We'll get started. Thank you. So today is Thursday, October 6, and we are holding this meeting virtually. So I want to take a roll call. Good morning, Chris, or Brian. Good morning. I am here. Thank you. Good morning, Commissioner Hill. Good morning. I'm present. Good morning, Mr. Schitter. Morning. I'm here. Good morning, Commissioner Maynard. Good morning, Madam Chair. I am here. Excellent. We'll get started and we're sure we have some minutes for today. We do, Madam Chair. So I would move that the commission approve the minutes from the June 9, 2022 public meeting that are included in the commissioner's packet subject, any necessary corrections for typographical errors or other non-material matters. Second. Any discussion? Okay. Commissioner O'Brien. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. And Commissioner Maynard. There's none of members, so I abstain. Okay. And I vote yes, so four and one abstention. Thank you. We're going to turn then right away to item number three on the agenda. Good morning. So our legal division, I think I see both Mr. Grossman and Ms. Monaghan. So I don't know who's taking the lead. Good morning. Good morning. So this morning we wanted to give you a brief update on the status of the racing applications that the commission has received. In advance of October 1st, which was the statutory deadline, we received one application for renewal license for a harness horse racing. And that is of course from PPC, which is located in Plainville. We also received an application for a new thoroughbred race track. And that is from the Commonwealth equine and agricultural center LLC. And the proposed track would be located in Hardwick, Massachusetts. So in order to move through this process, we're going to need a lot of different hearing dates on the schedule and in particular we will need public hearing dates both in Plainville and in Hardwick so that the public can come to us and give us their thoughts on these applications. And so we are in the process of scheduling those and I'll let Crystal go through the dates in a second. We'll also need adjudicatory hearings for each of the applications. And so those are there's time being held on the schedule and the adjudicatory hearings will be followed by deliberation. So Crystal, would you like to go through the dates that we're holding? Sure. Thank you. Yeah, so I have arranged on the calendars for holds October 17, 1828, 31, and then November 1 and 3. We are looking toward a particular process for that that would make sense in order making sure we get the hearings before the 38 and then the deliberations for the latter end there but we still have to firm up some confirmations and locations before I can give you that full schedule. They are in the work scope. And any any questions for Caitlyn commissioners on this on the application. Process. Okay. Hearing that, is there anything else Caitlyn or Todd. Nothing at this time on racing. Thank you. Okay. Next to our chief financial. Your full title is not here, but it is chief financial and accounting officers that correct Eric I don't see him right now. That's correct and the statute it is the chief financial accounting officer but I think we've shortened it for quite a few. Chief financial officer. In your packet today there is a regulation which we have worked quite a bit internally as well as with the legal team and their outside council, it is relative to it. This was for daily fantasy sports and taxation of that but it also deals with the taxation of sports wagering. So we rolled all of those together because it falls pretty closely section 14 of chapter 23 and sets and I don't know if you want back and I know there are a few questions about timing up the regulation when we can put it forward and I know legal's done some work on that or if you'd like me to just walk through the regulation and what we're what we're proposing here. I think walking through the regulation makes great sense commissioners you agree. And then questions as they arise will adjust them. Thank you for the work on this. And I like I said a lot of a lot of hard work by legal on this and we spent a lot of time drafting this and then I know legal spent quite a bit of time fixing our drafting so. I just want to give a lot of credit there to both the internal team and the legal team, but section one deals with the tax rates that will be doing that the statute requires for so it's 15% on adjusted gross sports wagering for in person wagering 20% for on adjusted gross sports wagering receipts for mobile and digital platforms and then 15% on adjusted gross fantasy wagering receipts, which is new to us is regulated by the attorney general but we are there to collect the taxes so a new section was added to the general laws where we would be the tax collecting entity. Section two goes through how we would compute adjusted gross sports wagering and once again we follow along with the statute on this the one thing that we did not include in here that the commission has held off on us how we would handle promotional policies in a traditional place so while it's a defined term it is not. It is not defined in here as to how it be used for for calculation of the taxation process. And I know we have to come back to that later legal told us we can always come back to that later so let's not muddy the waters and let's get something out now to to get this process through. And it does follow the statute where it says you know total wagers less payouts to patrons less the federal excise tax is how you get to the adjusted gross sports wagering receipts and then we take the 15 or 20% from tax from those. The degree of this of this regulation says that you know it's in this is different from gaming. So we had to we had to go through this it's a monthly collection, but we're asked but it requires the statute requires the operators to actually do a daily. process of closing out their adjusted gross sports wagering seats so we asked them to file those with us. We don't give them a deadline for filing them but we just say you'd have to give us those those numbers on a daily basis so when it comes to the filing period by the 15. The reconciliation is much easier we already know what's going on we know any areas that we want to follow up with the operators on. And they're probably a substantial number of operators for this not just three. So, keeping track of this on a daily basis will be will be pretty important for us. If I could just interject. This is a new tax collection, new tax collection. We've never done this before. Well, and not just for us. These, these, the fantasy. Yes, they are fine. Although the Attorney General's Office has regulated there has been a tax so this, this is actually part of the new law 23. Correct so 11th section 11 m in one half was added to chapter 12, which required it to be mass general on chapter 12 which required them to pay taxes, and then chapter 23 and section 14 makes us responsible for collecting those taxes. It's got something new to us. You know we don't know the operators we're going to have to work closely with the, with the Attorney General's Office on enforcement of this but we did have those preliminary meetings with them. So Derek, can I ask you. Absolutely. There's, I got an updated version of this and 24.013 had a sentence added most recently, which reads any person engaged in offering fantasy contest or registered with the commission on a form approved and prescribed by the commission but I do not see a form attached. We have not generated that form yet. So we would come back to the commission with that form and it's going to be pretty much a basic form that says what is your FE ID number. What's your, what's your official name of business, what do you do business as a DBA. Where is your primary location of business and have you registered with DOR basically in the Secretary of State's office so it's going to be very simple just so that we can get the world of operators we're not looking to add a lot we're just trying to figure out who they are. Charlie, whether does the, does the obligation to pay the tax go with the implementation and effective data the statute or the effective data by regulation. So that's the area that legal has done the research on so I would do not want to mess this up so I can turn this over this question over to Todd and carrot and carrying Caitlin. Thanks. Questions that we asked about retro activity. Thank you. So, the, the short answer is that we can collect taxes dating back to August 10 2022, which was the effective date of the sports wagering act, which was put into place by the way of emergency preamble so it became effective immediately upon its enactment. The fact that the regulations will get implemented at some date later doesn't have any effect on the obligation of the operators to pay taxes as of the due date which is that August 10 date. So it would be permissible for us to require payment dating back then, not before then certainly, but as of the date that this law was passed. It's really helpful. In terms of the form I know there's also another form that you'll get to that is the actual form of the taxes says something that they could address that. I don't know. Yeah, I mean ideally I'd like to see all of this together, I mean there's the request here to implement this by emergency so I wanted to see what the timing was going to be in that form ideally we do it all together. Yes, and the form is going to be very basic it's going to say what is, you know it's basically the areas down below what are your adjusted, what are your gross sports wagering receipts what are your payouts. What are your excise taxes and what are your adjusted grocery seats so it'll be three lines with their name of the company, and then the tax rate below that the same thing we do for the operators, and then the basis amount and then the big parts going to be going out to their systems. We're going to have to go out and actually understand the backup for each of them to and how they arrive at that. And we realize that's going to take some time for us that we don't have the runway we had for the gaming act where we could see all these systems before they went live these operators are already live. So that's going to be the challenge but the actual form is a word document that has those pieces down below we're not adding anything. And then the calculation and the tax rates that we know what we're what we're required to be getting from them and EFT and the same day they filed their report. So is it possible to do it on the 13th. Absolutely. Okay, did you want to continue then there. Yes. So, the taxes are due on the 15th calendar calendar day of each month following the, the month that the betting took place and unlike the gaming statute, if it has one of these days falls on a weekend or a holiday they have to file it before then, because it will be later than the 15th of the month, where we did not have that language in the gaming statute so if it fell on a holiday or weekend we gave them until the next business data to file it so that's a little bit different. So as you see in section in paragraph two, it lays out what we're looking for on the form, and this is basically what the, what the word document that we're going to send out to them will have it'll have the operators name, and then it'll just have the total gross sports or gross fantasy wagering, the adjusted gross fantasy wagering, adjusted gross sports wagering, the tax amount that's required. And then we will probably ask for the, we will ask for the excise amount to that they're paying so that we can get to that adjusted amount. Another thing that's different about this statute versus gaming it is required that they file these through EFT. They'll probably be doing a wire transfer as EFT takes a little longer so we'll have to set up wiring instructions with each one of these entities who are in the gaming act they could submit a check if they wanted to. That took a while but most of them are on or on wire transfers now, and it'll be a lot less. You know our gaming entities have to do it daily so $7 a day for a wire transfer was a bit to get over at the beginning where this is monthly $7 a month for a wire transfer. And then the section for tracks very close very closely to what we have in the gaming act it just allows us to go in and audit the books and records for fantasy sports, we have talked to the attorney general's office if we are going to do any of that they'd like a heads up. They can be part of it if they'd like to. But for our sports operators this is the exact same language that we have under the gaming act or we have the ability to go in review their transactions if we find any problems they're responsible to pay it to us. They have a certain amount of time where they can dispute it. Ultimately, at the end of the day we have to be happy with whatever they say otherwise they're responsible to pay us the tax amount we say they're responsible for. Can I ask you a couple other questions. Absolutely. 240.02 sub one three C sorry adjusted gross sports wagering receipts. Shall not include any amount received by an operator from credit extended or collected by the operator for purposes other than sports wagering can you give me a for instance on that. This is just saying sports wagering is just sports wagering fantasy sports wagering is just fantasy sports wagering so don't try and collect money from another area that a patron may owe you or say for an outstanding debt. At a restaurant. This is just for taxation of the sports wagering operations and that's a little closer to what was in 23 K, and we thought that might apply to the retail operations. So that's why we left it in there. So we can always take it out. There's not, there aren't many instances but we said you know what in the rare case that they try to collect from patron for something else we want to make sure that we're just collecting here and we're just taxing here for sports wagering operations or fantasy sports wagering operations. And then my second question and maybe this is more for legal is, should we have any cross reference to 940 CMR 34 which is the, the regs the currently exists for the AG looking at the daily fantasy sports. Or at least incorporated by reference exactly somewhere yeah. We could incorporate that of at the top or we sort of talk about the story. