeah, but there was no, to your point, Madam Chair, there was no question or issue raised when they were doing the 25th. Mark has raised a concern about whether there's gonna be unintended consequences in terms of silence. Right, so I understand his point today. So I wonder if it's, you know, I don't know if Mark has a timeframe he's thinking of, but I'd also, I wouldn't want to do a waiver and then have better have to come back and say, look, that's not enough time for us. We're just gonna have to do this again. So I don't know, Mark, if you had like a six month, one year, is there a time period you're thinking of where they'd have to come back and request again or? I would recommend somewhere around nine months. We're collecting the data across all operators on enrollment. I think that there's a lot of information that we should gather before we determine whether this is a positive responsible gaming. Condition, so nine months. Commissioner O'Brien, I believe that was in our memo as well. We recommend it is six to nine months. I think this is two different, I may have said this, but this is two different waivers, essentially. That's right, yeah. It's a waiver to 248161. That's the 120 day waiver to implement and the permanent waivers of 248162. So let's do the first one. Can I have a follow up? Sorry, just a follow up. Sorry, go ahead. Go ahead, Commissioner Skinner. I just had a follow up on your point about the permanent waiver. So should the commission grant, I mean, I know it's kind of off the table for this discussion, but should at any point, the commission issue a permanent waiver. If the operator decides that they want to revert back to the language, the existing language in the reg, would they then have to come before the commission again to get approval for that? I mean, we don't have to answer that now because it's not in front of us, but I see your point in terms of the funkiness of the... Yeah, I think, as I was saying it out loud, I think that's probably what would happen if they saw the permanent waiver, they would know that their intent had shifted if they did go back. So we would have to leave it with them. If we're issuing permanent waivers, I guess the condition attaches as long as your practice stays that way, right? But yeah, I just hadn't, I didn't remember that we had already issued one so I appreciate the history. But yeah, Commissioner Skinner, thank you for sticking with me on that point. And so maybe what we should do is first, let's do the first one, just to make sure we don't, on the temporary waiver, they need that time for implementation. Does anybody have any questions for Andrew on that one or Crystal? And then should we move on that effort to... I do have a clarifying question. So, better offers the self-imposed limitations. It's just that they are seeking the waiver on the conspicuously displayed portion of this regulation. Correct, the notification upon your first wager. They already have the notification in place for new account creation as well as first deposit. And how much time are they seeking? 120 days through December 30th. Yeah, through December 30th. Andrew, does the sports wagering division have any concerns about that time period or that waiver? None. Okay. Thank you. I knew your memo said that. Thank you. And sorry, it's right there, 120. I'm reading the summary, which is up above there too, 120 days. Do I have a motion? I can make the motion, Madam Chair. I just wanted to clarify with the team of the recommendation from the sports wagering division is six to nine months. And our recommendation is nine months. And so I just wanted to... No, this is with respect to, I'm sorry, because I am confusing things. If you look at page 119, there's two requests, one for temporary waiver and one for the permanent. And we should do them separately, right? Is that what's being recommended? Yes, but my question was for the first part of the temporary waiver for 240 days. They're looking for 120 days, 120 days. There are two requests, right from that. I think one is the temporary waiver. The six to nine months is the other. It's just kind of exactly the same thing. So yeah, 120 days, yeah. Okay. With that then, I move that in accordance with 205CMR 202.032, the commission issue a waiver to better holdings, Inc. DBA better from the requirements outlined in 205CMR 248.161. As included in the commissioners packet through December 30th, 2023, as granting the waiver meets the requirements specified in 205CMR 202.034 and is consistent with the purposes of general laws chapter 23N. I agree. Any edits? Okay. Michelle Bryan. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Excuse me, Commissioner Skinner. I, Commissioner Maynard. And I vote yes, five zero. All right. Now to the permanent request. The only issue outstanding is the timeframe and Director Vandal Lendon is asking for an ability to study. We let it, there's some implications on the RG. I think I'm, I want to just reiterate that Commissioner Bryan, you referenced the AG recommendation and I remember we did, we did discuss this. Yep. Yeah, fantasy sports is more restrictive in terms of if you want to lessen your limits. It's 30 days. Was it like 180 or something? It was really long, wasn't it? I, it was definitely longer than what we had. I don't remember it was that long, but it was longer than what we were bringing in our ranks. I'm making it up probably. Commissures, do we, I guess, Mark, I'd say if there's going to be a study and there's any implication for it to be contrary to responsible gaming, we want to know sooner than later, right? So you're saying that nine months will do it? I hope, Madam Chair, the numbers of people that enroll in play management settings is small. And so to get a large enough pool of people who enroll in order to understand, is it a disincentive? Are there unintended consequences of 30 days that we need to have a large enough pool of individuals? I'm just now learning more about enrollment rates of these types of play management tools. I would recommend that we revisit it in six months and consider an extension on that. We don't have enough data to understand how patrons react to a 30 day. So, and what I mean by that is, is there lower enrollment in play management settings for better? Once somebody enrolls and they disenroll and not come back to reenroll in it, perhaps because the 30 days was too long. I think that there are just some on the surface, it seems like a very good responsible gaming move. But as Commissioner O'Brien said, what are the unintended consequences? And I think I would just, I'd really like to know that. Or is this a best practice? And we should require that across all operators. Data, I think that's just key to better understand it. Okay. Anything else for clarification from Mark, Commissioner? Somebody want to make a motion? So I can make a motion for closer to nine months out, which is about June 7th, which is a Friday. So I don't know if we want a different date than that. Go to the middle of June or whether we want to. Why don't we say June 1st? Which is a Saturday. That's fine. Is that a Saturday? Okay, then June 3rd. June 3rd of the Monday. I move that in accordance with 205 CMR 202.032, that the commission issue a waiver to better holdings Inc. DBA better from the requirements outlined in 205 CMR 248.162 as included in the commissioners packet and further discussed here today through Monday, June 3rd, 2024 as granting the waiver meets requirements specified in 205 CMR 202.34 and is consistent with the purposes of General House 23 in. Back in. Any further discussion? Okay. