ready. Thanks. All right. Let's get started though. And we're good to go. Right. Good morning. I'm starting off on the round because I don't have my top page. Good morning. This is the convening of the Mastery of this Gaming Commission. We are holding this meeting virtually after a meeting in person yesterday. I will do our roll call. Good morning, Commissioner O'Brien. Good morning. I'm here. Good morning, Commissioner Hill. And you are on mute. I can hear me now. Yes, I'm here. Excellent. Good morning. Good morning, Mr. Skinner. Morning, Madam Chair. And good morning, Commissioner Mane. Good morning. All right. Today is February 1st. It is public meeting number 498. So that's kind of getting to a special number. And I'm calling this meeting right to order. We have several minutes. Good morning, Commissioner Maynard and Julie. Thanks. Good morning. I didn't know if the preference was to take these all together or in turn, I know that everyone tend to be at all the meetings, at least at the beginning. Either way, I can, you know what? I'll move separately. Madam Chair, I move that we approve the minutes from the March 23rd, 2023 public meeting. That's included in the commissioner's packet subject to any necessary corrections for typographical errors or other non-material matters. Second. Any questions? Okay. Commissioner O'Brien? Aye. Commissioner Hill? Aye. Commissioner Skinner? Aye. Commissioner Maynard? Aye. And I vote yes. Thank you. I move that I will move separately. I move that we approve the minutes from the April 13th, 2023 public meeting that's included in the commissioner's packet subject to any necessary corrections for typographical errors or other non-material matters. Second. Okay. Any questions on that one? All right. Commissioner O'Brien? Aye. Commissioner Hill? Aye. Commissioner Skinner? Aye. Commissioner Maynard? Aye. And I vote yes. Five, zero. Thank you. These minutes are very extensive. So thank you. Commissioner Maynard? I move, Madam Chair, that we approve the minutes from the April 25th, 2023 public meeting that's included in the commissioner's packet subject to any necessary corrections for typographical errors or other non-material matters. Second. Oh, sorry, I didn't see your mic off. Commissioner O'Brien? I think the second goes to Commissioner O'Brien. Any questions or edits? All right. Commissioner O'Brien? Aye. Commissioner Hill? Aye. Commissioner Skinner? Aye. Commissioner Maynard? Aye. I vote yes. Five, zero. And finally, Madam Chair, I move that we approve the minutes from the May 4th, 2023 public meeting that's included in the commissioner's packet subject to any necessary corrections for typographical errors or other non-material matters. Second. Just a point. I was delayed at that meeting, but the minutes were held for my approval. So I feel like I could, I can vote on this one because I was there, but for a short part of the meeting. Does that make sense? Or to the extent how maybe I'm, I approved to the extent I was there. So I missed a couple of items. Can I, I think we've done that before, Commissioner O'Brien, maybe? Thanks. All right. So that's odd to vote a yes. I think I was in that situation once before, Madam Chair, and I just said, you know, aye as to so much of the meeting I attended. Okay, that's what I thought too. Thank you so much. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Excellent. Commissioner Maynard. Aye. And I, yes, to the extent that I was there and I do recall that meeting and, and why I missed. So thank you so much. Thank you. And thank you, Judy. Okay. So we're going to move right on to our administrative update and I know they have a couple presentations talk. Good morning again. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning to you. Good morning, commissioners, and good morning to all the members of our team and all that were joining us here this morning. We do have two great matters to present to you. We'll start with the members of our gaming agents division, Burke, Angela, Lewis, who have some end of the year data to share with the commission. And then we'll hear from our chief people and diversity officer, Dave Muldrew, relative to an onboarding initiative that we're beginning here at the commission as well. So if I may turn things over to Burke Kane to jump into the first item. Good morning to you, Burke and Angela and Lewis. Good morning. Good morning. Thanks, Todd. Good morning, Chair. Good morning, commissioners. Good morning. We'd like to start today with this chart to showing some of the numbers for the intercept numbers, expired vouchers, lost and found. Joining me today will be Angela Smith, Lewis Lizano as mentioned. We want to give you a quick update on some of the financial obligations that were collected and expired during the last calendar year. Lewis is going to share the PowerPoint for us. And here we go. The DOR intercepts on the first line. The casino must verify with the Department of Revenue if any winners or outstanding child support obligations or any past Massachusetts tax liabilities. If verified, the casino is required to intercept that past due money. For example, on a casino slot machine win of $1,200 or more or on a table game win of $300 or more. So you can see on the first line, the three casinos for the calendar year 2023, the total was $3.7 million. Expired vouchers, slot vouchers for the calendar year totaled at the three casinos $940,000. Expired, lost and found after 365 days, they expire for the three casinos totaling $211,000 plus. And expired, unclaimed jackpots. If a patron doesn't have proper required identification, the jackpot will be held for them upon the return when they verify their identity. They can claim that jackpot. But these are the jackpots that expired at the three casinos for the calendar year 2023, $232,000 plus. And charitable contributions at the three casinos total almost $200,196,000. And underage forfeited must also go to the mass gaming fund. That's the conclusion of the first slide and any questions, comments about that. Madam Chair, I have a question. Certainly. Mark, could you remind me on the expired categories and the underage forfeited where those funds ultimately end up? Yes, I was remiss. They also get a mass gaming fund at the expiration of 365 days. Thank you. All right. And the second slide we have for you is just a combination in comparison of 2022 and 2023. As you can see with the DRDOR intercepts, we actually have more collected this year to the tune of 234,000 expired vouchers, a little bit more 34,000, lost and found 40,000 expired unclaimed jackpots, actually up 58,000. Charitable contributions went down a little bit, 28,000. And underage forfeatures were also just a little bit down 377,000. So we conclude our update there on the two years. And what happened at the casinos? And Angela Lewis and myself can answer a question if you have any. Do you mind if we pressure that we take the slides down so we can see everyone? If you have those numbers, those are critical numbers. Burke, I know that the state fully appreciates the diligence that the gaming agents, your division and with the cooperation of the casinos capture here. So thank you. Thank you. Questions and hi, Lewis and hi, Angela. Nice to see you. Good morning. Good morning. Commissioners. Number, right? Commissioner Hill. Yes, I every year that I see these are every update that I get. And I see these numbers. I am just so shocked at the amount that they collect. But more importantly, on the downside, how many people are out there not doing what they should be doing. And I'm I'm thankful that we have a mechanism in place where if they should win some money that we can get it back for where it's intended to go. Any other questions? Expression of just great, you know, great work. The program is working. And I think we all share, Commissioner Hill's sentiment. Thanks, Burke. And if I chair, if I can just add one thing, I just would really like to recognize the commitment of the gaming agents that work 24 seven, which obviously include weekends, holidays and bad weather. They're they really help review these financial numbers on a regular basis to ensure the licensees are accurate. Lewis, thank you for that. You want to remind us how many are working under you and with you? Yeah. So currently at 10, 10 gaming agents, four supervisors, six gaming agents at all core, same numbers at MGM and eight agents total at Plain Ridge Park Casino. And I know they're great teams. Angela, do you want to add into this is an opportunity for you to express your gratitude as well? Yes, absolutely. We have all three casinos. We have a great team of agents and very committed and hardworking and great team efforts on gathering all the numbers and doing what we do every day. Well, thank you. We always appreciate when we get the updates from Burke, but this particular update is so critical. You know, really as a as a matter of being a really good partner to the Commonwealth and the people of Massachusetts. So thanks. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Good to see you again, Angela and nice to see you. All right. Thanks. Thank you. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you all very nicely done. And now we'll pivot over to Dave Muldrew, our team people and diversity officer to discuss a little bit the plan moving forward for our onboarding onboarding program. Dave, good morning to you. Good morning. Good morning, Madam Chair and good morning commissioners. Currently, we are underway to begin our we have been underway beginning the project of the MGC onboarding program. The purpose of the project. We want to create a more robust onboarding program that not only address the traditional human resource data collection and communications or charts, but also the then morph into a longer 30 60 day onboarding designed by each department to ensure that folks are coached. We provide the best support. We allow better communications and we have an opportunity to really provide that necessary support for them to be successful. We are also looking at this, which will be backed by our simultaneously when looking at rolling out very shortly, not shortly, about 30 40 days cornerstone, our new performance management program, which will work in conjunction with this onboarding to help it help us track and make sure folks are supported through a let an extended length of time. So I'm very excited about it. The project lead is going to be our HRIS analysts. Right now we've identified any has sent out information and has identified approximately 15 members have shown interest in joining the committee, which will be was to be handling this each department is represented and all levels throughout the organization from executive to staff are represented on the committee. Our next deliverable will be to provide you for provide the commissions and senior management with a project timeline, which will help you understand and give you a chance to identify, add, review, tweak whatever the case may be this timeline. So we have it. It's transparent and everyone has has an opportunity to take a look. But I'm very excited about it. It's really an opportunity to us to really shine as we bring in new folks. So that's where we are right now. Madam chair and commissioners, answer any questions hopefully I can questions questions for chief logic, just good, a good project that's underway. And I know that the entire team will benefit from that. So thank you. Thank you, madam chair. Absolutely. Very excited about it. Todd. Yeah, thanks, Dave. That it is an exciting initiative. It's certainly an area that we've identified as a place where we can go from really good to great within the organization to make sure everyone starts off best possible. So thanks, Dave, for your leadership within that space. With that, Madam chair and commissioners, I'll conclude the administrative update. Happy to take any questions. But otherwise, that covers the materials on the agenda. Great. Thank you. Everybody else set to move on. So we're going to have them under item number four. It's a legislative update. I'll turn to commissioner kill. And I know that we've got Chief Lenin right