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, I think we should do that. Okay. There's other questions on. And I do want to point out commissioner skinner was very helpful. She's been working with us on reg review of all of the finance regs and her treasurer role so she she got this to a place where legal could actually read it and make sense of it so. Thank you. Commissioner Skinner in terms of her role as treasurer and also very capable attorney so thank you. Really helpful. And I think then if we, if we were to vote on this today with the changes that are reflected that reflect a couple tweaks. We could then have the vote on the forms on the 13th and the tax collection process could begin with the retroactivity in place. Is that right Derek and Todd does that work process wise. That's right. So, we don't have to wait on the red today because the forms aren't quite. Correct. The one, the one issue will be getting this word out and we'll have to work on that process to all of the operators that are the unknown entities that are to us that are operating in Massachusetts so the ability to go retroactive is nice because even if we catch up with them. A few months down the road, we'll have the authority to say you're still responsible for paying these taxes even though you weren't registered up until whenever whenever we catch up with them. Well the good news is that this provision I think was in the initial filing from Governor Baker back in 2019 on sports wagering and it kind of stayed and then it stayed in certain proposals and then it didn't stick and then it ended up in 23 yet. I do have a little bit of notice but I think they reckon to your point. I don't know if we've got Tom but we can help get the word out right through our, our public messaging. Absolutely. So, through our website and through our social media outlets right. Any other suggestions. They're doing to work with them and that first or anything else or any, any other suggestions. So the Attorney General's Office did say they're going to be as helpful as we need them to be in our meeting so I think that's our next step after we get the right out to have a follow up meeting with them. But they were very, very helpful very accommodating very collaborative in this in this effort. So, I think we have all the enforcement mechanisms we need now it's just getting the word out there and figuring out who those businesses are. Excellent. Any other questions, Commissioner Hill are you leaning in. No, I have a question madam chair just wondering what the plan is for solicitation of public comment on these ranks. Are they going to be posted on the website. I know we talked a little bit about how important it is to get the public to weigh in on our work so I want to spend a little time discussing how that will happen. Tom. Of course, if the commission is inclined to enact this language by way of emergency. What that means is that procedurally, we would follow right up by commencing the ordinary promulgation process which of course includes a public hearing so that public comment can be elicited but it wouldn't be likely for, you know, four to six weeks down the road. So I believe Commissioner Skinner, what you're inquiring about is whether we add in another opportunity earlier on for members of the public to comment to the commission, so that we can gain some perspective, potentially a little bit sooner. And I would submit that we can do that immediately. If the commission is so inclined as to adopt this today by emergency, we could certainly do that with Tom and team to put up on our website solicitation for public input, immediately, so that we can get a sense as to whether there are any issues, anyone sees with what we have done and make any adjustments in the short term. Well with the understanding that the, again, the formal process is underway and there will be certainly opportunity in the very near future to make any adjustments to the language that that comes about by way of public comment. So I think that's that's certainly one way to do it. There may be others but I think that might be the most helpful here. Commissioner Skinner you raise that really good point when we first spoke about emergency regulations in the process because it is different of course in terms of getting the public input. Should we, I don't know if we need a formal vote but do we have a consensus that we would actually like institutionalize this so that are any. Whether it's an emergency or regular regulation that we have in place on our website. A depository for written comments as we move along the regulatory framework. Or do we want to set it aside strictly for emergency and Commissioner Brown and see you nodding. I'm glad Commissioner Skinner beat me to the punch. I mean it's something that I'm concerned about as we go through what's on this agenda and these requests for emergency rags in particular, that I think we need to have institutionalized an access point for what we are considering, even if we're going to be doing these by emergency and so it's a separate link on our website that specifically deposits, all of the regs that we are considering, you know with topic headers etc. We need to do something like that for transparency sake and for public input. So this is maybe the first example, but my hope and expectation would be that that's how we would be moving forward over the coming months. I don't think your sentiments reflect that of all of us, but I want to hear from Commissioner Hill. No, in full agreement. Full agreement. Commissioner Maynard. I love input, but I also love the flexibility that emergency regulations do provide us in times like these. So the combination will work. So, Tom. Yeah, I actually knows the great conversation to have. David and I were putting the finishing touches on a form on our website where the public will be able to weigh in and those comments will be able to be collected and put into a sortable spreadsheet. So the commission can review those comments based on topic. It would be nice to a link to once there is a public hearing date that it be connected to whatever the draft reg is so people really want to come or call into the public meeting they know exactly where it is. Absolutely. Commissioner Skinner I also want to just you might have some thoughts on we're getting that input. It is, it is a process that's actually more transparent than what we're even required to do under law. If we get that input in advance of the hearing that Commissioner O'Brien just mentioned, do you imagine, would you like to be able to do something with that input in terms of a meeting that would address something earlier than even the hearing. I think it would depend on the nature of the comment right.  And one of the one of the issues might be, you know, if. If there's a hearing, and we have significant comment that we need to respond to what's that process going to going to look like I mean I know we have the ability to amend our regulations. So I just, you know, we don't have to iron this out today, but we do need to look toward a process by which those amendment proposed any proposed amendments will come before the commission for decision and subsequent action by the legal team. Yeah, so my my thought is we would we have a structure of the meet the hearings that will that we normally hold for our regular right process, saying it's in a different compressed in a different order for the emergency. When we are getting this input, if we were to hear immediately that we really took a step in the wrong direction, we can reconvene and address that even sooner. Is that that's fair right. That sounds great. One other request I have is on the proposed spreadsheet repository that Mills just mentioned. So in addition to that I think that's great but I would also like to see the actual comments so if there can be created. Some sort of database, whereby all of the active comments are submitted, then that would be good. Commissioner Skinner absolutely that is part of it. Right, thank you. Excellent. So, other other questions regarding the tax collection process. Except for the one amendment regarding the attorney generals, our collaboration and their involvement. Were there any other edits that we need to think of. I'm sorry. I do have just a general question for Derek, I guess 240.02 subsection to the last line does say that the total of all cash prizes paid to participants shall not include the cash equivalent of any merchandise or think the value awarded as a prize is that pretty standard language. It's part of the statute. That's what I wanted to make sure that was clear. Yep. That's part of the statute. And that's part of the gaming statute too. And it even tracks for poker games and things so they're really just looking at cash here. And it's not promo. It's very different than promo. So that is a policy question for us, Karen, that we need to probably address sooner than later and it has implications on tax so we will be revisiting this regulation. And probably sooner than later. We touched on it a bit in the roundtables but we didn't, we don't have all the input probably we need yet. Commissioner Brian, are you, you're in agreement with that. Yep. Okay. Okay. Anything else then. I think we're moving on the red that's presented today with the idea that we'll look at the two. I think it's just two forms there, right the actual tax one and then the registration one. Correct and we're going to make those as simple as process as simple as possible with the, with the details being in the backup documentation which the accounting team will have to learn when we get out to see these operators. Those are comfortable. Take a motion. Certainly Madam Chair, I'm going to move and I'm going to bifurcate the motion in terms of the substantive language and the emergency request I had mentioned earlier I wanted to do that on the regs going forward. So I moved that the commission approved the small business impact statement in the draft of 205 CMR 240 as included in the packet and discussed and amended here today. Any questions. Thank you. I thought, but any questions are on that commission made. I'm curious to see how the bifurcation is going to work, Madam Chair. What do you think Commissioner Brian, that I was going to move on whether or not staff be authorized to take the step by emergency or not, and that people can make their voice heard on the emergency component of it as opposed to the language and small business. Okay, I understand that. Thank you. All right. And we can revisit this process as we go along. I really haven't necessarily reached a consensus on that. Just on the motion that's in front of us. Any further questions. Okay, Commissioner Brian. Hi. Mr. Hill. Hi. Mr. Senator. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. Hi. I vote yes. Before Commissioner Brian, we get into the emergency red discussion. You know, we're familiar with that what you've raised, but I have the luxury again of having Mr. Hill, which from NK on and he did help us think about the tool of emergency regulations in this context. You have the time to be able to recapture what you shared in an earlier public meeting it might be really helpful for a reminder for us and also any members of the public who missed that last time. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. And I'll just briefly, as we discussed at the prior meeting, emergency regulations are permissible under the state regulatory scheme and indeed. Chapter 23 and makes note that emergency regulations are something that the commission might choose to do. In the appropriate circumstance. In the emergency regulations. It's just that the regulation is submitted prior to the public hearing and public comment process and then goes into effect immediately but can obviously as the commission has noted been revised any point along the way. Whereas the commission has discussed opportunities to take early comment prior to the public hearing along the lines of the website. The standard for an emergency regulation includes public health safety and the general welfare and given the imperative in the legislation to move relatively quickly on sports wagering while at the same time the commission continuing to protect the members of the commission. It seems in the appropriate case that emergency regulations would be warranted. I leave that decision in every case of course to the commission. But in the case where there's taxes well known and again as your general counsel said, able to be collected as of the date of the enactment of the statute. I think a fair opportunity if the commission agrees to move forward now and take public comment thereafter. I would think though that this is a decision that shouldn't be made for the whole set of regulations around sports wagering but is in fact something that should be looked at. In this case how you want to set the votes up is up to the commission but while I think there's broad latitude I think the regulation should be looked at individually in this instance. Is that helpful chair. Thank you so much one. One question I have is what is the significance of the emergency preamble to the legislature. That put this in effect immediately. There are two things that made that whether three, at least three places that showed the legislature's urgency around this in sort of the statutory sense as well as what one hears in the public it was enacted as an emergency. A piece of legislation that means it goes into effect, as Mr. Grossman said upon the signature of the governor. It has a somewhat unique, I know you're not supposed to modify unique but somewhat unique provision of allow specifically calling for emergency regulations, which is not something that I think I've ever seen in a bill before doesn't mean it hasn't been there but it's and thirdly, at least with the current version of the temporary license with a language it shows a legislative imperative to get things moving a lot. So, again, the commission has been discussed at earlier meetings has its obligations to protect the public from a bad system but make sure that it rolls out in a way that is legitimate and appropriate, but this bill does have a certain urgency associated with the drafting of it. Chapter 23 and as well as with sort of information in the public space. Okay, so the request out of legal or the suggestion was that it be adopted by emergency regulations so further questions for either Mr. Bogich or Ernie? I don't have any questions Madam Chair but I said this in a meeting Tuesday I said it again yesterday at the agenda somewhat that I do feel like this is a case by case situation I do feel like the opportunity to be heard and I we talked about how to do that in the I believe Attorney Pove even commented on his experience with post that for the most part regs were not presented and voted on on the same day, even if they were emergency there was at least some period of time for them to be publicly viewed and commented on before they came before us. The one before us today is rather straightforward it mimics what is already statutory language and a mechanism that we have already with the existing licensees I'm not as concerned about this particular one but I do want to point out that the cadence we're going to have going forward I would ask Bakes and not a same day presentation and both. I'm not sure who went first Mr. Skinner. Are you leaving it. I am thank you Madam Chair question. Is there a need for this regulation to be promulgated on an emergency basis given the fact that we have already been advised that the Commission has the authority to collect taxes dating back to the date the bill was signed. It depends how fast you want the money in the public. deposit right I'm going to turn to Commissioner Hill. What would the legislature think. Anytime they can collect taxes they're all for it and they would try and expedite that as quickly as possible. I appreciate the question. The good news is we've identified that this is a requirement of us and we are moving on it today. The goodness that we've learned we can collect retroactivity Commissioner Reiner. Madam chair if you don't mind. Could we could I could be please hear from Todd. Yes. I think actually the chair. captured really the answer that I would I would offer which is it's really more of a policy question I don't think there's really a legal. A requirement that it be put into effect by emergency it really boils down to how quickly you'd like to begin the process of collecting these taxes and whether it's immediately or three months from now. Essentially is really again a policy question for the commission. Thank you and I appreciate that Commissioner Skinner, I should have yielded to our legal team but I was sort of jumping ahead on the policy matter. Thank you Commissioner Maynard and then we'll go back to Commissioner Skinner. I just have a quick question. For attorney povich. Post was brought up. Did post have language that the commission may promulgate emergency rules and regulations in accordance with Apple procedures for the promulgation of emergency rules and regulations. Do they have that in their statute. I don't believe so I'd have to double check but I don't believe so. I'm pretty sure but not certain. And I think what the lessons from post is is that there is flexibility there there are. It's not just an emergency with no comment until the public hearing or the 90 days for public hearing I think that was just one way of flexibility. They were in a bit of a different situation they had a different cadence and different deadlines and they didn't meet as. And they had a they had a different meeting cadence than you've laid out. So I think if there are cases in which you want to discuss in one meeting and voted another meeting. You know you, people are paying attention so I don't think that you need to have an infinite amount of time between meetings but all these things are just case by case basis as the commission would want to do with it. Try to identify a series of tools that will allow things to move in sort of the appropriately brisk but careful fashion that seems to be intended in this legislation. I remember very hard deadlines in the post legislation. Very hard deadlines but they but they but a harder deadline is immediately. Right. So, so they had hard deadlines, but they were not set up they were they were brand new commission they weren't at set up at all. So, they had to start from scratch you have a lot of foundation here in the regulation of the of the casinos that you can avail yourself of but some new things that you have to do pretty quickly. So, I think they're all tools. Thanks. Immediately is all relative to when you're talking about a new industry. So, Richard skater. I guess I'd be interested in the policy question around, you know, whether it makes sense to pass this along on an emergency basis or not.  