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Commissioner Maynard. Aye. And I believe, yes, five zero. Okay. Okay. Next is a similar but hopefully less confusing waiver request from PSI, Pet Sports Interactive. PSI has requested a temporary waiver from certain provisions 205 CMR 248.16 section one. They are requesting an extension through the end of this month through September 30th. Approval of this extension will allow their software engineers and product team to adequately test functionality to clearly and conspicuously display to the patron the ability to set those self-imposed limitations when a patron makes their first wager. This extension will also ensure PSI has the necessary additional time to fully test their solution and that it does not adversely have a negative impact on the user experience before it is made available to its customers in Massachusetts. It should be noted similar to better PSI already offers new patrons the option to set these limits at a time of new account registration and at the time of any deposit. Again, the detailed waiver request is in your packet and the sports wager division has no issues with this request to implement the requirements of the regulation. What page of the packet please? Sorry. 115. 115. Yes. It's out of orders. Page 115 is the memo. Yeah, sorry. I must have put these in backwards but it starts on page 115. It's okay. I think we changed up the agenda. It's fine Grace. 115. Questions for Andrew, Crystal, Bruce, Commissioner Hill. I saw no.  I am Madam Chair. Thank you. I know that the that in accordance with 205CMR202.032 the commission issue a waiver to Penn Sports Interactive from the requirements outlined in 205CMR248.161 as included in the commissioner's packet through September 30th, 2023 as granting the waiver meets the requirements specified in 205CMR102.034 and is consistent with the purposes of GL chapter 23N. Thank you. I need further questions or edits. Okay, Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Commissioner Maynard. Aye. I go yes, five, zero. Okay. So now Lay Ridge Park Casino and I'm looking with that memo. I believe that is on page 113. Yes. Were you able to find a chair? We decided the reason why, remember Grace, we decided to shift all the waivers at the top. We're just, we're rationalizing the packet, Andrew. Thank you for your patience. Of course. All right. So here we are in the house rules, yeah. Yep. So the only house rule we have today comes from Clay Ridge Park Casino's in-person sports book. Part of this is an update to the requests that presented two weeks ago on the August 24th commission meeting. If you remember, PPC had requested an update in their language of section 14 of their house rules for obvious errors and the process to avoid or pay them out on mechanical or technical human errors. There was some discussion during the last meeting on the sports book using their sole discretion to pay out these errors in accordance with the correct odds or price. And after meeting with PPC's compliance team, they have since updated their language to include MGC approval for both voiding and paying out these certain vets. As it reads in your packet, in the event of any obvious price error, all vets in such cases will be deemed void or paid out with the correct odds or price. However, either option shall require MGC approval. This removes the entire language of sole discretion that was in question, the sports book to pay out vets in such cases. Additionally, PPC has also replaced all mention of Barstool sports book with the sports book at Plain Ridge Park throughout their house rules. There were approximately 80 name change updates, one of which was actually within the section 14 of their original requested change. I'd also like to add that PPC has not only removed Barstool language from their house rules, but they are currently completing the process of removing it entirely from their property. This is just one more piece to that. And concluding here, the sports wagering division confirms all requirements have been met under 205 CMR 247.02, and it's no reservations about moving forward with approving both of these changes. Thank you for that, Andrew. Commissions, any questions on these house rule changes? We have a motion. I move that the commission approve the amendment to the house rules submitted by the category one sports wagering operator, Plain Ridge Park Casino, as included in the commissioner's packet and discussed here today. Second. Questions and it's discussion. Okay, commissioner O'Brien. I, commissioner Hill. Before I say I, thank you, Andrew, for reaching out to PPC and getting back to us regarding that language. I. Commissioner Skinner. I, commissioner Maynard. I. And I vote yes, five, zero. Thank you. You're very welcome, commissioner Hill. Thank you. Thank you, Andrew. Crystal, great job. Thank you. Madam chair, commissioners. Thank you to all of you. Excellent work. Thank you to the, the licensees too. Okay, commissioners. Now we're turning to item eight. We've got some help coming in. Um, chief Maldrew, chief London, and, um, Mina, I think was in earlier, but I mean, he might be joining us in a bit. See. Okay. Hi, John. Got John. Good afternoon, commissioner. Good afternoon. Commissioner, some will have, I'm just turning to the right page again. Sorry, everybody. I think it starts on page 142. Yeah. I've got Chris, uh, Grace's handy dandy bookmarks. There we go. Okay. Thank you. Who's going to take the lead? I can do a quick introduction, uh, background. And then I'll turn it over to Dave and just one more. Start by saying thank you to, um, John, Dave, uh, for all the hard work on this process. Um, and as in the memo you have in the packet, you have a memo that, um, starts by giving a brief overview of this process. Um, it started on July 27th, where we discussed how we'd even go about bringing in a, um, on July 27th about how we discussed bringing in a search firm to help with the executive director vacancy. Um, and we talked about the typical thresholds of what a search firm would look at between 20 and 25% of the annual salary. So we would first exceed the incidental threshold. Then we talked about the process we went through in the past of looking at, um, statewide contracts, and that did not lead to any, um, good firms in the past that did C level suites searches, uh, and that left us with the possibility of RFR, which would be a long-term or a procurement, um, exception where we would look for an intentional spend with a diverse firm and we could use the, um, best value process which we've used in the past. We asked for some time to go back and vet the, uh, supply diversity office list of certified firms to see if we could even find some, uh, firms that would be able to do this. John pulled up, um, STO's list of certified vendors, did found about, I think, 40 or 50 firms that met the basic criteria, um, and then we en, enlisted the assistance of LEAF to, um, do some additional vetting. There is a summary of their report in there of how they went about vetting. That was a three-pronged approach. We can dig into that a little deeper if you'd like. And we had, the HR department had developed some questions that we would put to a potential, uh, search firm. And those were asked by LEAF of the firms that responded or were within the, um, the three-prong criteria that met the three-prong criteria approach. All of that information is in your packet. And if the commission chose to use a search firm, there are five firms that could be, uh, could meet the criteria that LEAF has put forward. And it's up to the commission whether they would want to use one or multiple, um, during that vetting process. And we can dig a little deeper into the information. I know that it was requested and it was my mistake at the meeting on August 17th to not give you the information from LEAF, um, because I thought that had to go to just the vetting committee. But now you have all that information that staff had at the time of the meeting on August 17th. David, if there's anything you, Bernice, or John, would like to add that I missed, um, please. And so just like, I don't know if this is, at this point in time, I don't believe so. I'll wait till we move forward. My recommendation is that from HR, from a human resource, is that we use multiple, that we use agencies, diverse agencies, and