there ready to help us. Commissioner Hill. Good morning. Good morning, Madam chair and through you to the commission. So Governor Healy proposed h two last week and within that budget proposal, there was an outside section that actually affected the mass gaming commission in many ways. And I know Derek and his staff have been going through the sections going through the line items or excuse me, the the the funding parts of money to see how it would be affected if it was to go into effect and signed into law. So Madam chair, with your permission, I'd like to turn it over to Derek who will give us an overview of what section 88 would do for what to do to the mass gaming commission should it be passed into law. Thank you. And get started. Just want to thank Chief Lenin because he's shown a great deal of leadership as this proposal was launched and got lots to update. So thank you, Derek. Good morning. Morning, Madam chair. Good morning, commissioners. Thank you, Commissioner Hill. And after this presentation, Commissioner Hill can give you a brief update on our conversation with A&F about this. But first off, I want to thank the team for their help with this. I also want to thank Commissioner Skinner for pointing this out to us the day we were reviewing inside language and line items. Kind of wish it wasn't in the budget, but it was nice of her to point it out so that we could get a jump start on on reviewing it. The memo for this presentation starts on page 67 of your packet. And basically last week, the Executive Office for Administration and Finance released the governor's budget. As you can see on the first page of the memo, this is the first step in a very long annual process of developing a budget. So I want to reiterate that. And I think Commissioner Hill will be able to add some color to that after our conversation with A&F. This is truly the first step. The good news is, in our inside line item language, we received a maintenance funding. We received exactly what we're asking for for payments to cities and towns at host racing facilities. And that is a very good thing because that had been underfunded five or six years ago. And it's a struggle every year to get that up to the correct funding level. So we were very pleased with that. And then we received the email from Commissioner Skinner about Section 88. And we took a dive into that. And what Section 88 of the governor's budget does is it proposes a redistribution of where Category 1 gaming taxes, as well as the 9% assessment on a Category 2 facility to the Race Horse Development Fund would go. And Section 88 is actually cut and paste for you on Page 68 of the memo. But the real analysis goes on to Page 69 of the commission packet. And what we've done is we have lined up in a chart where Section 59 of Chapter 23K has the gaming taxes going to. So there's a 25% tax on gross gaming revenue. And of that 25%, it goes to<PHONE_NUMBER>011, 12 to 13 different funds. And as you can see, with the exception of the Mass Cultural Council and the Mass Tourism Fund, every other fund was redistributed partially. And the three funds that the Gaming Commission actually spends out of that Section 59 or were awarded money, the Community Mitigation Fund, the Public Health Trust Fund and the Race Horse Development Fund all received cuts or declines in redistribution. Now, I can't give you exactly what that means for FY25 because FY25 is dependent upon taxes that come in. So the best thing I could do is take a look at the last fiscal year that had completed FY23 and show where the money went in FY23. And if outside Section 88 were in effect during FY23, what that change would be. And ultimately going from 6.5% of the taxes for the Community Mitigation Fund down to 3% would take us from receiving $16.7 million down to $7.7 million. So almost a $9 million cut. Under the Public Health Trust Fund, you would see an EHS gets the Public Health Trust Fund. And as you're all aware, there's an MOU between us and DPH with EHS to say that DPH received 75% of that fund and we received 25% of that fund. That whole fund would be cut from contributions. Remember, there are multiple funding sources of this fund. There's another $5 million assessment from us and another $1 million assessment coming from sports wagering. So there's a $6 million coming from two different assessments on both gaming in and sports wagering, as well as there's a percentage of sports wagering taxes that go into that. So this is not the only funding source for the Public Health Trust Fund, but it would result in a $6.4 million reduction to that fund. If this were in effect in FY23, we would be receiving 25% of that reduction. So we would get about a $1.6 million cut to our annual contrary our annual draw from that trust fund. And then the final one, the one that's really, really impactful and not that the other two weren't, is the Racehorse Development Fund because it's reduced down to zero from category one taxes and then paragraph B of section 88 actually goes in and cuts the 9% assessment that came from category two taxes. So the PPC facility and cut that down to zero. So you've got a $6.4 million cut from paragraph A of section 88. And then when you go down to section B of paragraph B of section 88, it's another $13.5 million cut. So that's close to $20 million. The Racehorse Development Fund normally took in that would no longer be there. So, you know, adding all of these up, it would, if section 88 were in effect for FY23, we would have received $30.5 million less. Now, and Commissioner Hill can talk a little bit more to this, so I'll turn it over to him if there aren't any questions regarding just what the distributions went to, where it went, so that we can fill you in briefly in our conversation with A&F. Questions? Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Derek, in terms of the money from the Public Health Trust Fund, that reduction, what what proportion of our of that money's go to game sense versus research? Do you have a ballpark percentage of the distribution of that money? About 50-50 at this point, because game sense is around 2.7, 2.8 million, I think we went up a little bit more. And our budget this year was around 6.4 million, and we have a couple hundred thousand in salary and fringe that goes out of there, too. So it's close to a 50-50. And for the research, you know, you'll see in our budget, it's a million. But then we have all the independent researchers, we have NORC, we have studies that go on. So you don't just look at the UMass item, but it's about a 50-50 split. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. And Derek, thank you for going over the impact to the purses with me. That's a that's a severe one, right? The Race What's Development Fund, Chad was very helpful in pulling together quickly. The Race What's Development Funds about 92% of purses at Plain Ridge Park. It's the only place we have live racing. And if the average purses right around $14,000 per race, if you took Plain Ridge Park out, the purses would go down to $1,160 some odd dollars per race. If you took the Race What's Development Fund money out. So it really has helped to create better races, better purses for the horse owners, a better product for the public to see. And that was one of the intents of the Race What's Development Fund to bring, you know, racing back to a higher caliber.   It really has brought life to the industry here in Massachusetts. Fair, right? Very fair. I think if you talk to Alex, I think if you talk to Mr. O'Toole down at PPC, I think if you talk to a lot of the owners in Massachusetts, you would hear that exactly from them. And just a follow up to Derek, the Commission has heard the last couple of years, and it's been a lot of legal work done at Codds Direction and Leadership on developing our application process, the NABU process for potential thoroughbred racing. How would that this proposal impact the possibility of another race track for the thoroughbreds this time? So this would have very little impact on the thoroughbred side, because the balance sitting in this is part of what we'll get into as we talk about our discussion with ANF, the balance sitting in this trust fund, the Racehorse Development Fund is almost 100% purses for thoroughbreds. We do not have, and we've said this multiple times, we don't have the ability to pay for anything but purses, health and welfare and breeders, because that's what the statute, the Creates Trust Fund allows us to spend it on. Now, the thoroughbred, each thoroughbred proposal comes up with different ways of using the balance of sitting in there. This proposal does not ask to sweep any of that money. However, the money that's sitting in the Racehorse Development Fund can only be spent on purses, because statutorily, that was generated through gaming taxes that 80% of it have to go to purses. So that's why it's sitting there. In order to change that, and the racing committees came together and said that's the amount that would be set aside for thoroughbred horses. So in order to even use any of that balance for standard breads, we'd have to pull together the racing committee again, ask them to allow all that money that's been set aside for the thoroughbreds to then be used for purses. But we wouldn't be able to give anything to health and welfare or to breeders over the next year. So the good side of this, it's a one year pause, right? And if you look at section paragraph C of section 88, they're looking for recommendations of how to redistribute this moving forward. But it doesn't allow us to use that balance in FY 25. So it basically be a cessation of payments to breeders, a cessation of health and welfare payments, as well as unless we could get the racing committee back together and ask them to allow us to use the money that's sitting in there for the thoroughbred purses. It'd be a cessation of payments to PPC for purses as well, the only live on track racing we have going on. And you would see those purses reduced from about 14,000 per race down to 1100 per race. Good news is this is the beginning of the process. And you know, I think that's what we heard from A&F as well. And I'll hold off those comments for Commissioner Hill. Sorry, Commissioner Hill, I asked some questions with dance. Thank you. Oh, the excellent questions. So we did have an opportunity to reach out to A&F to talk about section 88. And they informed us it was a very challenging year, and that they are, you know, some very pressing issues that the state is funding that they want to be able to address. And they had looked at all funding sources, not just the MGC, especially the trust funds within other agencies that had balances. And of course, rather than sweeping the balances, they looked, as Derek said, looking at putting a pause on any of the funds that had a balance in excess of the average annual expenditures. And as was illustrated with paragraph C of section 88, they're looking for us and other state partners to help make recommendations as to whether or how the taxes from category one and two facilities should be used. I think that's the key here. They were very willing to listen to us. They I think had a better understanding after the meeting where these funds actually go, that they don't all get expended in one year. You know, we brought up, for example, the community mitigation funds. They were not aware that we had created a new block system, block grant system that was important and that would take, you know, that fund down in the upcoming year. So I was happy to hear them say, you know, that this is the beginning of a conversation that they started and are willing to continue to have as the budget moves through the legislative process. They still have to go through the house, still has to go through the Senate. And of course, as we know, at the end of the process, there'll be a conference committee. So I think one question I have, and it's for all of us on this commission is, how do we want to advocate to the House and Senate leaders regarding the proposal? We understand now why they did what they did, but they also now understand that there are ramifications from what they