I don't think it needs to be pushed forward on an emergency basis. I mean, I, you know, again, given the fact that we do have the ability to act with but for active to August 10. I just, you know, it will the emergency nature of this be defeated by whatever attempts are made internally to get this system up and running whereby we are able to successfully collect taxes.  I know we have the tax form that we have that will be presented next week. We have the registration form that will be presented next week. I just, you know, willing to be convinced why does this need to be moved forward on an emergency basis and I'm not sure who made that recommendation. If it's legal. I'd like to hear from legal as to what the thought is on that the thinking is. I think this option. I don't want to put words in, in your mouth, but it did. It was presented in draft motion. So, Todd, do you want to elaborate? Certainly. I apologize if it came off as a recommendation. I think we just wanted to frame the issue so the commission could make that decision. I don't have an opinion on that it's not a legal matter as as we've said, the obligation to pay taxes accrued as of August 10 and it will continue to accrue. It's just a question as to when we begin to collect. Can I ask Todd is a lot of the monies that we collect on the casino environment are dedicated to certain funds. Where do the monies go on the DFS tax, is it dedicated to gambling services, you know, what is it, if anything, or does it just go to the general fund. I believe the fund is actually already established to collect it correct Eric. So the gaming and the sports wagering revenue fund is established to collect it and it goes to I don't have the citations in front of me but it goes to six or seven other funds. So the general fund some is the public health trust fund some is a competitive workforce trust fund so the legislature set up six or seven different funds that the money goes to. And all with the exception of the public health trust fund are subject to appropriation. So legislature would would deal with where they spend it in the budget. And the percentage percent actually does go to the general fund. I don't know if you mentioned that Derek, sorry, but I know commissioner Brian was asking that question specifically. I'm sorry. I don't have the benefit of the experience that Commissioner Skinner has working through some of this so the monies that are dedicated to the other funds are they. They get remitted through the legislature and the appropriations process they do not get remitted monthly to the various funds is that correct. They do get remitted monthly to the various funds but those on a monthly basis but those funds, just like every other fund in the in the budget process, basically rely on some sort of tax tax and tax coming in for either a special purpose and if the money is not there for. And this is kind of behind the scenes and commissioner hill can probably talk about this because it's been 20 years since I was in ways and means, but if the if the money isn't there. What I do is short term borrowing and there's a whole there's a whole line item in the in the budget where the treasurer's office can do short term borrowing to supplement various funds until the tax revenues are received that are relying on those tax revenues. Thank you. Welcome. Can you see a benefit and in proceeding you and your team proceeding with the tax collection for fantasy sports operators up now before the the taxing process for sports operators kicks in whenever they're they're launched. Could you could you could you benefit from this or this timeframe in advance of the full launch of mobile sports major. So, so there are pros and cons to both. I think we talked about the pros getting the revenue in ahead of time. We talked about the problems that we're going to face as far as finding all the registrants right so if, but three months from now we might not find all the registrants either they may come in a year later, and you know they'll be do, giving us the taxes but it does give us time to get a bigger group of people. We're not going to hire another revenue accountant until we're about a month away from a month or two away from sports, wagering category three operators coming online because that's when we'll get the bulk of it. You know not having an assessment not having all of that. So, you know it is more work to put on the current team but talking to them. They've never said no to more work. So there's pros and cons to all of it and you know we're here, we're going to carry out the, the requirements and the whatever decision the commission makes but I understand the pressure we're never going to say no to more time to get prepared, but I also understand that the legislature wants to see the money. So, you know that that's the policy discussion we're never going to say no to more time to get prepared. And the fact that we can get the regulation out there, the fact that we can get notification out there that we need to start collecting these taxes and the people are responsible for them. I think that's huge. I think that's, that's the biggest part so I'm really happy about the vote that happened this morning. And we will implement whatever the commission decides from this policy discussion. The fact that there is a regulation that's been promulgated on an emergency basis does not necessarily mean that the work to implement the regulation has to be an emergency. It's understood that the work needs to move along as quickly and as reasonably possible but I just wanted to make that that note to your comment in particular. Yes, completely understand we will, we will be doing all that work that's why I said we're never going to say no to more time to prepare and get this done. But we are, we are very ready to do whatever the commission decides today and that's why we had the meeting with the Attorney General's office. And that's why we're ready to have the forms, even if we don't start collecting, we're going to have those forms for you on the 13th, so that we can start registering people. Thank you. Good questions on policy, because I am going to call the question here shortly. Many of these questions for Derek. Do you think that registrants would benefit from getting this, let's say the whole process took 90 days before regulation went to effect. Would they benefit from getting it now versus the 90 days later or with the Commonwealth, would there be some detriment to the Commonwealth in not beginning these conversations with the registrants now versus 90 days from now. That's a good question for the smaller operators that may not be accruing this and may not understand what their liability is it could be a problem if they're not setting this aside. We do our marketing right and we, you know, have all the faith and and Tom Mills and you know all the work he can do and getting this out as long as we people know they need to be setting this aside and timing of when we get the money is is always, you know once again that's a policy discussion and I don't think there was a lot set aside in the budget for this, but that being said it is a short term borrowing act for the treasure of the office in between whenever the money comes in so you know those are those are enough discussions and what they would see as far as as budget gaps. But the more messaging we can do to notify people you better start accruing for this you better start setting this aside because you are responsible for 15% of your of your adjusted grocery seats is better off. And for those who aren't going to do it, or aren't going to listen the quicker we get to them the better off because then they aren't getting into a negative call. But that's for the smaller operators the bigger operators they probably already know about this and they're, they're, they're probably accruing accruing for it. What's the consequence. I do need to ask Commissioner Hill, and then I'll turn to you, Commissioner Hill do you have any comments we haven't heard from you. I really don't have any comments but what Derek just said, raised a red flag for me with our smaller companies, who I think could benefit from this being an emergency regulation. I'm very concerned that they don't know that this is going to be happening and history has shown me that whenever we go retroactive a lot of these businesses aren't aware of it the smaller ones the big ones for sure now. And I'm very concerned that that this could be a financial hit to a lot of these companies because they weren't expecting it. So, I really have no problem with this particular regulation going through as an emergency, for that reason alone just to protect and help our smaller companies. And I also feel very strongly that this is one of those regulations I just don't see there's a lot of controversy with it. And why wouldn't we do it and get it over with quite frankly. Not controversial at all that I can see. And if we can move this forward, you know, sooner rather than later I'd rather do that and get it out of the way, take it off our plate for now to be totally honest with you. Now, I'm sorry I just need to make sure I'm reading the windows. So, I guess my question and this whole conversation has also prompted me to ask there's nothing in the language of this reg that talks about the consequences for failure to comply. So, is that something that we need to be addressing by reg or is that address somewhere else statutorily in terms of the loss the right to conduct the DFS. The Attorney General's Office. And Todd can cover this because we actually did talk about that whether to put it in our regs, or just refer instances of that back over to the investigation side of the Attorney General's Office and they had opted that we refer back to them but I'll let Todd capture the better essence of that conversation because I was more focused on should it be in our reg or shouldn't it. I think the one we probably need to spend a little bit more time on but to Derek's point I think the criminal enforcement would certainly fall with the AG's office and I'd have to spend a little more time, determining what that the statute that applies there would be and what the criminal penalties for non payment of taxes are precisely there is a section just for everyone to be aware of in chapter 23 and it's section 21 a that talks about the commission imposing simple penalties, not to exceed $2,000 for each violation or $5,000 for violations arising out of the same series of events for violations of chapter 23 and so that is potentially an avenue that could be explored for something like this. So I think it's important just to recall that there are criminal penalties and then civil penalties that may potentially apply here. Okay, so I guess something to consider is whether we have the authority. Since we have this cross regulatory authority the AG's office it's a little different if somebody doesn't pay under the existing casino statute that would be arguably a violation of their license and then there's a mechanism there it does not appear to be as clean in this, in this setting is that a fair statement on. I think so because based on my understanding of the Attorney General's regulations that the operators are not licensed by the AG's office or certainly by us. So that's a it is different in that way we can't take action against a license per se. It's really more of a fine or a criminal penalty that we're looking at a non compliance. Okay, I guess only question and this is not going back on the boat we just took in the language but maybe to consider whether we want to amend it further to just make reference to consequences as we flush that out. So, in terms of reflecting coordination with the Attorney General's office. Or even just our as we go forward in this 23 and 21 a whether we want to make it clear in the reg to people like to Commissioner Hill's common even maybe smaller operators that there is potentially a civil consequence as well. So are we comfortable that, as we said, reflecting discussion today that incorporates Commissioner O'Brien's series of questions just now. I know we took the vote beforehand or do we need to take further vote to clarify that commissioners are we comfortable. I'm happy to move again if we feel like I would be more comfortable if we could take another vote. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Okay, certainly. So ground hug day, Madam Chair I move. Again that the Commission approved the small business impact statement as well as the draft of 205 CMR 240 as included in the packet and as further discussed and amended here today. Second. Hey, ground hog day any questions. Alrighty, Commissioner Brian. I, Commissioner Hill. Commissioner Skinner. Commissioner Maynard. And I vote yes then I would like to call the question on the approach we're going to take with respect to the regulatory process do I have a motion. Madam Chair, I further move that staff be authorized to take the steps necessary to file the required documentation with Secretary of the Commonwealth by emergency and thereafter to begin the regulation promulgation process. Further move staff be authorized to modify chapter or section numbers or titles to file additional regulation sections as reserved or to make any other administered changes as necessary to execute the regulation promulgation process. Is that new Commissioner Hill. Thank you. Any further questions or. Okay, my, my, my, just my vote in favor will be with the understanding that the finance team will have adequate time to prepare for implementation of this regulation. We also for our team and making sure they have the time and resources they need. Is there a consensus there everyone that we mean. And, and, and I turn to Executive Director Wells that she will always inform us of that that's very much on our minds. So thank you, Commissioner Skinner. Alrighty. Then Commissioner O'Brien. I, Commissioner Hill. Hi, Mr Skinner. Hi, Mr Maynard. I, and I vote yes. All right, so we got through that. I know that our folks at a and K had some scheduling challenges but I will just, I'm hoping that Mr Mackie you're available over our next piece of information. Mr Povich and I know that your team will be we're figuring on the vendor licensing around 130 so that that works for your timing. Right now for the application and the scoring process we're looking around hoping to get through them. We're just only about 15 minutes behind or so, but we're thinking about this time to about 1215, 1230. Does that work for the NKT? That works for me. I'm available for the next agenda item. Okay. And, and for our team, I appreciate that you are available. So thank you so much. Great. And we're going to turn to director Wells on the excellent work that has been done on the application and we want to thank you. I want to take time to thank Mr Maynard. I know he was also involved in the development of the application. Derek and I believe Caitlin you might have been the legal resource on this, but I also want to thank Jacqueline who for a second came in who really started being the whole process cared at your great suggestions. She did a wonderful job. So yes, so we have three components and the agenda item for the sports wagering application this morning one is a regulation. And two is a presentation of the draft. And third is a discussion of the sports wagering process whether it's a scoring process or evaluation process. Once that conversation takes place, the legal department will go back based on the commission's direction at this meeting and go back and we'll come back at a further meeting regulation regarding the process of the evaluation. So I'll turn it off with drafted tool. I've seen our 211 the category one category two category three sports wagering operator license applications. So I'll turn it over I think Carrie's going to handle this I'll turn it over to Carrie Todd. Thank you Karen good morning Madam chair and commissioners. I just want to note before I get started on this reg we do anticipate changing the number of this reg from 211 to 210 just so that it fits better within the larger framework that we're working on but the motion language should allow for that but I just want to give you a heads up that and as Karen mentioned, you know we anticipating bringing that full operator licensing framework, which this regulation is a part of to you. So for today, this regulation 205 CMR 211 or 210 outlines the requirements that must be met by an applicant to submit an application for sports wagering operator license, including the type of information that will be included on the application, which holds from the application that you'll be discussing today and the required fees. This regulation is a combination of language pulled from comparable regulations in the 100 series on the gaming side, and also a similar regulation from Indiana related to submission of application so we just look at that as well. So I thought if you'd like I could just briefly summarize each section I know this is a short regulation but I could just run through each number and let you know what it does and then happy to take questions along the way that sounds good. So section one requires applicants to submit their applications on the form that is issued by the Commission, following all instructions included on the form. And it notes that the Commission has no obligation to accept or review an incomplete application or an application submitted after the established deadline. And feel free to jump in with any questions along the way here. Section one a requires an applicant to submit the scoping survey, which I believe is also going to be discussed at today's meeting at a later point. Using the form, the applicable form by any deadline established and I just want to point out here with this section that the way it's drafted now. It says that failure to do so shall result in the commission deeming the application incomplete and administratively closed. I have included it as a shell so you know that's quite definitive but of course open to discussion if the commission would like that to be a may and to have more discussion there, but I did just want to point that out to that's the the last sentence of one a. Pause for that right now. Just to make clear what we're thinking about in terms of what that is that scope being survey should, should we ask maybe direct and the leo's to just go on that briefly. Good idea. Very thank you. Yeah, of course. Good morning. The scoping survey is it appears on starting on page 20 of your packet. It is a survey that we have used in the gaming context as well and it is a very helpful kickoff that assists us in identifying the qualifiers at both the entity level in the individual level for each applicant. It is provided by the statutory factors of what makes a qualifier based on ownership and control of the company. And the survey asks the applicant to provide us with information, including a number of attachments, which you'll see listed on the survey. And those are things like the table of organization a list of the members of the board, board of directors, a table of executive leadership and so forth. So we send this survey to applicants we asked them to respond below the survey, provide us with the attachments and then we have a team who reviews the materials and looks at the statutory factors on who controls the organization and we then designate the entities and individuals that need to submit to the background review process and the first step in that process is submitting the suitability applications. So I hope that gives you a general understanding of what the scoping survey is designed to do but happy to try to answer any questions. So let's survey itself which are scared just clarifying the survey would be required to be submitted prior to the application, the license application. That's right. Prior to the application is it part of the application. We need the step before the application submission process. Yeah, I mean I think the way sort of it's a little bit of semantics I think as far as the reg is concerned we are considering it part of the application. But we need that scoping survey in order to identify who are the individual identity qualifiers will then later have to fill in presumably if the commission is in agreement with the recommendation from the staff, the business entity disclosure form and the multi-jurisdictional personal history disclosure form. So we can't tell them who needs to submit or what companies need to submit those forms until we do the scoping survey. So for purposes of sort of a regulatory approach, it's part of the application process. However, if we think of it in pieces, it's the first piece Loretta and team will need to do the scoping work, then they would need to submit additional information along with what I'll call the general application form. So I guess the second due date would correspond to the $200,000 application fee, the submission of the materials. It's all part of the application just feels a little different because it's a prerequisite. I guess I'm struggling with the language of 211.01a, in particular that last sentence, the failure to submit such survey shall result in the commission deeming the applicants application incomplete and administratively closed. How can an application be deemed incomplete and administratively closed when it hasn't even been submitted yet? I think that's why it's important to clarify whether it's part of the application with a, it's a prerequisite. That's the way I'm thinking with some kind of a deadline attached. I don't know if that's the team that we want to elaborate. I think I've been thinking that way, Commissioner Skinner, but I might be thinking incorrectly. I think that's right. If you want this to be the process for it to be part of the review, it is part of the application. It's just that it would come in first and then the second piece, the larger application form that you're going to review next, I believe, on the agenda would come in second, but it is part of the application. I agree. That's the way we would treat it. And the administrative closure piece says to us that we're not able to proceed. We're closing it. That can be cured by a compliance and, you know, receiving it. But if there are deadlines involved in this process, reopening it may not cure the deadline, would not cure the deadline. So we're trying to assign a deadline to this process given some of the anticipated timelines. And I understand that I'm just struggling still. How do you close an application that you haven't received, right? If the survey is the required first step, the survey is not the application, right? Yeah, I think it may be a bit helpful here. It is a threshold requirement to submitting a complete application. So this would give us some, and you could do a May, as Carrie mentioned, but under this structure, the way it's written now, part, if you don't complete part A of the application, you're out. So it's part of the application. It's just not the entire application. So you basically have two due dates for the application. If you don't meet the first due date under this regulation, you're done. Could I make one suggestion with the language that might help with your question, Commissioner Skinner? I don't think it's clear to potential applicants. You could amend the second sentence of one A to end after the word incomplete. So it would read failure to submit such survey shall results in the commission deeming the applicants application incomplete. And then you refer back to section one, which as the last sentence says the commission shall have no obligation to accept or review an incomplete application. So it would be incomplete because it had not met the threshold question and then the commission has discretion to review or not review the application because it was incomplete. This is to director Wells. Isn't this really an incentive to make sure that central licensees fill out this portion and do it in a timely manner. So, Laura and our team have time to review it. Yeah. That's exactly right. This is this is a timeline issue. Yeah. One part of the computer comes from the description of application because the application is done like a singular document in this rag when in reality, there are, there's the application force corners of it. Then there is this form. So we need to delineate in in one that there are two components to this where you call it an application packet whether you further delineate the existence of the survey but I do think there needs to be clarity on that and then in terms of one a you could say it's administratively closed without prejudice to curing prior to the deadline, which would mean you can fix it as long as the deadline hasn't gone past. I'm not too, because I did see that point when I looked at the survey last night, that it doesn't say it's part of the application, but I think that was that part of the application. I think, I don't know. I'm thinking that even like kids who applied to college, sometimes there's a part one, you got to get that on and that, you know, your interest and that maybe because they're trying to figure out their own numbers. But that part one of the application part A part B, you know, part A is you got to make a deadline that indicate your interest. We don't have to put that $200,000 on it. And that has to be a deadline. And otherwise, you are no longer viable applicant. That's really what I've imagined as a tool for us to understand the landscape of interest as well as to get work going. And then the rest of the application would be, you know, what we've seen in part B. So perhaps it would be commissioner Brian clarifying not only in the rag itself on the application document. Understanding it is a single application with two parts, a prerequisite part that clearly is a requirement for continuing on the process. I don't think that's unusual construct. And I actually have to say, you know, I think it was a combination of perhaps a director of the leadership director Wales of figuring this out. So thank you. But, but I can see commissioner scanner says right now the language can be used. So, what do you think, Michelle Brian, the combination might work. Well, I'm curious if Loretta, do you have any thoughts or Karen on operationally what the chair described would work for us we really can't proceed with taking in the applications without this first step. How to break that down in the rag then. I like the part a and part part B. And then make it really fine as being the survey and B as being the four corners of the application so we also have to include the BED, which is embedded in the application for the BED and the multi jurisdictional and the mass. So we don't want to make we want to make sure those are all included part of the application if the commission commission hasn't voted on this yet so I just want to make sure you give difference. But this is just to the precise question around and it's a really important one. I've seen it more to the atmosphere scanner and you saw it to the red language. So that I think it's at least the intent of the team's recommendation. So, maybe we should ask the policy question. Are there concerns about using the scoping survey in this fashion. I don't have any concerns. No, I don't know. All right, so then the clarity needs to come from the combined right and right. So. Carrie. With that said, what do you think I'm not hearing that an objection that it be actually a mandated requirement, rather than discretionary or is there concern. I'm not commissioners. That's what the coping. No, on the part A, that being a pre-react, because I think Carrie was suggesting maybe it could be a discretionary tool. But I, I think I'm not hearing that that's, I think Loretta said she needs it. No, no, no. Oh, no, I think she needs it. I'm just saying that, yeah, that it's a must that it's a pre-react as opposed to the other language Carrie was giving us as an alternative. Does that make sense, Carrie? Yes, that makes sense. You say in the first section, Carrie, that an applicant must submit a fully completed scope of licensing survey and a fully executed original application. Yeah, so what I was thinking was what if we amend one to say must submit a fully executed original application to commission, which shall consist of, and then I would use the appropriate Yeah, coping survey and application using the deadlines established on each of those forms respectively. And then we could kind of work a into one rather than having a one a it would be part of one. That would work for the licensing division and the IED. There are things quite a bit for me on the confusion side. Okay, and If you'd like I can work on that during the meeting and we could maybe come back later today and look at updated language or we could come back next week. I know I have to go through the rest but however you prefer I think this will be a long meeting so I should have some time to draft some new language. Carrie. Let's see how it rolls out but that's a fair point I think we all getting an adjusted where we're going at least right now, but we, we do need maybe somebody to walk us through the the regs still carry and I know that Okay, so continuing on section two outlines the types of information that are requested on the application form. These categories are just pulled right from the application form that you're going to look at next. And we've kept it general here of course there's much more detail on the application form itself. Section three points out that the application will include language that permits an applicant to refer the IED and the commission to prior application submitted or previous information otherwise obtained by the Bureau about an applicant. This course could expedite the process if we already have certain information that is being requested on an application if we already have it within our within our records. Section four requires that all fees required pursuant to chapter 23 and be submitted in a format prescribed in the application form. Section five states that the applicant has an affirmative obligation to abide by all statements in the application. And