we use multiple agencies. Reason being is that you would normally use one agency. It's called giving them an exclusive, meaning that you would not use anyone else. Having never used these folks, I am my, my recommendation is that we go with multiple agencies, and therefore we are casting a wider net. And we are also able to recommend to them, encourage them, to go out and identify all candidates, including diverse candidates. And that is something that's very specific to our, um, goals as we move forward. So those are really, I would be the liaison between the agency and the, um, commission, commissioners. And steps can be identified where you would play a, play the role and identifying candidates, we could work that out. But those are my, um, my observations, my thoughts on the issue. I think that would be the best way to recommending the commission to go forward. When you say multiple, are you saying multiple from this list, Dave? I'm sorry? Multiple from this list. Yes, multiple from the five, correct. Okay. And I believe two are certified and three are not, but they are five are all eligible. So multiple in my mind would be the, the best route. No more than, I would, I would say two, absolutely. It looks like, um, one got certified. Yeah. Four of them are certified and one is potentially eligible to be, uh, certified. Okay. So that's improved. Okay. Great. I'm sorry. I'm missing it. I'm sorry. Commissioner Maynard, go ahead. No, please. Yes. Yes. Yeah. Um, could you clarify which firm is not certified but eligible? It appears it's GUM's partners. Thank you. But the other four are certified. Yes. I'm, I guess my question's only about, and you have to remind me, I know that we talked about this last time, about remuneration, right? Are these firms only paid when they provide a successful candidate or are they paid when they provide candidates? From what I understand, these are contingency firms. So they would be paid upon complete hire of the individual, successful hire. And then based on their contract, which we would find out, we would then determine when that payment would be made within normally it's 30 to 45 days upon start date, not upon offer. Because we have a vetting process, which needs to be processed. And that is something that would be discussed with any agency. We need to be able to go out a minimum of six weeks to make sure that the person that the person is vetted properly. You mean for background, after? Background check, excuse me. Background of this, excuse me, sorry about that, I'm sure. Would they get something for, if the individual didn't pass background, that would be negotiate. Would that be a matter? Would that also be to Commissioner Maynard's point? Would they get no compensation if they don't pass background? There's no compensation. This is successful hire, this is not a retainer. We won't be paying folks for effort, we'll be paying folks for hire. For lack of a better way of saying that, not to be flippant. Hire based on our standards for hiring, which is background check. Got it. Correct. And that would be a little down some of these five vendors as well. Some may not agree to those terms, right? We have reached out, we're leaving these types of negotiations once it makes a decision. That's exactly right. Because that would all have to be ironed out and identified prior to any providing them as a agency for us. We would have to make sure that has been confirmed with them. Commissioner Maynard. I'll start the conversation. If they're certified and if they agree to the terms of all of them, if they find a successful candidate that is hired and passes background check, I'm perfectly fine with moving forward. Both would be my, I'll kick off the conversation. Can I just ask clarification from you, Chief Lennon? Did you, was your point that we're not sure if they would agree to those terms? But if we assume the best of all possible worlds. Okay. Commissioner Maynard just pointing out the best of all possible worlds. Okay. Correct. And these may be some of the discussions that you want us to go back and have with these five partners. We've had a chance to talk about it. Are you willing to agree to these terms? If not, we may have to come back to you with another discussion. And, you know, this is all part of that. Are we choosing one? Are we choosing multiple? I think if you were choosing one, it would be a lot easier to agree to those terms for all, you know, for all of them. I think if you say that to all five, you'd probably have one or two whittle out and say, I don't know if I have the capacity for that. If I, you know, if I'm competing against others, that's just my hunch. But it may come back all five say yes. And we get the greatest of all worlds, which would be nice because we'd be adding another vendor to the certified list as well. Right. So that would, and we are here to support them in that. Letha said they would support them too because it's from their database. So it wouldn't be a heavy lift on their part. We would be, we would be helping out on that certification process. I'm going to ask a question ahead, Commissioner. Sorry, I'll get better, I promise. I'm just going to turn and ask for any questions. So you, we're actually in sync, Commissioner Skinner. So this, this, I'm going to ask a question. The answer might be obvious to most of you, just noting where the offices are located for these farms. I think all but one of them have a Massachusetts presence, but that does not mean that their reach in terms of recruitment and search is limited to Massachusetts, correct? I mean, these will be, these farms conduct a nationwide. Search. Absolutely. Okay. Perfect. In fact, that would be one of the qualifying questions I would ask, or we could ask, what is their experience in conducting regional and national searches? Okay. There is a firm that's listed here who that does not have much experience with C-suite positions. Their focus primarily has been mid-level management. And so I would, I would be okay with, and I don't know whether that firm is certified or not. I think I have to flip back to determine which firm it is. But I mean, that would be my only hesitancy with moving forward with that firm is that they don't have the requisite experience with this kind of a search. All right. Great, Commissioner. Commissioner Bryant, Commissioner Hill, thoughts? I've differing to Commissioner Hill. I wanted to make sure anybody else that wasn't going to be going further into the process had a chance to voice what they wanted. So my initial thoughts would be that we would go with numerous companies, you know, more than one, that'd be okay with that. How we make that decision, you know, remains to be seen. But I think from what we're hearing from staff, that is probably something we should do. And I'm okay with that. Michelle Brown, we want to hear from you. I know that this is such an important piece of the puzzle. Do you have any consternation about the use of these firms or a combination of them? Any, I have the same thought as Commissioner Skinner on the one that she flagged. And my only question really for Dave and Derek, we've used these things before. And I know, Derek, your involvement may be more limited than maybe what we thought originally. But is having too many cooks in the kitchen problematic? Is there a sweet spot in terms of how many firms you deal with in this? Or is it better to capture maybe the four out of the five on that list? My experience, I have experience here. My experience that I've used to, because the court, what happens also is that if you have too many cooks, they said identifying the same people. And then you have a problem of who received what first, because if you were at a higher, now you have an issue of saying, well, I referred that person to you also. And it gets very, it could get awkward. So I've used, I've done searches, headed up searches, and the private sector side, which is different, the private sector side, the