proposed. And again, Derek, please correct me if I'm wrong. They were very clear that this was the beginning of a conversation that they were willing to change if we were able to convince and show that these funds are needed here at the Mass Gaming Commission. Of course, how they would be funded this year. So with that said, Derek, unless I forgot something, you know, how do we want to move forward? You know, we don't usually advocate for or against, you know, we kind of give the facts out. And I guess that's what I'm asking. Maybe we should be doing is just show the House and the Senate leaders the facts. And then however the no pun intended, the ships fall, the ships will fall. But I think it's important that we do have those conversations with the House and Senate leaders. Because again, it looks like a lot of money and it is. But we are going to be spending those dollars, you know, in ways that we were told we had to by Mass General Law and of course through regulation. Questions for Commissioner Hill and Chief Lennon. This is a lot. And it came out, you know, just just barely. And you've put all of and synthesized all of this so quickly, Derek. So thank you to you and your team. And we thank A&F because they were very responsive. I know they were very responsive. So questions? Commissioner Skinner. I Commissioner O'Brien's mic was off first. So I'm sorry. Oh, just I, Commissioner Hill, what you talked about was basically what I was going to ask and throw out as the next action is the recitation that was in the packet and put forth by Derek in terms of this is what it is. This is the the impact, particularly excuse me to contrast what we did with Derek with the last known numbers and 23. I think it's probably very illustrative and helpful to A&F in this conversation. I think once that's drafted, we may decide to do some more level of advocacy in a particular area or not. But I think at a minimum, making sure that information you've just given to us gets forward into the legislature as this conversation goes forward, I think that's critical. Through you, Madam Chair, to Commissioner O'Brien, what was interesting in our conversation is they had yet to see the letter that we had just sent. And as you know, there had there is some some language in there where we wanted to change some things dealing with these funds. And they had not yet seen that because of course they're putting their budget together back in you know, November, December, January. Whereas the House and the Senate will have seen that letter. And I hope we'll take into consideration some of our request. So it was kind of interesting that we had sent the letter the week before and then the budget came out in a few days later. So they had to see it. So exactly what Commissioner O'Brien said, my only other question is, what is the timing? Do we, you know, is now the time or typically do we wait and sort of let the process play out a little bit more over the coming weeks and months so the process would be now that H2 is out the House and actually the last couple of years, they've been doing joint ways and means herrings throughout the state to hear testimony on H2. But they're putting the budget together as we speak. So time is of the essence and the memo and the information that Derek and team have put together as Commissioner O'Brien said, should get up to our leaders probably, you know, sooner rather than later. And then through discussions, you know, we can set up meetings to go talk with the legislative leaders if that would be the sense of the committee. So in the past, what we've done, Commissures Kerry, you may remember is on something like this, we could take all that good work that's been done. I'd love to include the impact on the persons Derek and compile a letter that we could have the executive director sign off on. And it would go to all the right parties. Commissioner Hill, do you think that that's right at this stage to work at that level? And I think that's what we did last year. And it was successful. Yeah. You know, the as much as the time is of the essence, the good news is that this has just started. We are not being terribly reactive. We are being quite proactive. So and again, thank A&F for sitting down with us and and indicating their willingness to to pivot. But Derek and your team, you did just a great job. Can't thank the team enough. I can't thank once again, Commissioner Hill, Commissioner Skinner for pointing this out. I don't normally, you know, I do a quick search through outside, but this was definitely something that I was happy was pointed out early on so that we could get a good impact analysis out of it in the whole team, right? From Chad to Alex to Joe to Todd to everyone who has touched this, we've really turned this around quickly and we're able to show real impacts to it. And A&F is nothing but willing to work with us. But, you know, they pointed out to us. They have some real fiscal challenges this year. So this was nothing personal to us. If you take a look, they took away payments to debt defeasance. They took away, you know, contributions to the rainy day fund. So this was nothing personal to us. This is all about the fiscal climate they're facing. And they don't want unintended consequences, right? They don't want unintended consequences. So that's why they open welcome our comments, welcome our feedback, and it all goes in that balancing act. Right. And that's and that's a really important point. I think we all can understand that the Commonwealth is facing some real challenges. And to the extent that we can have a voice in explaining the impacts. You know, that's a really important first step, but they've got some critical decisions to make going ahead. So thank you for reminding all of us of that, Derek. Thank you. All right, anything else? Excellent. Excellent, Commissioner Hill, thank you. Thanks for your leadership on this. All right. The only thing that didn't get mentioned, I did note it, and Derek's already left me. My apologies. You know, I lottery Yes. Is in the budget. And I want to acknowledge that I know it's something that's been a priority for the treasurer. I have received a couple of increased on that. It was if we have any research on how I lottery could impact the brick and mortar casinos or even online sports wagering. And we don't have a I don't believe it. I don't know if Marcus and it's unfair to expect that he's listening right now because his work is up. He is. I think, Mark, we have an eye gaming research project, but it's focused more on RG and but I don't know if in the past our research spoke to I lottery impacts. Do you have any recollection of that? Yeah, we've done studies on lottery impacts. We've not done any studies on I lottery, which I'll I lottery. Of course, the interesting thing is that we have under twenty three K and affirmative obligation not to impact negatively or cannibalize lottery. So it was an interesting question. And I did point that out that the relationship. And of course, we have been very transparent about our desire to make to ensure that the online operators are innovative around promoting lottery products. So from my perspective, this is something that has been a priority for the Charger. It's good news for the Charger. And I haven't I don't know if we have any evidence or data that's just that there would be any negative impact that would affect, certainly, the common else bottom line, but also the frickin mortars. So how might impact online gaming? I mean, what's reaching? I don't know. But I know that we are looking at eye gaming, but I did not think we had anything out there on quite a lot. No, we don't. We we could do a you know, we could take a look around and see if any other states have done a similar type of study. Or to be helpful to direct them to that, that, you know. But yeah, I'm sorry. I'm not sure if we want to actually do anything affirmative on our part because I think, you know, that's really the the Charger's lane. Just it's related, but not related. We are consulting the lottery and looking at potential lottery impact which relates to the potential for sports wagering, the arts, the restaurants, which is a which was a study that was required by the legislature when when sports wagering was passed. So we are collaborating with the lottery on that. We can certainly also add it to the proposal as part of the FY 25 research agenda, not kindly necessarily, but it would stay on our radar and fulfill that commitment from 23 K, which is holding holding the lottery harmless as we look at ampline expansion in the coming one. Years before, gosh, I think it was probably 2012. When I worked at the lottery, we didn't do church or gross and we did engage a research project on my lottery. And it was just maybe Todd, you remember, it was just when 23 K had been passed. And I know Treasurer Grossman affirmatively said that he would make sure that no I lottery product negatively affected the expected expansion of gaming. So there was a lot of discussion around how these all fit together. And we also know how critically important the lottery is to the Commonwealth. So I guess I just wanted to point it out as you know, congratulations to the Treasurer and the governor for supporting the lottery. And to the extent there's anything out there in other jurisdictions, we could share that. I think probably the lawmakers are thinking about those big questions. I don't know, Commissioner Hill, do you feel the same way? We actually brought up by gaming briefly in our discussion and they certainly are talking about it with the lottery. By gaming in addition to I lottery. Yeah. All right. So Mark, I guess, you know, without big left to the extent there's anything we could offer this one of the two inquires encouraged. That's fine. But otherwise don't I think we'll just stay tuned to see how these these some how they they follow through the process. OK. All right. Thanks, Derek. Thank you. OK. Then we're now moving on to regulations. And I do know kind of right on time in terms of figuring out the next piece, because I know Mina is not available. Cary from nearly 11 to one. So he was going to handle five A. So Todd and Kerry will skip right to five B. Does that make sense? Cary and Todd and then commissioners that would be turning to 205 CMR 221 on our bookmarks and our materials. Cary. Perfect. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and commissioners. So just to remind you sort of what this item is on January 18th, the commission voted to begin the promulgation process for amendments to 205 CMR 221. And those amendments would remove section 221.012 to clean up some confusion related to sports were during licensing fees. Given that the promulgation process takes two to three months to complete, the commission discussed issuing a waiver to ensure that the regulation is applied appropriately until such time as the amended regulation is formally adopted. So we're proposing issuing a waiver today from 205 CMR 221.011 until such time as the amended regulation goes into effect, the practical effect of this waiver will be that the language in section 221.012 will be effective until the amended regulation goes into effect. So licensees would be required to pay the one million dollar fee within 30 days of commission approval of the temporary license renewal. And once the amended regulation takes effect, section 221.012 would be deleted and the language in section 221.011 would become the operative language. So licensees would be required to pay a nonrefundable license fee of one million dollars upon submission of a request for temporary license. This will allow the licensing division to continue their renewal process without any interruption and will clarify the language and process moving forward. And Cara is on as well in case there are any questions about sort of practically how this works on the licensing front. Questions for Carrie and Cara. Thank you, Cara. You're studying. I have no questions and I'm actually ready to make a motion. OK. I'm not hearing any objections commissioner Hill. So please go right ahead. Madam chair, I move that in accordance with 205 CMR 202.032, the commission issue a waiver to all licensed sports wagering operators from requirements outlined in 205 CMR 221.011 until such time as the amended 205 CMR 221 on which the commission voted to begin the promulgation process on January 18, 2024 goes into effect as granting the waiver meets the requirements specified in 205 CMR 102.034 and is consistent with the purposes of GL chapter 23 and. Second. Any questions? OK, commissioner Brian. I wish you help. I'm just going to I wish you may know I vote. Yes, excellent work, Carrie and Cara. Nice straightforward. No questions is a good thing. Great, thank you. Thanks so much. So Carrie and Todd, we'll turn back to item number five later in the early afternoon. I'm still juggling a little bit, so stay tuned. OK, thanks. Now we're turning to item number six. It's a sports wagering division. Turn it right to Director Ban and we're going to hear from both Crystal and Andrew. Yes, I asked that we do this little out of order if we could do A and C in a row for Crystal to get both her items out of the way. That would be great. Yes, thank you. Good morning. Good morning, Crystal. Good morning. I'm just going to blur my weird hotel background here. How are you guys?  