that any misrepresentations or emissions may be grounds for denial of an application or application of a license issued. Section six states that an applicant has a continuing duty to disclose any changes to the application. Section seven notes that the application form may include information regarding how certain materials submitted in the course of the application may be withheld from public disclosure under the public records law. This of course refers to language in chapter 23 and that exempts from disclosure certain types of information that are submitted during the application process would be a statutory exemption. I put a may here because I believe this is going to be part of the discussion of the application as well the type of how much material is to be included in the application regarding public records. And this came from the gaming side, excuse me, where we did include detailed information about what types of information would would be exempt pursuant to the statutory exemption. And then section eight gives the commission discretion to extend the time for filing an application under certain circumstances. So are there any other questions on any of the other sections. Yeah, I carry I have a couple section five. Affirmative obligation to abide by every statement and maybe this is the exact language from, you know, are they want to do in the casinos, but it says may be grounds for denial as opposed to shall. Is there any delineation between intentional versus negligent misrepresentation or omission. Um, this did come from the. Yeah, this did come from the gaming side. But that's certainly, you know, something that's up to the commission, how you'd like to work that here. You'd like it to be a mayor or shell. Was that the same language they used for the brick and mortar. We do have Mr. Kerry's here too. I think that's prepared to chime on and carry the two of you if you want to give that history that might be helpful. I don't know if you want to weigh in on that. No, I was going to defer to Kerry first, but it is, it is intentional. I think as Kerry mentioned, it's a, it's for a discussion for the commission. One benefit to the may and the reason I believe it's I wanted to just confirm that it's exactly the same as in the gaming side is as you can imagine an enforcement or disciplinary proceeding could have a couple of factors at once and it could avoid, especially if there are competitors suggesting that, you know, that the commission has to take a certain action, notwithstanding the totality of the circumstances, etc. So that that is is intended to reflect that the obligation is to be truthful but the commission will ultimately without without limiting the commission disciplinary discretion. I have a memory of the wind hearings where we talked about whether there was an attention on this representation was not was a disqualifier for the licensee. So, I just, I would like some clarity on that language we can just make sure we're being consistent. Is it under the statute. Yes, and under the statute there are some some. Yeah, on that particular one there are some issues under the statute that are automatic automatic and we don't have a lot of discussion and so that would be that's I believe one of them those those carried over from 23 K to 23 and pretty directly. Again, this is this is for this phase of regs we want to make sure the obligation and the applications is that you are truthful and you put all of information forward. Later regs when we talk about the license the form of the license license conditions will capture some of the absolutes versus a more discretionary functions. And then my other question goes to our definition of extraordinary circumstances in some eight. Um, this may I will have to, I would have to double check and see if this came from our gaming site me now I don't know if you remember if this came from our gaming site Greg or I pulled this from the Indiana Reg. We could. I mean we could make it more simple and simply discretionary and not include that extraordinary circumstances language. This is from from the RFA ones it's in 111 just want to confirm that so thank you. Similar explanation commissioner Brian to leave some room for discretion for the commission to decide what what that might look like. Again, this may differ if it's impacting for instance a process where you're selecting between a limited number of licenses versus choosing whether or not to to accept an application. Any other questions of Terry, I mean, I have a question carry. Is there anything in the application where someone would have to tell us if they've had any issues and other jurisdictions whether they were fine, or any penalty was given to the licensee and another jurisdiction. Would that be helpful to be in an application. I think it would. I believe that's in the application itself but I might need help from Todd or commissioner Maynard here I know they've been working on the actual application. It is it's part of the BED and there's a requirement for ongoing updates if anything in the BED submitted changes. So we would not in the app but not in the app itself. Yeah, Christian Hill raises a good point because I think it talks about experience related to sports wagering in the app itself. And I have noted we probably want to know violations. Right. You may be getting confused. I don't share because the application in is like includes the BED. Yeah, so it is part of the application. There's a disconnect between the BED and the app itself, where the actual have you been denied it is missing from the app. We ask about citations and things like that, but but it's not in there. It's not in the BED, but it is if you look at the structure and it's funny that I think all of us noticed it that it show experience and expertise and I thought, well maybe they want to capture violations through your experience and I thought, probably unless you ask Affirmative So it's in the BED, but and that will come up in our relative in the relative suitability discussion. Correct. So it's contemplated that the IEB will summarize some of the self disclosures from the BED and the compliance history and licensing history would be part of those part of what the IEB would put in front of you. As well as a lot of the other buckets, you know on financial stability and all of that right. So is there any reason why we can't ask for that violation history and the regulation and actually note that we want to even if it's also captured in the BED, is there any reason not to. Is there a timing you would you would put it in the this sort of comparative application as well as in the BED. Is there a reason why we can't like under glory or something like that. Is there any reason why we couldn't. Commissioner Maynard. I expected this part of the conversation to come up when we actually look at the application. But to what Director Wells just said, there was a decision made and it was staff staff driven but commissioner supported to anytime we referred out to other documents to try to remove that from the application itself. In order to make the application right. Kind of navigable. So there was a, you know, it was, it was not, you know, an omission. Commissioner Hill it was actually we knew it was captured in one spot we knew that that reference to that form was in the application, and therefore it was going down and then, if you do go into this process madam chair what we're talking about. We're going to have to go in and start picking and choosing again what comes back into the form from, you know, from the other forms of reference so I'm just throwing that out there that it was thought about. We did talk about it a lot and and there was contemplated but of course, the commission, you know, as a whole may may see it very differently. I think my direct question is this is something we should be putting in our regulation. So, I think that that's right and because it just doesn't capture the BED would capture that I wonder is, is it okay that it reflects, it's reflected in our right and that will add to the, the app. You know, come, come, complicating the app. The BED is also going to really give the history of the business. I don't know but it actually caught, I don't know I mean if it caught your attention but it did catch my attention. There were certain things in the app that caught my eye that being one of them I also was thinking when we can table this for more detail when we get to the app discussion but we had public input and then additions to the horse racing the amended horse racing application one of which was also. Have you ever sort of been rejected in another jurisdiction or withdrawn in another jurisdiction, which was missing from the app, which is a little bit different than have you been commissioner. Could you repeat that I couldn't just hear that point I'm sorry. I was also that same, it's E3 that talks about sort of your history of demonstrated commitment that's where some of those questions come in the application. I was thinking also to when we just revised the horse racing application and some of the public comment that we got and I think commissioner made it in fact asked for. Have you ever been, you know, have you ever submitted and been denied anywhere, which is sort of above and beyond have you lost your license anywhere. So, some of it is captured in the app and so I get the intent now commissioner made it that you're saying you didn't want to overburden but I did notice I felt like certain stuff was not being captured in the four corners of the application. I think that's a really good point, especially of Brian. Karen. Oh, I'm sorry. The red language itself director Wells, could we without. I get the structure completely up the application and understand the import of the two. Yep, the document so. Besides violations is there another. element that you want to highlight that this is of course not. We know that, but I just, I think we've spoken publicly that history of violations is important. I mean, I would think the, the sort of the big ones which would be part of. When we talk about the truncated suitability, the big, the big items are licensing and other jurisdictions if you've had, you know, had issues and licensing and other jurisdictions. That's a key component that commission wants to look at before we give a license out. The other thing is litigation history. If you have a company that is being sued that is something where that is an indicia that there may be a problem. You have to look into it. And then the third thing is compliance history. So if there is a company that has been repeatedly find by multiple jurisdictions that's something that commission would want to know beforehand. I would say those are the big three. You know, when you get into the conversation about truncated suitability during the application during the evaluation process. I think Loretta and I would probably recommend are the big three from the application. That's really what you want to look at. And, you know, we'll deal with the financial stability of the company separately. I mean, you can also add general language to the effect of, you know, obligated to report if there's any reason why you would not be deemed shouldn't be deemed suitable for gaming or sports wagering license something to that effect some general catch all. So if you're looking at section two. Yeah, is that what commission hope that's what you were looking at. Okay, are there, is there, would you make a recommendation. Given today's discussion to alter that other than maybe in B, you know, including non, you know, history of non compliance or, or. I mean, I'm not, I'm not sure you need it is it something you could do absolutely. Madam chair, so these a through F are the section headings from the application and that's why they're so general right so just a suggestion of course whatever the commission would refer but if you want to add more detail on the application side and then the reg stays with these general section headings, rather than picking and choosing only some of the, the, you know, more detailed pieces that will be included in the application itself. So would it would F encompass what I'm trying to get at care. Is that in the suitability piece care of the application. Technology. Oh, I'm sorry. Would it be. It's not in. Oh, maybe they don't match up necessarily. They don't. That should be G. Don't match up. I'm sorry. Trisha Hill is looking at money and just suitability and compass what he's, he's concerned about in terms of non compliance or violations. I wonder if it were in B. You know, the applicants experience, including any non compliance and expertise related sports play drink. B is more is probably deemed to be a place where you can post experience and athlete review. I think it's more of a suitability question. Thank you for the app. Well, there's point about F and G and all that. I'm in on that one because section a just has general information. I think that's what's all that's the disconnect. We also added we popped out the diversity section. So it's its own section now which added an extra questions. Yeah, we're, we're looking at the application in the packet for that says for category, you know, starting on page 27. Yep. It's not was my understanding coming into this conversation that the, the applications that the IB collects the, the BED on the applicant company which we will be collecting. And in final form, you know, before the initial comparative process and the IB will be providing the commissioners with a truncated suitability. And it was my expectation that our truncated suitability would include a summary of the self disclosed compliance history summary of the self disclosed litigation status. Summary of the licensing status and at including, you know, these are all at attested to self disclosures, as well as the catch all question that the Karen mentioned, you know, any other reason that you reasonably should be aware that would impact suitability. So, that is, that is from the mass cell. Right. But it'd be helpful to include in the, then in the reg suitability and in the app description that would include history of jurisdiction on compliance or violations or something like that. Well, can I, can I insert a question here, you know, the truncated suitability criteria. Not too long ago, our legal team provided us with a memo that outline for options from which to choose. And I don't recall a larger discussion of this body, making a decision on which option to move forward and I understand that that memo was in the context of the temporary license review suitability review. But I think it is a discussion that is right now in terms of, you know, which option in the full application round, the commission will adopt but even even more broadly, the temporary license discussion. I'm not sure, you know, where we left off with that I don't know how. The process would feed into a temporary license if that is something that is still on the table. I'm just, I guess that I guess I'm looking for. I'm appreciating. Can you just for right now. No, those are questions that should come into the discussion I know the better did mention her truncated suitability and that is a policy discussion for us. And this is a really narrow question that's just on the reg and in the application embedded in the reports that Loretta will get her chemo scrub. There will be that non compliance history. I think the question that sort of jumped out at us is can would we actually get that also and perhaps in a decorative fashion. The violation history. If it rises that occasion to put it up, we can put it up if we are all fine with it coming through the analysis that. Or whatever we'll get that analysis from. But I think Loretta just said that that she made certain assumptions about, you know, the option that the commission would take in drafting