process is still the same where we've had to. And so what, sorry, go ahead. I would leave that up to the vetting committee, right? After you've had a chance to contact the five of these, see who works best with your assumptions, right? The commission really, it's been clear during this process, the commission really wants to have their hands on this and doesn't want to turn it over to a search firm solely. So anyone that comes forward with that probably want to, it's going to be hard for them to change their process and the way they go about things. So that might be a good disqualifier too. But as long as you identify all the problems that Dave's pointing out, all the problems that Commissioner Hill has pointed out in the past of using a search firm, and you have those on your mind as you went to view these four or five in the search firm groups, I think that you can come up with the sweet spot, whether that's one, whether that's three, if Dave likes two, maybe it's two and the vetting committee likes two, that's throughout you go. But I wouldn't say there's a perfect formula for it. The benefit we have is we have a very involved HR department in all of our hiring processes, unlike in some other institutions where the HR kind of just farms it out. So I think we're at a benefit here for using a search firm. Absolutely. Any other questions, comments? I know this isn't marked up on the agenda, so I'm turning to Councillor Grossman. But I'm going to ask the question to see if we need to think about this. Last time we met, Commissioner Hill, you raised the issue around the second screening committee that might be used for the election of the IEP director. And I'm just wondering, are there any efficiencies that we need to be thinking about in terms of search as we think about this? That's all. Maybe with the next agenda setting, maybe we think about that unless it's pertinent now, maybe it's not so far off the agenda for us to be thinking about that.  We could absolutely, if the commission chose to do this as an intentional spend, and it's in our best value, which I truly believe it is, it's a small procurement, right? It's under $250,000. We do have the capacity to say this is in our best value because we want to meet our diversity spend numbers. And I think this really shows that we're not just talking the talk when we talk for our licensees, but we're walking the walk as well. In this scenario that we have this ability to say, this is the only one we're going to make it available to, then yeah, do it for both. We get a double spend here. We could use it for the IB position as well. IB, direct to position. Commissioner Hill, what are you thinking? I don't think I'm agreeing with Derek on this one. Okay. So let me put a little bit more thought into this. And we challenge this. As a back burner, you can always say we leave that as an option. You don't necessarily have to do it. You can go just the CEO route, come up with employment opportunities as well as our job posting boards. And then if you don't get good results, you can turn to this option. Or we can just hold it in the back burner and bring it up if it's needed. I like keeping it on the back burner for sure. Let me think about this a little further, Madam Chair. I don't think we need to go that route for this hire, but I'm certainly willing to listen to my fellow commissioners. And staff, of course. So you can turn for the altogether, okay? I was just thinking of the efficiencies are splitting it out, but we thought four was too many. So, okay. Let's put that on for agenda setting purposes so that we can have a good discussion on it. All right. So commissioners, do you have any other questions for Derek, Dave, or John? Or I'm having a little trouble today, Vinicius. And I'm looking at you.  And I actually love it, Vinicius. And thank you for all the work that's been done on this. It's really important work. I was wondering who that angel was with the halo on. Yeah. Madam Chair, I'd like to add also that with these five organizations, with these five organizations, we have an opportunity to expand our portfolio of diverse vendors when it comes to placement as we move forward. And these folks, now that we know they exist, we can develop our HR can develop relationship with them. They may be able to be used for not so much for executive, but also for critical for all management positions that, you know, to make sure that we are continuing to reach our hiring goals. So it's another way of expanding our efforts. I agree with you. Chief Montrell, I do. I think it's excellent. Okay. No other questions? Mr. Maitre, are you thinking or are you? What have you got on your mind? I already said my piece. I was not as altruistic as Michelle Bryan. I was sitting here thinking, if I do have to work with these folks, I'm going to give my opinion early. But that was, you know, that's, I think that, you know, going back from my experience, my rule in the governor's office was, anybody that wanted to give me a candidate, we were going to, we were going to look at that candidate and we never restricted, right? And then the piece about the reason I asked Derek and folks about the payment is to me, being a good steward of the tax dollars too, I would only want to pay them if they had a successful candidate. But so that's, that's as simple as I was thinking. I said, hey, if they've got a good candidate, throw them our way. You know, we don't know what we don't know. And we'll pay them if it's a good one. So that's, that's it. I haven't really changed what I was thinking. But, but I am willing to go with my fellow commissioners on, on Halberg rule. Can I ask a clarifying question, please? If we go with the executive search, because I'm reading, I think Commissioner Hill's mind, if we go with the executive search firm, and it's not exclusive, as I'm understanding, do at the same time we use our own approaches as well, if it's not an exclusive arrangement with an executive search firm, in other words, you know, the typical postings that we do. And I see Derek nodding his head. And maybe you said that I missed it. My apologies. Yes. So that was a clear point that I took away from past meetings. I went back and reviewed all the genders and the actual meetings to get a feeling of what was, what was going on with this. And that was a feeling from the body that we didn't want to turn this over to just an executive search firm. We wanted our HR department, this vetting and screening committee heavily involved, and they would be running the show and the search firm would be assisting them. So we'd still be putting the CEO posting out, still be doing all of our regular advertising, touching our affinity groups, and then asking this to supplement. So Commissioner Hill, that might be a helpful addition because to Derek's point, his early point is that if they were successful, that would be really advancing our goals around diversity spent, right, Derek? And we do know we need to be in tension about that. So I understand your point. Thank you, Commissioner Hill. Thanks, Derek. Okay. Thank you. Were you chiming in, Dave? Are you chiming in? No, I was just stating that as we meet with the agencies and work with the commissions, HR will play a critical role in ensuring that identifying what candidates we already have in our systems that are already, that are going to be refurbished by the agencies because we are not going to pay for someone that we already have. Oh, good point. And that's critical. And that's again, when we look at this and what that process looks like, I will, I can explain later, but that's a critical role. So if we have Dave Maldrew in our system and Dave Maldrew surfaces through an agency, what does that look like? And the agency has to agree that if that's the case, then no, we would not. Understood. That's good. Any other clarifiers or questions? So, again, of this list, for our certify in one capacity or another, one is double certified. No, two are double