So thank you for making time today for us. I know that it's important to you and that your priority to be here. So we just want to thank you. OK, absolutely. Thank you so much. So we are starting off and I'm just going to switch my screen really quick. Apologize with a request, which for the packet, it's page, I believe, 90. Ninety one. Ninety one. I was going to say ninety three, but my pages are off. Thank you for that. So I really like to first just thank our compliance officers for their work on the comparison tables here. That is page ninety three for you. I know I speak for Andrew on this as well. Sorry to speak out of turn Andrew, but the team is really made all the better with the compliance officers on board and they're fantastic. They have been very thorough and willing to dive into any project we've thrown at them. So they did compile this chart for you. I don't want to take the credit for that. I know it's very small, but I do think that it was distributed separately as well. But if you need any context, I have it pulled up and I can just give you clarifications. So as a reminder, this part was compiled as a follow up to the meeting on January 4th, which we'd presented a request from WinBet to reduce customer service offerings. But in reviewing that, you determined it was important to review the customer service offerings across all of our operators and to review specifically how those offerings compared to what was presented during the application process. This chart specifically shows what was included in the application itself or in the PowerPoint materials presented during the public meetings. I will say it does not include any conversation that was had in those meetings. So, you know, just wanted to make that clarifier. It was just we only compiled what was in the materials themselves. So that being said, I also did put together some quick summaries of those insights in your memo. And I'll let you proceed with how I'm not I'm not really sure, honestly, how we want to proceed on this one. So I just wanted to give you that and let you have the conversation. So maybe that's just the first step would be a reminder that this came through when that recognizing that they were actually doing less than perhaps what they had thought they were going to do. Then prompted really increase well, you know, what is the landscape overall? Could you just explain maybe your high level findings? That might be I thought that that was the most revealing picture if I don't know. And then you can maybe if you've had the chance to read Crystal's well done memo and we think the compliance team for putting this all together, it was helpful to stay answered quite a few questions, I think, Crystal. Yeah, so, you know, I tried to focus on that. I do know that each commissioner had different questions coming out of this. And I was trying to compile some of those insights here.  There are only two. None of which are available 24 seven, but I would note that technically four of them said they had a phone number, but ESPN is current ESPN bet sorry is currently working on hiring so they can have their customer service agents live. So they do have a number, but they don't yet have individuals there to take the calls. And then one of them that had provided their number, it's casino guest services. So honestly, those calls are probably routed to us anyway, because they're not necessarily trained to answer every sports wagering specific question. So two of them are offering phones, though notably there is some callback service and almost all of them will have an individual call if there's if there becomes an issue with the back and forth communication via email or chat. But did there are many that can you can leave a voicemail or send an email and say, I'd like someone call me. That is about six of the 11 live chat is the most utilized. It is also one of the most consistent offerings across our operators currently 24 seven live chat is available all category three, except for when but if they were to scale this back, obviously, but they still offer live chat. And it all of our operators except for retail and better do offer live chat. So that's I think the most consistent component we saw. Obviously email support is huge and they all offer email customer service, except for retail, which there is you can still email customer service because they you know, the casinos have their own, but they don't have something separate for sports wagering. And then I did provide just the differences because one question came up or maybe it wasn't a question. I think it was a consideration of how long when that should stay open if they were going to scale back and they wanted to consider the time that the games are available. Right. So I think it was till the request. The thought was to keep it maybe till 11. But I put the retail sports book hours here so you could see that there's no consistency in that either. So you know, requiring one to stay till 11 would be not consistent with what the other operators are offering. So that was the general scope that I got from this and you know, was insightful for me too. I would say that reviewing the applications themselves. What we saw is no one promised really all any of the phones. No one promised even 24 seven live chat except for I think two and they do offer it. So some of the offerings are a bit more than ever even stated, which is nice. But what I was trying to see was did they say they would have something and not have it and there just wasn't a lot in general in these applications about customer service, it, you know, little touch pieces where they said maybe how they reach out to their customers in general, but they were very limited. So that was. I'd say that's my summary of what we were reviewing. Excellent. Commissioners, it really is not a live request in front of us now that would be current. But we have wanted to understand this landscape. Do we want to impose anything further or are we satisfied with what we've seen from customs and that would work. Madam chair. So customer service was something we all cared about during the application process and something I still, you know, want to make sure that people are getting the help they need when needed. But facts are facts. And the facts that have come before us are showing us that those phone calls aren't coming in 24 seven overall. They're coming in a certain hours of the day. And I think with what I've seen with that data that I'm comfortable with what has been shown to us today. I'm kind of taking it back because my memory obviously isn't as strong as it used to be. But I thought there were a couple of licensees proposals who said, oh, no, we're going to do this 24 seven. But maybe I just thought differently when they were talking or misunderstood what they were saying. And maybe it was regarding the chat and not live. But with that said, this is the second or third time that we've seen data showing us that the calls are not coming in, you know, at two in the morning, three in the morning, things of that sort. And to have to have somebody there during those hours when they're not getting those calls, well, let's be honest, that's not very smart business wise. So Crystal, great job to Bruce and team. Great job. I think with the data that's currently before us, I'm very comfortable with what has been put before us and I'm comfortable that the customers are getting to the people they need to at a timely passion. Michelle Brown, I would agree with that. My only follow-up question before I sort of endorse what Commissioner Hill said is whether we're seeing anything in terms of reach out to our office on any consumer complaints that they can't get through. So the lack of a phone call maybe they don't know how to do it. So I just want to make sure we're not getting complaints that the reason some of those numbers are lower is simply they just can't do it. So we looked into that, right? We pulled lovely from our perfect database. I just love this thing, right? We were able to search by anything that said phone. And we pulled out a lot of information. But anything that was particular to actually I wish they had a phone. They don't have a phone. We only saw 16 requests ever since launch last year. That being said. Did you do customer service or complaint or call? We pulled out customer service in general, like where they were just saying customer service is not great. Or I don't know how to reach them. Anything like that was 60 around 60. I think. I do have it. There's a little chart on page ninety one that kind of goes over there. So sixty two complaints were related to customer service in general. But that could include anything like, you know, their customer service wasn't nice to me. Or I don't know, you know, but we did try to look at that, too. And we were looking at anything related to ours, which Commissioner Hill was just referencing. And they really were. That was I think we saw too, right? Like, why can't I get a hold of them? At this time. And it was it was still not directly related to, like, not being available. It was more about the time frame that they took to get a hold of them. And that's mostly what we look for the compliance with that regulation, which, like, why did you take 12 days when you only have 10, right? So we just didn't see that. I'll also note that I had specific conversations with WinBet themselves and other operators. And they don't see calls coming in at night for the most part. And when people are trying to reach them at night, they're sending an email or they're sending a chat. WinBet, you know, having had the ability to check that data for us specifically. I don't have my notes in front of me. I'm sorry I am traveling, but I recall it being, I think two calls at all in that time frame in the last month. And they weren't, you know, I think it was Commissioner Skinner who asked where they related to, you know, trying to get self exclusion or any sort of trouble, and they weren't. So we did look at it just because, you know, it's important, I think, overall, to just have the data since we can, but we are just not seeing that level of need. And it would have, I think I included this information in your packet, but to cover those hours, they need at least three individuals on. And it just seems like to take three calls, I can see why the request came in, right? So we can understand the justification. So my only, my only follow up comment really would be one of the reasons that Commissioner Hill, I don't want to put words in your mouth that we were talking about hours was more if you had a compromise in your account and you were under stress and time is of the essence. And so I'm fine with what we're doing right now. I just don't want to lose sight of us keeping track of the ability of customers to be able to get some sort of action if they need to, some sort of breach or something in their account. I know that it does seem like they still triage these calls