the application. Did I misunderstand that Loretta. I think perhaps you did. In terms of drafting the RFA, or drafting the application that you know starts on page 27, I didn't make any assumptions there but that those categories are in for of information that the four categories we just talked about is something that we will collect in in the application process and I guess we're prepared to provide them to you should that be the truncated process that you you choose to to go with. And I think what we're doing is there are some assumptions in today's discussion that the team will present as either their recommendation or their assumptions. Or our public discourse is really going to be important because we have to decide, do we agree with those assumptions or not. So, right now, again, if I could just get that narrow issue. Do we keep that right the way it is, or should we tweak it to get the, the application. The application portion that we'll see right immediately and that are not embedded in the associated extensive forms do we want that up front, or are we fine with it coming through by a piece of now. Mr Brian, your thoughts. Not at the moment. No. Okay, Commissioner Hill. I'm trying to have seen some language in there but okay, moving forward with the staff giving us the information. If you believe, and we all believe that we're going to get that information. And I'd have to put it in the Having had the benefit of watching this team open up these forms and then compare it to the questions that were sitting there line by line for hours and thank you all again for doing that. I do think the questions were captured. And so my preference would be to to allow the director and her team to to use those forms. We have a consensus then, we'll just keep it as is. All right, no just returned now then to the regulation. Are there any other questions about the regular language. I actually asked one question madam chair just want to make sure I was clear I think I wrote this before the application was updated to break out diversity equity include an inclusion as an individual section so I take the point about the the letters matching up to the application so I can add that as I think it would be and then bump everything down but just want to make sure that that's something that the commission would like. I definitely think you should do that. Jacqueline is there anything else that you saw that was maybe just a little needs a tweak there in terms of those categories. No, everything else is covered. The meta director lilies are you comfortable that the app reflects all of the piece of the I'm right I'm sorry my apologies represents adequately all of the pieces of the application. Do we need to actually did I miss this, do we need to state the two forms. You know I was just tech going to text carry that because I need authority for the BED, the MJ PhD and the Massachusetts supplemental forms and it may need to be more explicit in here as well as scope. So you're saying that the application includes part a survey, and then this the application that is before us and that we will be voting on. And then, but it's all part of the application just saying that part B, the form that we see, we should probably label it something. And then, there would be the three other documents right read it that are so it's really a five car occasion. Because if we track the way this was done on the gaming side in the 100 series we were, we were planning to add to this to 10 or 211 section. And that would include the BED and those other forms as, for example, to 10.02 to 10.03 and that's how it was on the gaming side as well so those would be coming when we bring the full packet. And my apologies if I misunderstood that that should have been part of today's but today we just have this one for you today and then those forms would still be part of this, this general application chapter of 210. This is all part of it right Karen. Yes, and we've also got there is the line in the regulation about suitability so it's a little more depth of suitability but suitability is clearly covered by the rag that the commission will be requesting information in the application relative to suitability. So it's broad, and we may want to, in addition, but I think the public and the potential applicants are on notice through this process. How discrete our point oh two and point oh three to bring before us. I expect they'll look just like 111.02. But I don't have a draft of those yet. Mina is working on those and I expect to have something tomorrow. And Loretta, in terms of debt deadlines not the actual dates, but the deadline for the survey would be in advance we discussed that as a prerecord with the deadline for submission of, let's say part two, part three, part one, part five be the same date. Well you different deadline. I'm sorry Karen go ahead Loretta. It would be a different deadline because you know we need the scoping form first, but it might be helpful if you could at least vote on the forms today so that. Yeah, that's not where I'm going I just wanted to do this because I'm really for a and Kate and legal to hear it. I think I understand the construct that we have a prerecord of the survey right theoretically and there'll be a deadline attached to that. Right. You know as to when, if you don't meet the deadline you're out. The rest of the parts and I'm just going to say BCD and that's the form of application that we have in front of us today as well as your three forms BED MJH QR SP and then, and then the mess up. And also are all part of the, you know, I think to borrow the Commissioner of Ryan's thoughts it's part of the corner application to those last four pieces have the same deadline for submission. So I think I can answer that question in that I think that is part of the discussion we're having on the timeline and the Commission would have to weigh in on that. So I think we're the most aggressive timeline and for sort of the potential smart allocation of resources, the Commission could decide that initially, particularly with the competitive process, the so say we get 35 applicants for these category three license. Theoretically, or say 30 because I think I know the numbers better say you get 30 out. Generally I think we're right which estimating we get four entity qualifiers and 15 individual qualifiers associated with each company it'll range but that's an average. If we could have all of the applicants submit their individual multi jurisdictional PhDF their forms by the due date of the application and the BED. That's, that's a big ask because for individuals that that's a lot and that may not be reasonable in the shorter time frame. So I would, however, the Commission so determined have those do it a later date, and the, the IEB would review those those individual qualifiers for truncated suitability after the commission has whittled down that hypothetical 30 to say seven, because that's the limit within the statute. In that case instead of doing truncated suitability and 450 qualifiers we may only be doing truncated suitability on 150 because those are the only ones moving forward, and we would have to do that process. And at the same time that we are doing a certificate of operations process, what for the, the licensees that have been granted us mobile sports wagering license. So these are some of the options we can talk through in the timeline so you could have them do all at the same time, but that may make the due date at earlier due date unreasonable, or you could or you could have it done later and those are options we can discuss later. So the Commission so desires. Okay. So, is it fair that you've been operating on that assumption the rather right now that it would be different. It could be that for the deadline would be part on the application. Right. I've known that that was an option. All right. My question is, we do need to update the rag to reflect those other parts of the application for clarity do we all agree on that. I see Commissioner Brian and had me all agree on that. And in terms of, we wouldn't have a real deadline in the right way, but there's that deadline issue is part of our policy discussion. And I haven't forgotten your question, Commissioner Skinner. Again, the words truncated suitability coming up and I think that Karen's probably going to address that just a little bit later in our and directly also in our discussion today. So, So in terms of this rag, how would you like to proceed. And let's read further questions on the rag. It's not the carries presented. Yes. So a suggestion was made earlier by carry that we give her an opportunity to maybe put in the fixes that we talked about and come back to this during this particular meeting. And I would be okay with that because I, I want to. I'd like to see this move forward today but I certainly appreciate that with the changes that have been discussed that we would want to see them, maybe before we take a vote on it. And I appreciate that and the, my colleagues were willing I'd be okay with putting this off till later this afternoon see the changes that have been made and then take a vote at that time. That would be my suggestion. I would say at minimum, I mean, this is one of those things that to be blonde. I'm, I am actually interested in putting out the reg in the app for comment and coming back shortly after so I think at a minimum I'm with Commissioner Hill that at a minimum we allow Kerry to clean it up and see where we stand later this afternoon. Commissioner Mayer, Commissioner Stoner. I'm fine with that too. But Madam chair I have to say the trouble I'm having with this entire discussion and quite frankly, probably most of today's agenda is that what's being put forth for consideration seems to be driven by a timeline, right launch date that has been predetermined by, by some. And I'm having trouble trying to make everything that we have to come before us fit within that arbitrary timeline now I don't know what that timeline is. I, you know, I've heard different dates, but just an entire discussion for today seems a little troubling to me because I think that that is not the way we should be operating. We do have, we have a agenda timeline is part of it and we did work. I worked closely with Executive Director Wells and the order of the discussion was actually purposeful it's probably not perfect, but the timeline has not been predetermined. There is a timeline, and I think Karen's already said the most aggressive that she's saying what and I don't want to put words on that the most aggressive in terms of timing. There's going to be plenty of time for everybody to weigh in as to what that means, and what that should be for this commission. There has not been any predetermined decision. I can state, I can absolutely, absolutely state that this today's discussion is for each of you to put forth your concerns and state what you would like to see in terms of a timeline. Absolutely. The, that word is on, on, on today's agenda for a reason. It's, it's just part of the, you know, the reality of doing business. If we decide we don't want to have a deadline or timeline. That's on the table today to Mr. Skinner. Absolutely. There is no predetermination commissioners you can weigh in, but I really do want to stick to the order of today's agenda so that we can lay out the components. We also don't need to take any votes on these components if that makes anyone feel uncomfortable about the timeline. These votes are only to hold. It's actually just a mechanism that we use in our agenda to reserve the opportunity to vote. But we don't need to vote. There is absolutely no predetermination commission scanner, and I am reacting so much more because it's just today is the day for this discussion. And if we can't make that decision today, we'll put it off to another meeting. But today, there happen. We've all had the benefit of two by twos. We've had the benefit of other discussions. This is today's public discussion. And we are going to hear everybody's opinion. And I want to assure you with that. So I agree with what Commissioner Skinner is saying in terms of, and I hear you madam chair this is an art not a science in terms of the sequence of the agenda. But so many of these things are so integrally intertwined. I am struggling with votes today for that reason. So I second what she says in terms of, you know, anticipation and frustration and I acknowledge what you're saying about sequence but for me a lot of this is I need to get through the agenda to be able to make a determination on some of this. We are learning as we go along and we can hold any vote. That's why I asked I have a motion. If we don't need to, it's better to to hold on an on the vote and make sure everybody feels heard. There is no predetermination. Okay. So with that said, we've gone through the break. It is on noon time. We do have the application itself. At some point, regardless of timeline, there will be an application that will go out because we have an obligation under block to do our job. So again, it doesn't mean it's, you know, there's no timeframe attached. The prerequisite tool. It's again part of the over application. There's no time attached to that prerequisite. Okay. Okay, I think we will take advantage of the next half an hour, unless people need I'd like to break for lunch rather than a break but I understand it's been a long morning. Are we okay going for another 15 minutes to 30 minutes. I can do 15 I don't think I can do 30. And I, and I really appreciate that. So let's see how far we get on the app and that will be in accordance with. Okay, so we have the application here. We have the whole team. So why don't I share my screen because we've got in the packet it might be helpful to run. Well, let me defer. Would you like to run through the application page by page and be able to ask questions that seems like the most appropriate. All right, so I will. I think so thank you, Karen. Yeah, I'll share my screen here. I, because it's a long document and this commission, you know, does abide by the open meeting line I think we're seeing that you know that this is why it's difficult because it's not as if this commission has been able to sit around the table and review this document in advance. This is the first time they're seeing it as a body. Can you increase the launch force. Yeah, let me see. Hold on. Thank you. There we go. Okay. So I've got, you know, the team that worked on this. We had, obviously, Jacqueline spearheaded the coordination Derek worked on it Todd worked on it. Jordan obviously was the commissioner that was assigned by the chair to work on this we also to help from farm Vanderlinden on the research responsible gaming aspects and Katrina jaguar combs on the technical aspects. And don't believe Katrina is available today so I will do my best on that piece. But why don't we run through the application and I think as we go, Jacqueline do you want to sort of take the notes. If there are any changes to the form as we go. You all set with that. Okay. So, obviously the cover page give the name, then we have instructions. So the first page of general information goes through the instructions. I don't know if I have to read through every every piece but maybe we could, if there are any questions on the general information. We do have the highlighted portion. I think that's the reg. That's to come is that right Carrie. She might be drafting. She's drafting. Yeah. No, I'm sorry I can, I can, I can jump in on that one. I'm sorry I want to make sure I get your question exactly right but yes we would plan on filling these technical answers in after the application looks okay. So we have added a general location for application inquiries. We had spoken as a group that it might be the most fair process. So instead of applicants calling me or calling another member of the staff