certified. Correct. In the fourth, is eligible to be certified based on its ownership? It just hasn't gone through the process. Got it. And that can take some time. It can. We've experienced that with a few other vendors. The good thing is, the time limit, as long as it happens within the fiscal year, we still get credit after the certification happens for the spend. So commissioners, are you prepared to move on this today? Or do you have further questions? Do you want further information? Do you want further research? I have an additional question, just really playing off of what Dave mentioned. I think, correct me if I'm wrong, but your recommendation is to move forward with no more than two of these search firms. Did I hear you correctly? I just installed my experience the question was, have I had experience? My experience has always been working with two. If it's three, that's fine too, but I have worked with two. I recommend, in this case, in this particular case, based on their abilities, if we had three, that's fine. I wouldn't go more than that. Plus, if they cover other areas, if we happen to have one or two that are regional, and we have one national, that could justify three. So, sorry to answer you in that way, but it's not as strong that it's only two. Yeah, but you're not advocating for us to move forward with all five. I would not. Yeah, so then the question becomes, how do we whittle the list down? I mean, aside from what I flagged earlier, I think we have a certification issue, which may or may not be an issue, assuming that there can be some negotiation in terms of what we expect of that firm moving forward and getting certified. But the other factor here, I think that's going to weigh in. My decision is the length of service, the length of, excuse me, the length of time these firms have been engaged in this kind of work. And so I just, I guess I'm looking for some guidance as to how we go about carrying down this list of five. Well, we could recommend there's not a lot. We could have another process. I don't know what I would do. And I've done this with customers where the commission can interface with a representative of the commission, can interface directly with the agency. I could be present as an HR person. And you can ask questions, qualifying them. John, we did something similar at Robert Half, correct? So we could do that and do it in the public and have all five of us make that, do that process, or we could delegate it. Oh, I forgot, public. To Derek and John and Nisfa and Dave to come up. Because I think when I'm hearing from Derek, it's a real possibility that they're not all going to agree to the ideal terms that Commissioner Maynard suggested. So maybe we have them do like a cursory outreach and then if they come back and we say, and they say, all five are in, then maybe we, and you're not comfortable making, you know, coming back and say, we selected two or three, then you come back and ask for more guidance. But could we delegate it to them and should be comfortable and they take into consideration experience and all those, we could talk about maybe value, things that we really want and experiences one in certification. Second, Commissioner O'Brien. No, I was wondering, I didn't know, I thought the dial I was heading in the direction of, except for maybe the one that Commissioner Skinner implied originally, did the other four proceed where the, whoever the members of the screening committee, the vetting committee would then go forward and sort of do the final selection of no more than three. Now to keep the process moving, but I'm not supposed to continue to involve all five, but in terms of trying to move the process along, I didn't know if that was what was being thrown out. Well, if we're going to have a screening committee make that selection, then my, and the screening committee includes potential candidate for the IEB position, then we should, I wasn't envisioning that, I didn't think we were going to be having anything to do with the IEB selection. No, the search firm. If we're going to end up using this, that was, that's, but couldn't it just be another process? I mean, does it necessarily implicate open meeting law? I wouldn't think so. Oh, it's not the open meeting law issue at all. You're talking about a conflict arising between the interim IEB director and the potential of serving on the executive director where that person may be interested in the full-time IEB director. So we can put up, we can put up all kinds of barriers if that, and what I was recommending was similar to what Commissioner O'Brien was recommending. If this, if the firm's doing the work for the selection in the review group, we can have John sit in on that to help with the procurement and to help with the, with the selection of vetting down from the five. But, you know, at that point, it would, we're still doing a best value procurement, right? So you still want to have your team together. So it's either going to be all five commissioners or it's going to be the vetting committee that does it. And it may be a little quicker, a little easier if you have the vetting committee do that. And then the commissioners, kind of like we did with the application, can tell you what their priorities are when vetting. You know, the commissioners on that selection criteria, on that committee. Well, my input on this is that it is critical in my mind that the commissioners have buy-in on however number we use one, two, or three agents, five even, that you have buy-in. That from the very beginning, you feel comfortable that these folks are capable of conducting an effective search. And that's really that that's more important than anything because it really is, if you have questions, about it, then there's probably a reason why you have a question. I guess I just wasn't thinking that the screening committee was selecting the executive search firm. I thought that commission was and I might thought was to just continue to use the team to little down, find out, come back, tell us. I actually think it would be quicker. Like, okay, come back and tell us of these five who's interested and we might only have two anyway. That's really what I was thinking. But if we will, the screening committee to do that, I actually think that's more process because you're including people who are not, we've got two commissioners on the screening commission so far, committee so far. And then there are other people that we don't know yet. So I had that same understanding that the full commission would be deciding which search firm or firms move forward with. And I think that was a specific request made by Commissioner Hill, though I don't want to speak for him. I thought about that's how we agree to move forward. Relative to additional information gathering, I'm perfectly fine delegating that to Derek and John and Dave and the rest of the team. Because I do worry, you know, whether or not we'll be able to get one of these firms to sign on to this project. Particularly, I know compensation has been mentioned, but you know, where I don't know how these search firms generally operate. I've never dealt with a search firm, but it does strike me as somewhat unique for the commissioners, the search committee to be so closely involved from the search firm perspective, to be so closely involved in the review process, the determination as to who to put forward for potential consideration. I think that that might be more of a bigger ask than we realize. Because essentially, you know, where it seems that we might be altering their business practice just a little bit. But I don't know, I'm just, I'm wondering that. So that's kind of where I stand on this whole thing. So hoping we can, as a body, make the determination as to which search firms to move forward with. Michelle Hill? And Nina, I'm not sure if you have any experience, if you're thinking about screening committees and if it's typical for them to run a big body to do the procurement