that come in when they're not available. And there's it's not like just it seems everybody had a system that was like, OK, these were the calls that came in and now we're starting with the most pertinent ones and or going right through and they they don't just get hit with volume. They start with the calls that were requested overnight. So that was comforting to me. You know, they're not just sitting in a pool and waiting. They seem to have processes. So just in general, we're not seeing that kind of from what we receive. Right. I didn't look at all. I'm just contemplating a data breach or some sort of breach. You know, that's right there. Oh, and so that's my question not for this valid topic. This point we're talking about today, but just going forward for us as a body to think about, you know, what is what does the customer base do in that circumstance? But otherwise I'm satisfied with what you guys put in front of us today. Thank you for for both forms for the pros and the spreadsheet. Yeah. And I'd say I will, you know, the key piece to me was that the live chat is basically 24 seven anyway in our across our jurisdiction other than retail. And then of course, if you're talking retail, someone is there 24 seven. So if you take a look, it really is that essentially there's some sort of 24 seven aspect for Massachusetts. It may not be, you know, consistent in what the mechanism is and it's not phones. But you certainly could say there's an issue with my account and it seems except for in one circumstance that you would get some 24 seven. So maybe we circle back in a future time for that. Just one circumstance. Precious. And I'm not sure who turned off their their needs first. I always defer to commissioner skinner. Thank you very much. Thank you, commissioner. Nothing more to add really commissioners, Brian and Hill have said it all really. What's compelling to me is that they do have some 24 seven aspect just for patrons. I appreciate crystal the data and your sort of summary of what the actual complaints, the customer service complaints around no phones is. So that was my only outstanding question. I will also say to commissioner Hill, my memory is similar to yours. Despite what, you know, was put in the application, there was a lot of discussion generated for from excuse me, the presentations around customer access, customer service. So in response to those questions, those that discussion and commissioner concerns, we did have operators who indicated that they would have 24 seven service like you, though, I can't remember if it was via live chat or phone, but nonetheless, I am satisfied with what's being presented here. I don't think we need to go any further. I concur with Commissioner O'Brien that we do. We should continue to monitor any any complaints, you know, the ones that she specifically referenced, but also the ones that you've reviewed in the past relative to just not being able to get a hold of someone. So I am all set and I'll turn it over to commissioner Maynard, but I will say to commissioner Hill, just so you know, there's an echo. We can I can hear you just fine. I don't know if it's just me, but I just wanted to let you know that you're you're we're getting an echo from you. It's not bad at all, though. Commissioner Hill, you can't fix it. Just as a reminder, I know it was exactly a year ago yesterday when we launched sports wagering and that launch was preceded by lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of hours that this commission took to evaluate each application. If my memories are correct, each time we had an application in front of us, you know, we met for somewhere between six to 13 hours to evaluate the applications and there may well be those videos, something that suggests that conversation that maybe the operators said they were going to do something. Crystal, thank you for not putting anyone through the misery of going through those. I thought about it. All those hours of of meetings, if it becomes critical commissioners to to understand and to sort of check our memories. You know, I think we can all go back and speed through ourselves and look to see my memory is that there was a lot of discussion. And I think my memory was that we definitely message that consistent customer service was a priority. But anyway, I right now just appreciate Crystal's judgment on that. So Commissioner Maynard, sorry, I just wanted to to to mention that would be quite a task right now during this busy time Christmas wagering. Commissioner Maynard. No, that's a good that was actually a segue to what I'm thinking. Oh, OK. I mean, my memory was they did tell us what we wanted to hear on that issue and Commissioner Hill was driving at home. But neither here nor there, I would not use state resources to go back and watch all those videos, having watched a lot of those videos for the minutes myself. I can tell you it's not fun. But I want to encourage the patrons that if this becomes a problem, if, as Commissioner O'Brien said, there's an issue, you know, let us know. We do have a robust sports wagering division that is taking in this information and perhaps the data is not showing it's a problem because patrons don't know to reach out to us. It's a problem. So let us know. Let, you know, let the companies know, shake the trees, let your banks bank know if there's a problem. Don't let it let it sit. And the whole point, as you said, Chair, is that if there's an issue, we don't want anybody out there that can't get ahold of of the operators. Right. Thank you. And that's a really good reminder and a reminder. Let me just check that we've talked about it. And I know now that the team communications team has uploaded this information on the on the internet. We've always had customer service information for keeping it updated and so that customers can look at our website to find out how to contact. But what Commissioner Maynard just pointed out is really critical. And perhaps some Tom and Davey can add that too, that if you can't get through the operating, you know, contact our split wagering division. We want to we want to keep ourselves open, right? Yeah, it's a category will continue to monitor and very nice job on that crystal. If you don't mind, we'll skip over being and go to see for Crystal can continue her presentation. And that's and and besides, I think we're all very interested in in the next topic, Crystal. So see you. There we go. Thank you. I really appreciate the skipping around. That would be page 98 for your packet. And I don't think she's on. But I know that it's very excited for this one and is definitely out there watching for those who don't know is a former hockey player and coaches hockey. So she's thrilled about this. And I heard lots about it. I wanted her to present it, honestly. She's D one, D one, two. Anybody who knows hockey knows family in Massachusetts. So there we go. Good shout out. Both actually went to school together, but very apart in years. But up in up in the Potsdam area, that's where my love for hockey comes from because there's no football up there. It's just hockey. So but we're bringing forth a request to add the newly formed professional women's hockey league, which will be referred to in almost all cases in media and in your packet as PWHL. But we there's been a request to add it to the Massachusetts gaming commissions event catalog. I will note a couple differences in my memo that have transpired over the last couple about a week. First, while fanatics did make this initial request, we have heard interest from other operators. Drafking specifically had also put in a request after the fact asking and will be offering in Massachusetts. And they've already had their own conversations with the league, but we have other operators who have said they're excited to have this offering. In addition to that, my memo originally stated that there were no other jurisdictions offering this league that's now outdated. It's come quickly, but fanatics did submit this request in Connecticut and it was approved. And according to Drafking's the professional women's hockey league is also approved in Arizona, Colorado and Kansas. And I was able to quickly confirm this morning that Arizona and Colorado catalogs are up and they have been updated and they are allowing those wagers. So I just wanted to make that note. So that being said, the specific request is to offer the professional women's hockey league into our catalog. And I did give you a lot of details just because it's a new league on some of the things that were in the media and things that had came out that might be of interest. Given there has been concern in the past about the women's hockey league, not be true in general, there was a former women's hockey league that did not survive, but this is being treated very differently. It is a paid league. It does have a lot of the same rules as the NHL and it has some support also in a consultative manner, but in general, good feedback and has been widely attended. There are some record numbers of attendance in the last few weeks at their games. Fairly, but the option is up to you. So I'll turn it back to you guys. Thank you, Crystal. So Crystal, I have a question. The application, the petition says that there's no sports governing body, but the entity that would conduct it is the board of the PWHL. And they say they have not contacted them in the paperwork, but I think you just said they have since contacted them? No. The Rathkings has contacted them. They are in conversation. They had said they're in conversations with them. I don't have much information on that, but that was, I just quickly reached out to them and that was their responses. We are excited to offer it if it gets approved and we've already had some conversations. So I in general don't have an issue, but procedurally I knew we did give a hard time to another person who petitioned who had not reached out to the governing body or the players association. And on this face of this, they haven't done that. And so maybe we can speak to why that is and what can be done about that? Commissioner O'Brien, Michael Venier from FNAF, Spending and Gaming. Sins and Physicians, good morning Madam Chair and the rest of the commissioners. Since the initial request, we have reached out to governing body. We are in receipt of the rules of the league. And based on a review of the rules of the league are comfortable moving forward with this request. And have they indicated support or are they agnostic on the request? I do not wanna speak on their behalf. So I would say at this point agnostic on the request, but I do know that other operators are looking forward to the opportunity to offer the PWHL. And is there, am I correct that there's no players association, which is why the answer to have you communicated with them is no? There is a player's association. Well, I don't want to speak incorrectly here. There is a CBA, which would be the players association in this case. Okay, so that, and they have not been contacted them. Right? Commissioner O'Brien, I noted what, so maybe I noted what Commissioner O'Brien noted that they put down no governing body with respect to the contact and it is an important issue, but I feel that earlier in the submission, they did acknowledge that. And I think you acknowledged in the memo that PWHL board would be the governing body. And then at the American Hockey League is providing officials. No, my question is the players association, madam chair. I'm satisfied that the petition also asks about whether the players have been informed. And we had that conversation. I think it was highlight. They don't have one because they, you know, you would be the individual players would have to sort of almost speak against their owners. And so we put the ask out anyway. So I heard governing body. My apologies, Commissioner O'Brien, it puts a little bit of a mishearing. No, page 103 in the packet number five. The last question on page three of the petition has any relevant players association been informed? The answer is no. It sounds like there is a players association, but they haven't been contacted. The time that I conducted the