with questions they submit the question and then we can post the question in the answer in public so everybody who is a potentially applying gets to hear the question and sees the answer in the comments. So there's more information. Any questions or general information why don't we start with that. My mind's in the next but how to submit. Okay. All right, so next section. I have a question. Yeah, I know we're going to get into the score scoring criteria later in the agenda. Should that once it's decided be incorporated into the general information piece of the application or anywhere in the application itself. I've never seen that what we talked about internally doing because I think that it is really important for any applicant to understand what the criteria is because that may impact how they fill out the application as a best practice. So a few things. I think the potential applicants the most time to understand what's going on. The expectation was today that the commission would at least have a discussion on the process and they may make a decision on the process. And then, at a later date, the legal team would compile that information into regulatory format. Which would vote on the regulation on the process, and that would have to be done before the applications completed in the interest of fairness to the applicants who are filling it out. In addition, we had discussed after this meeting today, which we have recorded and would have a link we have all the notices of intent and all the contact information for those that have indicated they're looking to apply. So we can email all those applicants and say, you know, be aware the commission had this discussion on the process for evaluation. You can view the section here we can give a time stamp when that was discussed. So they would have it in two formats they would have the commission discussion directly, and they would have the regulation at a later date, but it I agree with you has to be out there before they're required to submit the application. Yeah, it does and I like you know just an interest of transparency I think it's really important. Yeah, that information get that get out there well in advance of, you know, the release of the application. Anything else from my team that the team that worked on this on on that issue. Okay. The next is the non refundable processing fee. That is the statutory required $200,000 fee. We would can you back up please. Yep, the how to submit the bolded line about contacting the commissioners. Yes, you want that. Yeah, I think there should also be inserting or attempt to before a commissioner directly. Not only. Okay, yep. Got it. Got it. Jacqueline you have that. Sorry, it was muted. Yes, I do. And is there anyone on the commission disagree with adding that. Okay. All right, anything else on this page. Sorry, what is, what is the proposal. Absolutely. Do you see what says the individual comma contact a commissioner directly. I'm asking that we insert in that or attempt to contact. Thank you. Contact or attempt to contact a commissioner directly. Michelle Brian just saved everyone's phones. Thank you. I think that is the non refundable processing fee that is directed by statute. Any questions on that. I think that we just have to explain how we're going to receive that. So that's in the yellow. Okay. I think we're going to have to discuss that decision. Is that going to be Derek supplying. Yeah, Derek. Derek is on. Yeah, so I talked to Jacqueline about this and we're just going to have people contact our revenue office directly. We are trying to avoid putting any wiring instructions or bank accounts out in publics. We have had people make attempts on our depository accounts actually cash checks once they got that banking information so just saves us a lot of problems so we'll have them contact our revenue office directly. Yeah, can you remind everyone what we use to put the $200,000, how it will be used or where it goes. So there'll be a right coming I think in the next couple of weeks for you that talks about that, but it's used to offset it goes into the gaming control fund the sports way during control fund, and it's used to offset the costs of investigation. So it's for direct costs and any ancillary costs associated with reviewing the background suitability as well as the competitive application process. Thank you. Next phase is completing the application. These are, you know, general instructions regarding that anyone have any comments or questions on that piece. Okay. Next piece is submission of materials. We did, you know, there, we will have to add a later date or later time today discuss application deadlines, we will, you know, for this purpose of this discussion we can hold that open. So, one thing we had discussed is that for submission of materials, we would keep it to electronic. Some jurisdictions and, you know, may want paper applications, we are suggesting that we not accept paper applications, and that we also have the applications go to the MGC secure file transfer site by way of process. So we would give the applicants instructions on that and how to do that. That is the recommendation, instead of submitting thumb drives and this, you know, that can that can get somewhat cumbersome. And at this point in time with technology, the seems to be the smartest and safest way to do it. Any questions on that. And Commissioner Maynard, you know, some of these, you know, they have requirements for notarization, I think you had indicated there is some extension on notarized electronic notarization, we can work out with applicants if there's, there's any issues that there's anything they, you know, have to have some kind of wet signature on but generally we would want this done to the secure file transfer site. That's correct. I dusted off my bar card long enough to to look up the current rules that are notarization is done online and I really, really appreciated Katrina's issue answers on questions about how secure the website is and that security concerns. Okay. The next piece is the electronic application format. And this ties into that submission process and this we got from the IT department and these are their recommendations on how to submit the files. So thinking that we could put something on our website or send a notice to our potential applicants if they are looking for assistance or, you know, meet some kind of guidance that we would have a contact for them. Going forward just in case some of your smaller operators may not have the type of IT department where it's easy for them to do this, we would provide assistance in that manner. So you were just saying here and not, not on this is better be something for the website or continue. Yeah, we want to be, we want to have good customer service in that respect that we don't want to make things undo burn some Friday. Next piece is public records, you know, I'll defer to Todd on this. Can I ask again, kind of going back. There's a highlighted sort of blue italics that I'm looking at a page 33 electronic application form and then it says C section C public records. Is the C supposed to be there because it doesn't seem to correspond with the C below. That's interesting. I don't know if a site is for the public record statute or whether that's just a typo. I don't know if the RFA to application which is where we borrowed some of this language. So the section just got it so the sections needs to be linked over line up. Yeah, definitely can you take care of that. Thank you. Okay, next section. Turn over Todd on the public record section. And this goes to your exact question on the RFA to application, the commission set up at the end of the application guidelines as to which parts of the submission would be presumptively deemed exempt from public disclosure under the public records law. So the question before you now is how we move forward with this application. Of course, there's likely to be great interest in these applications. And so there are several approaches that can be taken to address this. The first one is to, of course, just handle any requests for public records on an ad hoc type basis as we ordinarily do. If we get a request, we can go through each application that is requested and make determinations of that juncture as to which materials are exempt under an exception to the public records law or to the provision of the 23 and that talks about trade secrets and information may be detrimental to the applicant is publicly released. The other approach which is the one I just described that was made use of in the RFA to process for the casino applicants was that given the great volume of information that is likely to be submitted to the commission, the decisions be made in advance and that everything be telegraphed right in the application for the benefit of not just the applicants but also members of the public who might be interested and of course commission staff and all involved in understanding going into it as to which pieces of information that are likely to be submitted will presumptively contain information that will meet an exception or an exemption to the public records law. So, for example, there are certainly pieces of information perhaps rate related to an applicant's technology operations that the commission is likely going to be interested in knowing, but that will be very sensitive and could be deemed detrimental to an applicant or to release that part of the application publicly. So on a grid here at the end of the application we could identify that question that calls for the submission of that information and make a determination in advance that that material will be withheld in response to a request for public records, and we would go through the whole application and make determinations in advance as to whether the submission is likely to contain information that would be exempt from disclosure. As you can see in this description here, we recognize in advance that though we can make these types of determinations and makes representations about them. Ultimately, the secretary of the Commonwealth and to some extent the attorney general are the overseers of the public records and not the commission. So we cannot guarantee any particular results, but we can let everyone know what our general thoughts are as to the application of the public records law and the language in chapter 23 and relative to trade secrets and detrimental information in advance. So that's why this was put in here. We did not include the guide that's referenced here that will take some work we can try to turn that around as quickly as possible if that is the direction the commission's interested in moving. But that I think this is an important part of the process for consideration at the moment. So I'll just I'll pause there madam chair and commissioners just so you can offer any thoughts. I mean I like I think people who are here can speak to it but it appears to have been a successful process with the brick and mortar casinos. Again with that caveat that ultimately we're not the final arbiter but to give people a heads up so they can make their decisions about what they want to put in. I, I, because I asked this privately honest and publicly. I kind of had a hard time understanding why we would give legal advice to companies essentially right through a document. Rather than just point them to the Secretary States website which the Secretary of State has great resources on how the exemptions work and how public records laws enforced. Can you speak to that time why why we would go through that process. Sure. And I think that is an option right where we would just say here's the law. You know you can try to make projections as to what you think we might or might not withhold in response to request for public records. The issue with that is that it could lead to a lack of a uniform understanding upfront as to where the Commission is with this and I think there is some discretion built in for the keeper of the records being us in this case to apply the law as we see it. If we left it to all of the applicants to do on their own. In all likelihood they might take a broader view of certain things than we might take and it could be lead to them submitting information that they think is highly sensitive that we might not agree is highly sensitive turning over. So, I think it is helpful to try to telegraph some of this in advance, but the process you suggest is certainly a viable one and one we could make use of. I'm not sure I understand what you say we have discretion to knowing I actually kind of appreciating. We have an obligation to abide by the public records law and they have an obligation to abide by the law including the public records law. I'm not sure we say that it's up to us in terms of how we exercise discretion. Well I think whether something is a trade secret or would be detrimental if released is not always black and white. It depends on what the materials are. It does. Well that's added in under chapter 23 and as far to the application process so it's a statutory exemption to the public records. So it is included here for the limited purpose of the materials submitted as part of the application. So that the top is in addition. So it's section six I. That's an addition of records law right. Well it's I would consider madam chair just to put a finer point on it to be a statutory exemption so it's it's part of the public records law. It plugs into the public records law but it's specific to sports majoring application. So then what we would do is we have it and I didn't think I spent it at the application but what I'm hearing you say is that guides been attached the end the application advising which answers and attachment submitted will be considered be through something meet the exception. Public records line with health and public disclosure. I would love to see what attachment see was on the original RFA to and I used would still have to draft relative to this because it's probably a natural point but I'm trying to keep up here and where's the attachment see is that so there was a typo. I thought that was a link to the public records law but it was. No. Got it. Okay. Yeah. I missed that point because I thought it wasn't. I can quickly pull that up. There's a really confusion some of our licensees have some confusion over over the notion of confidentiality and yeah we don't want I don't know if we want to be necessarily opening up a lot of discretion here. The law is really outside our new upfront that we did not consider certain things we as a body said we are not taking the position those are trade secrets in that regard. That would be helpful information probably to applicants. Yeah, but I don't care for me. I my worry is that we take a position. That is relied upon that ultimately the Secretary of State's office takes a different position on that is my worry and I'm not saying that that indicates how I'm going to feel one way or the other whether it should be included. But that's the worry I have. That's what I wonder if we say these are the is where we we feel you do not fall within that exception. Then the disconnect with Secretary of State would be maybe they give them greater protections and we would get them but at least they would be on notice that we wouldn't deem to be exerting an exemption for that category of documents. I guess I would say this is that they should be on notice that they're subject to disclosure. And you know this is how my practice was somebody thought something was a trade secret. And so they might put, you know, confidential on the submission. They knew that it was subject to actual disclosure under the public records law. And then you play it out because each, each submission is going to be so nuanced and the analysis would be really individualized so one person's trade secret isn't another person's trade