for the, for an executive or is it the big body? Do you have any thoughts on that? Well, it's either, in my experience, and this is mostly on the local level that this has been done, but it's either the full body itself or somebody who is not, or frankly, it's the HR director just doing it or the procurement officer. It's actually rarely a long discussion because there's not usually this many options for search committees to do that. But yeah, it's kind of one of the two, but it's not usually a screening committee itself. They're kind of working with that entity after the fact. I'm also mindful of the time here. So I think it is good to move forward sooner rather than later on this, just a question. Is the executive director, has the job been posted yet? Because I do think, you know, parallel to what we're talking about in terms of the search from shouldn't that, shouldn't we be posting that position? I mean, just what's that process like? I think that's all part of the screening committee's work. Isn't it, Nina? Well, but I understand that, but why, what's stopping the position from being posted? Right now, it hasn't been posted because we still are determining we just finished the job description and we wanted to make sure that we wanted to make sure the, I wanted to make sure the recruitment process was solid and we could certainly post it, but I didn't want to make sure the commission was involved. Independently, we can post it, but if we're not ready to have the internal processes in place, it could get, we could get high volume. We could have a lot of, you know, how are we going to interview? So I thought there were a few questions that we need, but we could certain once the decision is made, we can post it quickly. And we're using that's the same job description that we use. We have an up-to-date, we have a meeting where we approve the updated. Right. We did, we did do that. Yep. We did that. Thank you, Commissioner Bryan. I need definitely memory helper today, so thank you. So we've done that, it could be posted, but I'm looking at Mina for direction in terms of process. We have not yet selected the screening committee and I presume that that would come under once it's posted all the processes that are about selection, including the general ones that the HR department would do those falls under that screening committee, right? Because we're going to do a combination. It could. Yeah, it certainly could. There's some flexibility on that. You could, you know, exactly what you asked the screening committee to do. Again, you can have the full body put up the the job description. You can have that rolling and then the screening committee starts, you know, as applications come in. There's a lot of flexibility. The screening committee is meant to make the work more efficient. It's not, there isn't a rigid process on that. Commissioner Skinner. Yeah, I mean, given that we've already determined that, you know, we want the search firm's work to supplement our own and the screening committees. I just, I don't, I don't, I mean, I don't think that it would hurt to post the job description now. I just, I'm still not seeing the issue with doing that. I mean, again, just in the interest of time where this has been on the agenda now, you know, several times, I just, I think we should take advantage of. Okay. So let's, let's get back to, let's get back to item 8A though. Um, search firm, we've been, we've been given an option of five names. We can decide to have the screening committee do that work, or we could ask, we could delegate it. I think there's some efficiencies and just ask Derek and, and Dave and John, at least want to check in with these folks and find out do we have anybody? Madam chair. Yes, commissioner. That's exactly what should happen. Thank you. Please, let's move on this. Thank you. I just am looking for a motion. I'm looking for somebody. I don't know. I don't know myself, but I will. I don't know if we need a motion, but while I wasn't getting, I, I couldn't tell if I had anybody agreeing with me. Commissioner Hilsa, I'm very happy to hear. I'm agreeing and, and hoping we can move forward. There was a, there wasn't. I think there was a sense for at least one commissioner. Maybe it was going to be in screening committee. So do I need a motion that we're going to delegate to the, the four members of the team who've been working on this process to come back and tell us that who's in and up to most three will be lucky. I think if it's three, we'll be lucky if it's two. If it's only one, are we still comfortable? We'll find out. And you don't need probably two weeks to do that, right? My hope, my hope would have been that we have decided today that we're going with some search for firms. We have now said to these four, go ahead and pick them. Do they have to come back to us now? I don't, I personally between you and I, I don't care who the firms are. That's, that's just me. Personally, you and me and the, in the entire public. So I don't know what else to say, except that I think the staff can, can look at the five that have been put before us and can pick the two or three and let's move forward. That's, that's how I feel. I'm with you. Okay. Here, here. Thank you. Thank you. That's why message received. We will, we will do that. We will bet with the conversation here today. We'll bring that back to the group and see who's willing to sign on the dotted line. Yep. Okay. Everybody, do we need a motion and a vote or is everybody comfortable with that direction? Just one. I'm comfortable with that direction. I heard you. I am. Okay. Good. Commissioner Skinner. Good. I was waiting for it and I saw Commissioner Maynard and Commissioner O'Brien nodding the head. All right. Let's go. Great. Good. Now, so seven AA done. Selection of the screening committee. Where were we? I think we only need one other slot. Right? Wasn't that it? That was a question. Commissioner O'Brien, I think we'll probably need a refresher because I'm No, that's what I was thinking. I think Cruiser Hill might have a better memory of this than me. I think it was Heather. There was a discussion of Derek. I think Mina's going to address the Derek issue because there was a question about about the fact that Derek, Derek raised himself. That he is hired pointed by the CDL. And Mina, did you have some thoughts on that? I did. If and I just, you know, in fairness to Derek, I don't assume that still that he's still somebody that you would consider. If you were to include him, I think you would have to as you know, there's there's a potential that someone could suggest that there's a conflict. There could be a conflict of interest because eventually Derek is Derek's position is hired by the executive director. It's not necessarily a conflict of interest. But as a precaution, what we would probably recommend is a filing under the State Ethics Act and then approval from the commission that you believe that Derek can act and partially not withstanding that ultimately the person that is selected would be the person who has the appointment authority over it. It's certainly not unusual when staffs involved that it is somebody in that role again. A lot of times the hardest person to hire is that sort of CEO type role of an organization because they do have others reporting to. So that's sort of the long and short of it. It's because of the potential for that. We would recommend a disclosure form and an approval if Derek was involved. And but other one, but we don't see it as an absolute block. Chair, I have a question. Mina, and I'm sure you know this answer. Would that apply to myself also that this person would be my direct boss and I'm involved? I know I'm ahead of HR, but is there a conflict there? My understanding is it was slightly different. David, and I think it might have to do with who, you know, who your contract goes through and whether it's by statute. Dave, the by statute the executive director is, does make the appointment