memo, that was true. I'm not sure if, Michael, you have any update? I believe that is correct. So I don't in general, given sort of the connections in the structure of this have hesitation moving today, but I would put an ask out for fanatics and anyone else petitioning for this to make the reach out to the players association. Commissioner O'Brien, clarification, are you saying that you could still go move forward without that being included today? Okay. Given the structure and the history of who else is involved here and not seeing anything in public that challenges this, I think we had Cornhole or something else where that was a different scenario. We don't have that in front of us, but I would encourage the licensees, you know, the petition does ask for whether players associations have been contacted. I just want to say that that's something that I would expect to happen going forward. And contact with the governing body. Correct. Yeah. We can ensure that too with that clarification that we don't bring forward something unless they've requested that. Yeah, we saw one where it just happened to be good timing where the press came in and the governing body was able to affirmatively get to us before we voted. I think it's almost got to be a prerequisite commissioners correct, but the players association issue might be a little bit different, but to have the governing body object would be probably compete with our priority around integrity. I see Andrews even kind of nodding his head, right? Crystal, you feel the same? So I don't know if we need to strengthen that in our, you know. All right, my light went out. I think Crystal said it, but going forward, we'll verify that the operators reach out to the place association. Yeah, so maybe on paperwork just sort of make it like a pre-react. Commissioner Maynard, sorry, I'm sorry, Ms. June. No, no, no, no problem. I just wanted to say that on the positive side of this, I appreciate anytime we can add women's sports and potentially allow folks who want to bet on those, to bet on those. And I think it's positive in that regard. I can move.  So if you're ready to move, Commissioner Maynard, we will take your motion on behalf of women hockey players. The commission amend the official catalog of events and wagers to include the women's hockey league as included in the commissioners packet and discussed here today. Second. I would just add that, Mr. Levine, the players association, we want to make sure that the athletes are protected and the officials did. So as much as we want to promote the women's court, we want it to be, you know, keep everybody safe and sound, so just an additional edit. And I know you know that. You've heard from us so much, Mr. Levine. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Maynard. So actually in that, excuse me in that vein, Madam Chair, if I could just do a friendly amendment that, that the petitioner provide documentation or communication to our sports waiter team that they have in fact, reached out to the players association as a condition of adding it to the catalog. And Commissioner Maynard, we would also want to know the results of those conversations, correct? Right. I would accept that friendly. And I would second as amended. Thank you. Okay. Anything else commissioners on this? Okay. Commissioner Bryant. Aye. Mr. Hill.  Yeah, it's okay. It's a little different than your normal, but we can hear you. We can give a tip for Tom and Dave if you can think about it. Okay. With that said, aye. Aye, aye, aye, aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Commissioner Maynard. Aye. And I vote yes. So that's five, aye. It's not 10. Thank you. And Crystal, excellent work. Mr. Levine, thank you for being here.  We appreciate that. And Crystal will be thinking of you. Safe travels. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So now, I think maybe Mr. Levine is sticking around. We are turning to six B, Director Band. Is that right? Yes, that's correct. Andrew has a few presentations for you today as well. Okay, excellent. Thank you. Yep. Good morning, Madam Chair, commissioners. I have two new wager category requests coming from fanatics, betting and gaming. Both requests are rather similar. However, they do require individual votes. And if it's not in your packet, I'm happy to share the screen of the petition form submitted by Fanatics. Madam Chair. Thank you so much for doing that. I know we have a little tech issue. We'll resolve that for next time around, Andrew. Okay. I believe the first one is the Player X next team. I'm not mistaken. Well, it was the other one, but it doesn't matter. We can skip around. So then, Player X, what do you have? We'll start with Player X. Okay, excellent. Can everyone see the screen of the petition form? Yes, we can. I'll try to scroll through it as we're discussing as well for your preview. So starting on page, I believe 94 of your packet. Fanatics is requesting a new wager category for Player X next team. That is the title of the wager category. This wager would be where a specified player will play next season. This wager category would only cover the four major professional sports leagues of the MLB, NBA, and NFL, or MLB, NBA, NFL, and the NHL. It would be for which team a specified player will be on at the start of the regular season. A winning wager will be determined if that player is on the selected team's roster by the start of the regular season. Outcomes will only be verified and declared settled once the specified team releases an official announcement on that player. We can give you a few quick examples of some wagers that might be available or could have been available in the past. For example, if this wager category were approved, this upcoming NFL offseason, you could wager on which team current Minnesota Vikings quarterback Kirk Cousins could play for next season. He is an unrestricted free agent at the end of the season and perhaps no longer under contract with his current team at the start of the offseason. The selected wager would offer odds on certain NFL teams, perhaps including his most recent or current team available. If you think back even a few years ago, when Tom Brady was rumored to leave the Patriots, many sports websites, articles, and outlets often published odds on where Brady would play the next season. They listed a handful of teams with specified odds next to each team and perhaps the operators may not offer odds on all available teams, but rather a few specific teams and then offer the field as a wager. So going back to the Brady example, if there weren't available wager with five specific teams and then the field, if Brady was not on one of the five listed teams at the start of the regular season, but rather on one of the other 27, if the customer selected the field, that field wager would win. If he had joined the team, one of the teams selected of those five, that wager would win. And then one other example, I just thought of this morning, it may not happen as often, but you may see it more times in the NBA, if a specific player is still under contract, but is unhappy with their current situation, they may request a trade during the off-season or maybe even during the previous season. The operator could then offer wagers on where that specific player may play at the start of the regular season via trade before the season starts. One very specific example I could think of happened during the off-season in the NBA last year. There was a high-profile player, James Harden. He was under contract with the Philadelphia 76ers. He was unhappy and hadn't requested a trade several times. There was speculation on where he may be traded to. However, he was ultimately still on the 76ers roster at the start of the regular season on October 24th. If the customer had selected James Harden to be on the 76ers at the start of that season, that wager would have won. And I hope all that makes sense. And again, we do have Michael Levine from Fanatics on the meeting to help answer any specific questions. Lastly, Fanatics has stated that this wager category and type is currently approved for wagering in their jurisdictions of West Virginia, Maryland and Colorado. The sports wagering division confirms all requirements have been met pursuant to 205CMR 247.3. This finally operator has answered all the applicable questions on the new wager category form. Madam Chair. Andrew, while the Christians did receive us in their emails, while we're talking, could we just have this come down, please? Thanks, of course. Thanks so much. Okay, questions for Andrew on this new event? I have a question actually. I guess I'll be more for legal. Will this fit into the definition of sports wagering under 23N? You work, I can pull that up while we talk. It's a, you recall the definition of sports wagering is very broad. And so I believe the answer is yes to that, but we'll just double check while we're on it. Also, while you're looking at that, what are the, and this isn't for legal, this is for either Andrew or Michael. What are the safeguards, like when does it open, when does it close, depending on the sport, what are the safeguards around, who has the information, right? Like obviously there's a group of people that know, right?  Maybe a law firm, right? Some people are gonna know how these movements are happening. Are there safeguards around this?  Like what's the real story here? Yeah, and Commissioner Mayer, that is one of the reasons why our division did not make a specific recommendation, either way on this wager category, leaving it more to the commissioners for decision and for legal to provide an answer on a sporting category. But as to the specifics, Michael, I'm not sure if you're able to speak to that in your other jurisdictions as you offer this, specifically for the off season and when wagers may close or open and close. Sure, in most of the other jurisdictions, we offer this after the end of the playoff. So after the Super Bowl for the NFL, and then leading up to the first game of the regular season as I'm gonna take the NFL as an example, as the pre-season, you know, a lot of these individuals may or may not be cut during those first three to four games of the season. Apologies, that's my daughter in the background. But we are hearing, we don't get to hear children, so Mrs. Bress, fine, thank you. I have almost two-year-old and a little three-month-old next to me at the moment. Sounds familiar. As grandchildren, go right ahead. So that's when we would offer it. The rules would be contemplated in our house rules, which would, if approved, be submitted to the commission for review and approval. And then from an integrity perspective, is our team would monitor on the back end to see if there are any suspicious wagers, any wagers that are moving lines more than usual. And obviously, if it arose to what we suspect is fraud or some sort of integrity concern, we would apprise the commission accordingly. Would you cap how much? I can't speak to that, Commissioner Maynard, but that would be a business decision. So I did have the same question, Commissioner Maynard, and then I'll turn to other commissioners that I don't see anybody with their mic on. How this could impact the negotiations of contracts and how do you preserve the integrity? Yeah, it does seem like there would be a good number of people who would have access to this information. And I understand we always look at suspicious activity, but we kind of know the guardrails are in place and somehow those guardrails might bail that creates suspicious activity here. I don't know if you've really answered that there are guardrails. And thank you, Commissioner Maynard, for the question. I can come back to the commission with additional guardrails if requested. I know that we do have US integrity alerts and it's on the back end from our data feed providers that do alert us of any concerns and then we action accordingly. And it's right now, Arizona and Colorado are taking these bets. West Virginia as well. It's actually West Virginia, Maryland and Colorado. I'm sorry, that was notes from the other one. My apologies, West Virginia, Colorado, and... Maryland. Well, and I'm