secret. And then, you know, if it turns out that we would at least have the courtesy to say we'll give you the 10 days noticed, like, you know, we go obligated to produce it. And then they can do something with that notice. If it be helpful, I can show you what the guide in the application. I think, you know, the other thing is that it, it seems reasonably foreseeable that we will get a request for all of the applications. Shortly after their file. So it's not as though it's kind of a remote possibility that someone's just going to want to see one application about something and we'll have a lot of time to sit and parse through each document. So there will be an expectation that a lot of this information will be shared and to the extent that we can determine in advance, those parts of it that we are planning on sharing. I think it goes a long way and as one of you commissioners already pointed out, the process I think would have to be held as a broad success in the case of the RFA to process we released a lot of information publicly. I think most overwhelming majority of the public felt like it was a very transparent process. There were certain pieces that were withheld and I guess everyone seemed to understand why that was. And so let me just show you how it was done. And here it is. So this is what was section C of the RFA to can everybody see this okay or should I make it bigger. Could you make it bigger ton. Yes. Thanks. Okay, so we started with just an explanation of the law so everyone could understand how we got from point A to point B. The first paragraph just talks about the public records law generally offering links to the secretary's site and the public records law itself. We talked about the some of the exemptions in here, of course, things like the privacy exemption, which is one of the more familiar exemptions to the public records law still applies. So to the extent there is a lot of personal information and say some of the stability applications that the commission just discussed with that those we can redact and withhold under the privacy exemption we don't need to rely on the statutory exemption that was included in 23 and we talked a little bit about things like that. Then of course we set out what in this case was a slightly different exemption but it's similar. We set out what the statutory exemption was. And the other thing was and this is discussed a little bit in the instructions as far as the electronic filing is what we required in the RFA to process that was very helpful. I think that when an applicant submitted a document that met the requirements that we set out here as far as which documents would be exempt that they market. So as such, in the electronic name of the document and they have the word confidential in the document so that we could see upfront that that is that it met one of the requirements here. So I want to think about that use of the word confidential. We can certainly use another term but that was the term that we use. I understand. Yeah. Then we get to the chart, and this is really kind of the crux of the matter here. So what we did in that case was went through the RFA to application. We identified every question that presumptively called for the submission of information that would be covered by an exception or an exemption to the public records law whether it was a standard exemption that set out or the statutory exemption. So we have these columns here as you can see where the applicant would have to go through each one and identify whether they believe that this gets to Commissioner Maynard's point a little bit that the document actually met an exemption. There are certain times on the flip side where we determined that certain materials would be covered, but that an applicant could agree to its release anyway, and that did happen on a number of occasions as well. So that's the yes no column went through the entire application identified those pieces that would fall into that and you can see some of these involve things like marketing. They're record of employee retention, internet and marketing practices surveillance, a lot of the internal control submissions for example from other jurisdictions that they submitted were covered here. And what have you. You'll also see that there's some blank spaces here at the bottom, and those were set out so that an applicant could make a try to make a case that certain materials that were to be submitted that were not identified by the applicant as presumptively containing exempt materials were in their case exempt and so they would fill in this piece by itself by themselves, and the commission could then consider whether it did or did not meet an exception. I'm Andrew Jeff right now like one of my questions is and I hear you saying this was very, very successful. I know that we did get public records requests and I don't know if we don't know on it, but let's just say that we make a presumption about those materials. That doesn't mean that a requester for those materials can't challenge that presumption. Yes, we absolutely can. If you're making a presumption. I guess I guess it's in based on the definition of each item under the exception under 23 and or under the public records law. Did we ever did we lose on any of those presumptions. I don't even recall anyone ever challenging anything, which is not to say. I definitely recall some questions about our productions we've had, we've got a big production right now we have a, you know, we have challenges but is it anything that was with respect to the application. I guess I should have been more precise. I don't remember anyone challenging anything relative to our dissemination of information in the early days anyway under the under this kind of plan. Well, commissioners thoughts. I actually like the idea of flagging things that we as a body, don't think are part of that except that statutory exemption. Because I do think that they can make informed choices that way I mean worst case scenario they submit get protections we didn't think they were going to get but then they go in with their eyes wide open that we're probably not asserting an exemption necessarily and they to your point could then intervene and ask for the exception to be asserted upon a request. I'm just going to you've been in a general council role. What are you thinking public records. I don't have anything else to add to the discussion I think I'm sorry. I think I agree with Commissioner Brian and her assessment. I'm not going to be interested in reading the guide I haven't I haven't read it in detail. So I'm a little bit uninformed in that regard, but I defer to legal counsel. In terms of having the language in the application I'm all for it. And I also agree with Commissioner Brian, and I would just add that a lot of these companies might not be from Massachusetts. And we're very unique. When it comes to the public record law, compared to other states so having it there, I think is a good thing, but people who don't know how our laws work here, and what may or may not be disseminated. And if they know it as part of the application I think that's only can be a good. I think we can run that by the Secretary of the Commonwealth Office in advance. You mean back in the original RFA to. I mean we're using the same one as did we ever ask. It's just it's a really bad off of this term. So I'm just wondering, which I mean. To the really the heart of my, my discontent with this it's not that it's I believe in educating any applicant that comes our way I guess the question I have is, do we point them to the final arbiter. Do we say, here's where we are right and they may not be with us right at the end of the day. I agree with the education point I just, that would make me more comfortable. Madam chairs if someone from the secretary's office saw something like this and could point out the good and the bad and the ugly. Is that office issue advisory opinions talk genome. Have you ever asked them for an advisory opinion I'm not sure they might be willing to do something like this Mr public timing in. I was going to say exactly what Mr Grossman just said. I'm not familiar with them doing that but you can always ask. You are familiar with them giving informal advice if you give a call right. Yes, but in the context of a. specific fact that doesn't hurt to ask sort of one time, but a good place to pause for lunch. Nothing like an issue about public records like love lunch sugar. Yeah, that'll get people's juices genre. Well, it is 1235 a little longer than we want to go. Let's break from break for lunch. We'll continue if we could probably put this public records issue in the parking lot and continue on the review of the application. I think direct wells of love for you to consider. The order and whether it would be helpful for you to, you know, in your presentation in your mind, how you would like to proceed, which you prefer to bring up the timeline discussion which is number eight in advance of number six and seven. I have a question for you to mull over over lunch and I will turn to my fellow commissioners when we get back to see about your recommendation and see if they're comfortable with the order of our discussion. Okay. All right, so it's 1235. Some of us are in the city. For lunch. No, what do you need for time? We usually go about 30 minutes, 35 minutes. Okay, so we'll convene around 10. Thank you. Thank you everyone. Thanks for the very informative discussion. So, hey, Jordan, can you carry me a donut if there are any left? Where's some left? I had, I had half of them this morning because they're so huge, right? That like I can't eat a whole cane donut. I always miss the good stuff. Well, now, you know, long had some lifesavers so. Thank you. Yeah, those one pretty quick. I believe it. Brad, can you telegraph next time when you're going to bring the sweets in? Can I tell you something? I got here at like eight this morning because I never know what the traffic is going to be like. Yeah. So I did a walkabout and saw Keynes and just decided to get him. Nice. So there was no. No, no thought. And certainly no thought until I, until I got there. It was outstanding, Brad. I had one. Thank you. Thank you. It was a nice sugar blast for the morning. Yep. Now you guys are just rubbing it in. I didn't get one of your cupcakes, Nikisha. I thought. I think the next several months is we're going to have to have some food, regular food brought in. Nikisha, that lemon blueberry cupcake. You can tell from my physique. I try everything. I have never had a lemon blueberry cupcake like that. That was really awesome. I'll put, I'll definitely put those on the rotation, Brad. Oh boy with those good. What kind of frosting did it have a flavor? Real frosting lemon. Nice. It's like a big Betty Crocker type of type. They whip it up and put it on top. Nice. That you can justify, right? That it's homemade. So it's not as bad for me. Exactly. I stopped justifying years ago. I'm not quite there yet. I'm still fighting a good fight. I'm trying. Okay, you can take down the screen. Thank you so much. All set. Good afternoon. Thank you. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. I'm here. Hello, I am here. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. I came back. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. I am here, Madam Chair. Good afternoon. All right, we're set to proceed then. Karen, you are reviewing the application. Yeah, so I will share my screen again if you'd like and we'll continue. So my understanding is we're going to put a pin in the public records page and we can come back to that at this point. So the next page in the application is just a checklist to help the applicant get organized. So we have just an assurance on their part that they've submitted all these things in an effort to make sure that their application is complete. Are there any questions on that? Which time does it take the applicant to complete that public record section? The public. See that checklist box on the third up. Right here. Yeah. Yeah, that's an interesting question. So Todd, I don't know if you've ever got any feedback on that because that is an added piece to the application. I'm sorry, no specific feedback. I can't, I'm not. So that, that may be something for you to consider. If you, if you don't want the section, you don't, you would take it off the checklist. I'll make a note of that. I'm with the commissioner scanner. I just really need to see that guide to figure it out. I did not appreciate it. The casino. Because I wasn't here. And you would have been here either for that, right. Oh, you muted. Maybe you prefer it that way. I was not here, but I like the idea of it. So I'm actually on board with it, but. All right, so we'll, we'll, if Jacqueline, if you could note that when the commission makes a final determination, we'll make have to make it sure it's consistent. Okay. We can revisit it today too. Yep. All right. Okay, so next we're getting into the application me. And the first section is just general information that gives our team and the commissioners. So the general information about the applicant itself is like, you know, identify the type of business better I tax ID number their location contact information, et cetera. And the way at the top where it says one, two, three, are we differentiating between tethered three or not. I don't really think we need to because every tethered needs to have a category three license and we're going to know I mean we're in communication with them so, and that is one of the, you know, the requirements in the application is any kind of contract or any kind of joint venture they would have to identify plus we're talking to them all the time they're going to, you know, the, the licensees are going to have the category ones and twos they're going to tell us who they are they've already told us. The ones that know have already told us. Okay. Okay. Anything else on this app. Yep. Is there any chance we're going to get a form company should we say any sort of form corporation, or are we just assuming we're all the getting us corporation. Oh, that's interesting. Yeah, it could be, it could be. And then when we say and what's, you know, where do they have like a designated agent in the state I mean, if they're foreign. Yeah, I mean, we make it I'm trying to think because we have not come in probably doesn't include it right right and we're intentionally not looking at those. You know, doing some analysis of companies yet until we see whether they're applicants. I mean, you could do one of two things. Say if, you know, if, if a US company state which they're, you know, incorporated organized formed or registered and limited to the US or asked for something else. Right on a fewer Monica that is helpful to you in any way in this form, because it's going to be a lot of that stuff's going to be anyway. I think usually are applicant is US based even if the company so forth are foreign. Monica, I don't know if you're on now but I'm sorry. This is the business entity. So, in theory, could you have a foreign cat three come in. You could. I mean, typically what we've seen is it on the vendor side. And, you know, obviously with our casinos is that the licensed entity is US based. I don't know Monica are you on do you think we should include a foreign element of foreign component. She may not be logged in I can, I can maybe watching online. Yeah, it's easy adjustment. I don't think there needs to get presumption. So, let me just put state slash foreign country or country. Yes, state and then a parentheses or foreign, foreign, if a foreign jurisdiction. Right. Hi, I'm Monica. Monica, are you able to see the screen. I hear. Okay. Monica, I think we can hear you. So the question is, maybe there's an echo. Certainly the suggestion, you know, state. I think we're in location of applica