of the chief administrative officer. And it is different. I mean, he raised a good point. And I think there isn't necessarily a conflict. It's really an appearance issue that you're getting at. Right. Mina. Dave raises a good point, but I think you know, it's certainly the appearance part. You know, there's no as I sort of what I was alluding to is there's no way around that for staff at the organization to be hired. HR directors are often in this position where they are hired person that they are eventually going to be reporting to. So I don't think it's the same for Dave. I think the statutory reason is why we would suggest perhaps a little bit more of a precaution of, you know, a documentation precaution with Derek. Thank you. Okay. So who do we have? We've got Madam chair. Yes, commissioner. Before I make my comment, I see that Derek is still around. And before I go and make my comments and I'm in public. So I have to ask it. Would you be interested still in being on this committee? Very interested. I just wanted everyone to know about that section of the statute. So while they made this decision, it was an informed decision. So Madam chair, if I can just make an opinion of what the commission committee should be, I think we had agreed on commissioner O'Brien, commissioner Maynard, Dave Moldrew, Heather Hall. And then of course, the fifth position was up in the air because of the issue with Derek. And I'm going to continue to push Derek to be on this committee because of his experience. He's done a lot of work already to get us ready to move forward with this. And I think Mina has now explained to us all he has to do is sign a disclosure form. And if he would be willing to do that, we've had two meetings now to talk about this publicly. So we're not hiding anything. It's been out there transparent. So I would urge my fellow commissioners to add Derek as the fifth member of this committee. And I would end it at five. We're going practical. Could we make any motions subject to the commission agreeing today to accept that disclosure? Mina, can we do that? And then we don't have to go back to it. Right. No, in fact, because you know, this is sort of a slightly funky process here. It is funky. Because the disclosure would actually go to the appointing authority. Which is the executive director, which is the interim. Interim interim executive director Grossman is really the one that would officially sign off on that. You know, you can certainly given, you know, his you can sort of give him your your thoughts on it, which by appointing, I guess what I would say is can I add a wrinkle in the event in the event interim executive director Grossman is interested in the position. We need to just keep him absolutely. And that's what I was actually going to get to. Thank you. And I think you read my mind. So because of that wrinkle, I guess what I would say is if you were to skip over the person who appoints Derek today, which is the would be the interim, the person, the folks who appoint the executive director are you is this group. I think you could fold it right into the motion that the commission has no objection to it. And to the extent that a formal sort of approval of that disclosure has to happen from the interim executive director, it will be done as you you know, based on your vote today as a ministerial act as a call. And and these disclosures are just filed. There's it's so there's no action to be taken on them. So let's pull that into a motion in the interest of being practical. Mr. Boehner. Should we ask and I know the answer to this Derek. So don't take offense to it. But shouldn't we ask Derek on the record? Yes, you should ask the question. I'm not interested in the executive director position. And I assume Heather. Yes. Thank you. It's not interested in the executive director position. Yes, that's right. And Chief Maldrew. I am not interested in the executive director position. And I'll further my answer that if at any point I think there is a candidate that I cannot be impartial on, I will let the committee know immediately. And you'd be willing to sign the disclosure. I will. Yeah, thank you. And I think that just to be clear, that would apply what you just said, Derek. And I appreciate that that applied to all members of the committee, including the commissioner. So I'm going forward. You guys will figure that all out. I think we can we're close to a motion, Commissioner Hill. I'm trying. I have the first part of it. It's the second part I need help with. So so mean to help me out. Sorry. Um, Commissioner Hill, if you could start with the first half, which I assume is to appoint the screening committee, I can, I can. I think what I would add at the end is subject to the filing and as necessary approval of this. Disclosure statements by the by Mr. Landon, which, which the commission believes are appropriate, given that Mr. Landon's interest in the position is not so substantial or interest in his role in the screening commission and his employment interest is not so substantial as to affect the integrity of the services the commission receives. You can, you can add a so moved at that. I know I said a lot. So at the end of that. Yeah, good luck with that one commissioner. I know it's a lot there. So, but there is trying to get the the statutory criteria as well. You got to walk me through it Mina. So subject to the filing and necessary disclosure statements of Derek Landon. Yeah. And further, the commission votes that in its opinion, Mr. Landon's interest is not is not so substantial as likely to affect the integrity of his service on the screening committee. Let's let's simplify it there. And further, the commission votes say it again, you're going too fast for me and I'm sorry. Sorry. And further, the commission votes that in its opinion, Mr. Landon's interests are not so substantial as to affect the integrity of the services his service on the screening committee. Subject to the filing, necessary disclosure statements of Derek Landon and further the commissioner, the commission's votes in its opinion that Mr. Landon help me one more time. That Mr. Landon's interest is not so substantial as to affect the integrity of his service on the screening committee. Substantial to affect his work on the screening committee. Shall we try it? Let's go for it. Is everybody ready for that, Madam Chair? I'm ready. So I move that the commission named the following individuals to the executive director screening committee. Commissioner Eileen O'Brien, Commissioner Jordan Maynard, Dave Muldrew, Heather Hall, and Derek Landon. Subject to the filing and necessary disclosure statements of Derek Landon and further the commission votes in its opinion that Mr. Landon's interests are not so substantial to affect his work on the screening committee. Second. Thank you, Commissioner Skinner. Any further discussion? Okay. Commissioner, you should all feel comfortable voting on this even if you're involved. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Commissioner Maynard. Thank you for the commission. Aye. It's not like you had to follow it, but I know you wanted to vote for the other three also. And I vote a big yes. So thank you. Five-zero. It was just encouragement. Vote for yourself. Excellent work. Now to Commissioner Skinner's earlier point, you know, there's now a committee to turn to you in terms of steps that should be made to advance the selection process. If that includes tomorrow posting that, I guess I'm, Commissioner Skinner, if you want us to direct them to do that or do you want to just let them take over now in terms of the process? Yeah, I just ask that it be considered. Excellent. Thank you. Very, very good. Good, good point. Okay. Number nine. Well done, everybody. Well done. Particularly the team members. Very, very helpful. So important to our overall mission. So thank you. Just one minute. I have somebody in my house. Later. Um, we have item number 10. I have one commissioner update. And that's really to thank there's a committee that I worked with Grace Robinson to form after, you know, once what's wagering was stood up, we recognized our mission statement. It's really due to be reviewed and overhauled to reflect at least that expansion. And a committee has convened. I asked our most senior and our most junior commissioners to lead that. Michelle Bryan is chairing and Commissioner Maynard is joining her. And then a nice group of our members. I want to get them all right of our team. And that includes Tom Mills. Dr. Lightbound. Dave Maltrew, I think you just want to Dave Maltrew, you might want to mute. Thanks Dr. Lightbound and Judy from our for our legal department representative, Gutt Crystal. And Lily John Scully and Todd and his executive director role. And so I want to thank you. That's important work. And I know you've met a couple of times. And I'm sure that the the commission will afford to. You know, maybe a couple of updates unless you get your work done. So play them all. Look forward to hearing your recommendations. So just want to thank you for that important work. If folks are looking at our at our mission statement, it is it is evolving. So thank you. Any other commissioner updates? Can I just one, please? Is Derek still on? He's off camera. There he is. There he is. I'm here. Happy birthday. Oh, thank you. Thank you very much. I wasn't going to let you get away without being put on the spot. No better way to celebrate than I can actually. Wait, and all day commission meeting too. We celebrated all day with you, Derek. All day. September 7th. Happy birthday. Hope you're doing something special. Yes, spending with the debt with the family. Excellent. Both families, the M.G.C. family and then my family. I'm going to I'm going to date myself. Are you going to the ground round? You betcha. I remember the ground round. One of my favorite restaurants. Popcorn. I get the day. I get the day. Popcorn. Drop your peanuts on the floor. Yeah, the popcorn on the floor. I love that. Many times at the Cleveland Circle Ground Round. Yes. Always a great birthday. They spot if I remember correctly. Madam chair, you know me. If we get near the end of a meeting, I'm probably one of the first that want to go. But I would like just to take a couple of minutes if it's okay with you. Commissioner Maynard and I actually attended Saratoga a couple of weeks back at a conference. And with your permission, I just wanted to briefly just give you a little bit of an update of what took place over there. It was a very good and informative conference actually. Patrick Brown, who is the founder and organizer of the conference at Saratoga, welcomed all of us and put together terrific panels that were really very educational. One interesting panel dealt with technology and gaming, new challenges and new solutions. And many of the topics discussed during this panel this panel discussion dealt with consumers trusting in the technology used in gaming and eye gaming, wanting better protection for consumers instead of underground and unregulated gaming and increased revenues for brick and mortars who have added eye gaming. The subject of illegal gaming on city streets came up a couple of times and how technology can better protect consumers from unregulated markets. And the technology also being used to get increased interaction with customers to gather patterns and making products better and for RG purposes. The downside of the technology we learned that needs to be looked at is the illegal betting that is still taking place, money laundering, and of course terrorism was brought up as part of gaming. Other subjects brought up was the philosophy of taxation. Too high are we pushing people underground for their gambling and things of that sort. And another great panel discussion that took place regarding consumer protections and federalization of gaming. We heard from Congressman Paul Tonko of New York who has proposed legislation that would ban all advertising related to sports wagering in the United States. It's called the betting on our future act. Not surprisingly, this act had some detractors in that room who did not support the legislation for many, many reasons. And I have to give the Congressman some credit. He explained why he filed the bill, which is for many reasons we have discussed during our regulation from the nation process. Also on this panel was Marlene Warner, our mass council on gaming and health director. She was excellent and shared what states like Mass have done through regulations to address some of the Congressman's concerns. And by the way of the four presenters, Massachusetts was mentioned three times for what we have done in our regs for RG and advertising. And then lastly, I'll talk about the subject of harness racing and industry. The subject was an industry in decline or transformation. And interestingly enough, there was not a precise answer to the question. I heard the pros and cons of the question, but each jurisdiction had different proposals on how to enhance harness racing, which we found to be very interesting. Some of the pros, you know, had additional amenities to racing partnership with racing and casinos. Thoroughbred racing and harness racing in Saratoga, as you know, take place. Commissioner Maynard and I actually went into one of the casinos where they have the harness racing and we were able to talk to a couple of the workers there and, you know, made it very clear that when the Thoroughbred racing is taking place, the harness racing does not take place, but instead of during the day it will happen at night. And then, you know, getting more press to cover harness racing, whether it be here or across the country is something that needs to be needs to take place. Used to happen back in the 60s, 70s and 80s, but not so much now in today's world. And, you know, some of the cons, I just said lack of press, some of the negative press that we've read dealing with equine deaths, illegal drugs and horses, you know, not the same for harness industry as it is and as we've seen in other horse industries, but something that, you know, a lot of people are seeing and trying to understand. We're not seeing young people get into this industry like, you know, we did in the past. And it was an interesting fact that we heard in the 1950s more people attended horse races than football games, which I just couldn't even comprehend in today's world. So again, it was a very exciting conference and very educational. And I would urge, you know, next year, for those who have never been to Saratoga, that you take time to go out beautiful country, but more importantly, great education on an industry that we oversee. We still had some questions after we left, actually. And we are working with Dr. like mom and PPC Commissioner Maynard and I where we're going to meet with their leadership to talk about some other issues that we didn't get clear answers on. So thank you for giving me a few minutes to give you a little update on the conference. Very informative. Thank you, Commissioner Maynard, anything you wanted to add? That was really comprehensive. And I agree with the sentiments of Commissioner Maynard and quietly, I will say for those that palace entry when we weren't working, Commissioner Hill did drive me around to all the different springs and allow me to look at those and drink from them and go back to where but no, we had an opportunity to sit down with all the stakeholders. We heard a lot of different opinions and came came away knowing that horse racing is a live industry. It is a long industry. Excellent. Thank you. Thank you for that. Any other Commissioner updates? Any other business? All right. So, Commissioner Hill, I will turn to you for the last business of the day. I move to adjourn. Second. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Commissioner Maynard. Aye. I vote yes. Five-zero. And thank you, everybody. It's a long day, but a lot covered and a lot done.