thinking about this too. Sorry, Madam Chair. We did, we had a long discussion about the drafting of the players last year too. I'm trying to figure out how I think about this. Yeah. It's going to be that, you know? But I had time to really think about this submission. I've put a lot of thought into it. Interesting. Andrew, can you remind us on the draft because we just saw those minutes, Commissioner Maynard, and I made the same connection. How did we get comfortable with that? It's funny we were talking about previous commission meetings. I spent about a half a day last week reviewing a commission meeting for another upcoming item here for our Super Bowl wagers. This, I feel like this is likened to, is it the Emmy awards or some of the awards, special events that we offer in our category where there's voting and some events like that. As far as the draft, we do offer wagers on the draft. We do offer wagers on which team will select a certain player or where a certain player will be selected by which team in the draft would be NFL and NBA. But I don't believe I got to that part in the commission meeting, but we do offer those in our event catalog. We do, yeah. The Oscars and what was in the draft. Madam Chair. Yes, Commissioner Hill. Are we gonna go back to the Oscars again? Yeah. I spent too much time last week listening to that from a year ago. Commissioner Hill. So, Madam Chair, I actually had a lot of questions regarding this proposal. And the word sports integrity has been brought up a couple of times. So, Andrew and Michael, Madam Chair, if you're all right with me talking to those two specifically right now, let's walk through a couple of scenarios. And I'm gonna use the NBA as an example. So in the last two to three years, we'll say that superstar A, who plays for team B has a friend who he is openly talking to, to come to his team next year. As we know, sadly, whether it's true or not true, the perception is that in the NBA, you can talk to your friend and to come into your team next year. And we've seen that happen with three stars in the last three to five years, Guy Reirving, James Harden, LeBron James, where we knew where they probably were going to go next year after either their contract was up or they were traded, let go, whatever the case may have been. So how do we have sports integrity when the conversation is happening right out in the public for all to see? In baseball, the last two or three years, we have seen superstars reach out to other stars, hey, come to this team and let's build a super team. I look at LA for an example, where teammates have reached out time and time again to build a super team of friends and superstars. So help me understand how, if we were to agree to this, how I am not seeing sports integrity when I know as a consumer where the player is probably going next year, or coach or whatever the case may be. Coaches the next wager category that we'll discuss too. But yeah, as far as the integrity controls commissioner in hell, I made it spoke to that commissioner Maynard as well. Those are one of the reasons that we did not make a specific recommendation either way for this wager category, leaving it up to the commissioners to discuss. Mike, I'm not sure if you can discuss on the made a specific odds related to certain teams and wagers that the player may go to if there's a lower odds or better odds for certain teams based on available maybe rumors or information. Yeah, I think commissioner Hill, what if it was, I don't want to speak for our trading team, but I would assume, and I never want to assume here, but if there were those kind of rumors and it was almost a sure thing, I don't even know if we would offer that player to X team, if we thought LeBron was going back to Cleveland and it was all rumored that he was going to create a super team in Cleveland and every single media outlet is saying such, we probably wouldn't even offer that as a market. So would we be put in a position, Mike, where I make a bet and we start seeing something like what you just described and now all of a sudden your company says we're not going to honor that bet now. No, we would still honor the bet, commissioner Hill. I think the pricing would change accordingly. Similar to every other odds bet.  I'm usually, I guess on everything. I'm a little apprehensive about this request and I don't want you to speak on behalf of other jurisdictions, but when you were asking for permission from those jurisdictions, did they ask these questions? Because I would think all the jurisdictions would have the same concern that we are having. Commissioner Hill, in one jurisdiction, it was already affirmatively approved and I believe that was Maryland. In Colorado, in West Virginia, we did not, we just received an approval. I do not have any record of the rationale behind it. Thank you, Michael and Andrew, and thank you, Madam Chair. There are questions on this from Andrew. Director Band, do you have some insights you want to share here? I'm kind of agreeing with what Andrew said is the reason we didn't put a recommendation forward with it, I don't really have a recommendation one way or the other. You anticipated these kinds of questions from us, correct? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Commissioner Bryan, you're one way, you know? I did, so I went back and I should have done my approval to one of the minutes. I forgot I was late to one of them as well, Madam Chair, because when I went back through again about the other drafts that we voted on, I realized I was absent for some of those, which is why I didn't recall specifically. I was sort of on the other side of this definition of sports wagering in terms of the Emmys, the Oscars, the draft, that sort of thing. I think it goes a little beyond the pale into the integrity gets a lot harder in some of these circumstances. And it sounds to me like this might be premature. Like there's a lot of questions we have about integrity and parameters and guardrails that it doesn't sound like Mr. Levine is in a position to answer today. So obviously up to them whether they want to push this, but it would seem to me like we need to get more information about all those questions before it's in a posture to vote. Any, I have a question, Madam Chair. Any jurisdictions deny this, all right? Mr. Levine, and again, we thank you. We know it's not easy to be put on the spot with our questions. And if you don't know the answers, that's just fine. Yes, Commissioner Maynard, there were jurisdictions that did affirmatively reject this. And it was because it was not in compliance with their definition of sports wagering. Todd, you want to read our definition of sports wagering? It's always good to have an easy answer. Absolutely, it might be helpful if I show you the statute. Thank you Mr. Levine for that. So, and that sounds like you were really, you were really comfortable that it was only based on the definition of sports wagering, Mr. Levine, and not the issues that we're raising around integrity. For sure. Madam Chair, three of the jurisdictions that that rejected did state it was not within their confines of sports events or sports wagering, and that one did not provide any rationale, it was just an outright rejection. And that is standard with their market approval. So they don't have you come on onto a public forum and explain and answer all the questions that we have? They do not. Okay, I understand. All right. So commissioners, Todd's going to give us this language. So this is, there's two definitions we're going to want to look at. This, by the way, just for the record is chapter 23 and section three. And the two definitions we're going to want to look at are that of sports wagering and then sports event or sporting event. And we'll start here. Sports wagering is the business of accepting wagers on sporting events or portions of sporting events, other events, the individual performance statistics of athletes in a sporting event or other events or a combination of any of the same by any system or method of wagering approved by the commission. And then it gets into some things that it does not include. And then we're familiar with these things like the outcome is dependent on the performance of an individual athlete in a collegiate sport or athletic event on a high school or youth sporting event or on injuries, penalties, player discipline, or player review. And then it says that sports wagering shall include which will not be limited to single-gling vets, teaser vets, parlays over under moneyline pools, exchange wagering, game play vets, proposition vets and straight vets. So it's fairly expansive, but you then have to look of course at the definition of sports event. And that's right up here. And that is a professional sport or athletic event, collegiate sport or athletic event, a collegiate tournament, motor race event, electronic sports event. And here's where it kind of things like the MEs and other issue items came up or other event authorized by the commission under this chapter. And then again, it excludes certain things like high school and youth sporting event, collegiate sporting events, involving one or more collegiate teams from a common which are familiar areas. So ultimately it comes down to the interpretation of these two definitions and how broadly the commission is inclined to read them. We have read it fairly broadly in the past to include some of those other things, but this is one of those points where you could certainly go either way. And I'm here. Yes, Tricia Hill. I don't know if Michael has heard me use this term in the past and I was told maybe if I turned down my speaker it will help a little. I'm not sure that this is ready for prime time. And I'm not very comfortable today voting on allowing this or just allowing this. I think we're reaching a consensus perhaps. Commissioner Schiller you haven't laid in and do you want to weigh in now? And I think we may have the same kind of concerns with respect to the other as well if I'm guessing correctly. Commissioner Schiller. No, I agree completely and support Commissioner Hill's sentiment. I think there's a lot of questions, Andrew. And why don't we just go right now to the next lead head coach? I feel as though the same issues around contracting and guardrails and integrity will arise. Let's see you even agreeing probably Mr. Levine with us and Commissioner Maynard you are nodding your head. Do we need to have Andrew walk us through that? I see. Madam Chair and Commissioner I can tell you again with this wager category for the Teams X next coach or X Teams X coach. We also again did not make a recommendation either way leaving it up for discussion to the officials. Yeah, and I did see Commissioner Maynard and Commissioner Hill said no need to have you go through Commissioner Skinner, Commissioner Rainer you an agreement. Okay. Well, lots of good work done but lots of questions to be answered. And I think that this commission has just indicated that while we are eager to give opportunities to make the market special we are going to prioritize integrity. And we're not probably just ready to vote on this today. Is that clear everyone? Commissioner Maynard did you wanna add in? I don't wanna put, I saw you were thinking. Oh, I was just going to say the coaches it gets even more murky because the NFL for example you don't announce a new coach until you're eliminated, right? And then the next day they're out and they come out it becomes even more, maybe even more problematic for the coaches one. So I agree with, if the other one's not for prime time that one's not for prime time either. Commissioner Hill. I would have already lost the coaching that one. If we were allowed to bet. Yeah. Well, I don't think we're ready. I think it's a very interesting area. I just don't think we're ready for it to be bet on in Massachusetts. So thank you, Mr. Levine. I'm gonna let turn it over to Andrew and director Bann. And I know you wanna probably thank Mr. Levine as well. Yeah, Mike, thanks for being on today and sharing with us. Thank you, sir. Madam chair. Before Mike, please, I would like Mike to come back if there are some safety guardrails being put into place. Can you please come back and we can have another conversation about this. I just don't feel comfortable today that those guardrails are in place. But as you move forward, maybe you can come back to us with the same request and explain the guardrails better once you have a better understanding of what we're concerned about. If that's all right now, chair. Yeah. Of course. The invitation stands. Yeah. Thank you. And what we'll do moving forward, madam chair and commissioners is with these unique requests, we'll provide a primer of the integrity systems that we have in place or any third party has in place to answer those questions affirmatively. So you can make a decision based on what's in front of you not just what I'm saying out loud. Thank you. Okay, before you leave, congratulations. Three month old still warrants big congratulations and it sounds like you have a lovely family. So thank you and thank you for your time today. Okay. So Andrew, you still have item 16 for us. Yep, one more item. Last item for review, I believe it starts on page 105 of your packet. This does not come as an official request from one of our operators. However, we have received emails from several operators requesting clarification on certain Super Bowl pregame proposition wagers. While we have provided the official forms for these types of wagers to our operators, we thought it might be helpful to have a discussion and a possible vote on the wagers highlighted in your memo. Within your memo is a breakdown of possible prop wagers for the Super Bowl and only on the Super Bowl, these types of wagers would be prohibited for all other NFL games, football games or any other sporting event. This is strictly for the Super Bowl and strictly for pregame. These markets would close hours before the official start of the game. I've looked into other jurisdictions that offer these types of wagers and it stated that these markets close approximately three or three and a half hours prior to the scheduled kickoff, which in this case for this year, the scheduled kickoff is set for 6.30 PM Eastern time. So if these markets were to close at three or 3.30 PM Eastern time is plenty of time for the operators to settle any of the coin toss wagers as well as the national anthem length. And speaking of the coin toss, we've made a note in your memo that any coin toss wagers are specified for the opening coin toss and does that include any coin toss related to overtime if the Super Bowl is tied at the end of the fourth quarter. The only other item I haven't touched down here is the Gatorade color over the coach. Historically, the winning coach has a bucket of Gatorade dumped on him by the celebrated players. The specific wager you could select from a few offered colors of Gatorade in that bucket. And again, just like the others, this would be a pregame wager and the market would close hours prior to the kickoff. I did see recently in other jurisdictions, operators are offering this wager on the Gatorade color. And just to highlight some numbers, I thought it might be interesting. Purple, this was yesterday's numbers, but purple is set at plus 225, blue is set at plus 275, yellow, green, lime at plus 450, red or pink at plus 500, orange at plus 500, clear or water, because I think Gatorade offers a clear drink, is at plus 1,000. And lastly, no Gatorade bath is an option at plus 3,000. The specific operator, the specific, I believe it was a Twitter expose, orange has moved from plus 550 to plus 500 with 35% of the money, the majority on orange. Again, these were not officially requested by an operator, however, several are seeking clarification and we thought a discussion on those wagers might be best. Manager. Thanks, Andrew, well done. And I'll turn right to Commissioner O'Brien. I thought we had a robust conversation about this, this time last year, when we were talking about things like the draft, like the Oscars, like the Emmys. These are things that don't really fall within things that you can control and have parameters and oversize, et cetera. I have a couple of reasons why I would say the continuing answer is no. One of which obviously is my definition of sportsway during, but also the human element of control and fixing in here is so strong. I just don't feel comfortable that any of these would be appropriate. That's my two cents. Alan here. Mr. Hill, how do you feel about the Gatorade? I saw you thinking. Yeah, so I have a different view than Commissioner O'Brien. If we were to look at the graph that's been sent to us, the first seven, I have absolutely no problem with. The last two, I do have integrity issues with. So I had no problem supporting the first seven on that graph. And that's because, can you just explain? But the two, in case you don't know, it's on the Gatorade. And then of course, the National Anthem Lane. So I would think that you could know, somebody could let it slip, what color Gatorade is gonna be thrown over somebody because of what they're putting in all the thermoses and national anthem length. Somebody could let it slip whoever's singing it. Hey, this is how long it's going to be, blah, blah, blah. The other one's coin toss. You flip it in the air. There's no way of knowing what the result's going to be. The coin toss winner, you don't know who's gonna win it. Coin toss to be retaken. You don't know if there's gonna be a mess. I mean, there's no way of knowing ahead of time. In my view that any of that could be predetermined. The last two, it could be predetermined. Can I ask a question? Thank you, Commissioner Hill. I think we're thinking the same way, but when I saw the coin toss options as well, I'm gonna turn to you, Todd, and maybe your team. I feel like our regulations talked about coins tosses and the probability being a factor. Does anybody have a recollection of that discussion? I'm embarrassed I didn't look at it in advance. I'm sorry. It occurred to me when I saw this and then I just, I slipped my mind to go and look myself. Do you recall that? I have a memory of conversations about the coin tosses, Madam Chair. I do not remember if it also was within the context of regs. I don't remember if it was in the context of regs. I feel sterile presented on it. So maybe it was sports wagering and not regs. It was after the Super Bowl or something, but we could not find it in the minutes or anything. And that's why we're bringing it back to try and get something. It might be a circumstance where the actual meeting would need to be reviewed as opposed to just minutes of the meeting. I hate to say that, Commissioner Maynard, I know you guys work hard on the minutes, but sometimes things get lost. I believe they're in your attitude. Thank you. I feel like the probability of the coin toss and I'm going to admit the fact that I may not have absolutely understood the argument clearly enough to recall it now, but I got comfortable with however we came out. Commissioner Maynard, are you remembering any of this? I remember talking about coins. I can tell you what I thought. I mean, I can remember what I thought, which is I don't want to incentivize creating the national coin toss championship, right? And just, you know, we're now offering coin tosses all day long, you know? But for this particular instance, you know, I see it kind of closely to the way Mr. Hill sees it on this particular game at this particular coin toss, not even for every game, right? Throughout that, but I can't answer to the coin toss. I have another comment on the other two, but I'll hold that until you've explored your coin toss. It may not be resolved because it may be my dating memory. Okay, so let's put aside coin toss. Commissioner Skinner, is that any of that bringing about to you? Not the specifics, but I do remember there was extensive conversation about probability and, you know, how we should be looking at these events if, you know, it is in the hands really of one individual and information could be leaked in advance, like the two items that Commissioner Hill is having trouble with. My question, though, is this is coming to us as a request from sports wagering for clarification. What profits are allowed right now on the Super Bowl? Aside of these. Yeah, so that was actually one of the reasons why I went back and looked through our old commission meetings. I got through to the Super Bowl MVP winner. There was a discussion on the Super Bowl MVP and that's a very huge wager for the consumers and that one is, I believe, part vote and then part media members make that decision. I think it's weighed 80-20. Commissioner Maynard, you were speaking to that last year. So that is the only current proposition wager that I'm aware of for the Super Bowl for this pregame like that. It's other than general NFL wagers that they offer throughout the regular season. Winner, points, sprint, stuff like that. And no operators currently are requesting these authorization to offer these profits? Not officially, no, we received some, we received in recent weeks, we've received some emails from a few operators seeking clarification, but not officially requesting. Yeah, so that's still, I'm a little confused. If we already authorized just that single event, what further clarification is needed, I guess? I mean, if we're talking about adding on to that at the request of an operator, I see that as different as, because we've already decided this, I thought. And I think, it would behoove us to, as was suggested earlier, to go back and really dig into the discussion that we had earlier so that we can be reminded of our concerns and the rationale for only allowing that single event. So I guess just procedurally I'm kind of confused as to why this is even up for discussion if we don't have any operators who are intending to offer these wagers and, and we've already decided on that single event. I believe they would intend to offer these wagers if it were approved. As just Commissioner Skinner that no official request, like a fanatics that requested this wager category for the player, extra coach, ex-next team, those are the official requested to come across our board. As far as the Super Bowl Proposition wagers, they're just asking that official request. But if it allows, they would offer them for the Super Bowl. So if approved, these would go in the catalog as authorized events and they don't need to come forward. Correct. Yeah. But then why not make it this last? Well, that's what I'm saying. I just see a sports wagering sort of making it, you know, doing the job for the operators, I guess. In essence. Also, we have the form that had certain things we said we wanted information on to be able to make an informed decision. So without the request and info from them, it does make it a little more difficult for us to make the decision. So he's saying what Commissioner Skinner was saying, but in a sort of a different way, I guess. Yeah. So we, the few operators that did seek clarification via email, we did send the official forms and they declined to officially submit. Well, that's telling. I mean, it's not that I can't get to a substantive decision here. It's just if they're not asking, I don't see a need really. Yeah, especially the decline. To decide, you know, especially if they declined and the Super Bowl is a week from Sunday, right? That's why we wanted to get it on today's commission meeting. If after discussion it were voted on and approved, it could be wagered on for this upcoming Super Bowl. Commissioner Mayer, do you like the way it is? No, I think they're probably just asking us to reconsider. Right? It's really what's going on. It reminds me a lot when I used to go to my cousin and say, can you ask Dad if I can stay over next week? After he told me no. But that's, you know, it's kind of got that feel to it.  We all know that too many people could know that information, right? National Anthem, I was waiting from the second I got this packet to say that I've seen Reba McIntyre five times in concert. I got a little nerdy on this. I went back and watched her singing the National Anthem in 1978 as well as 1997. The lengths were different each time, right? But the point being that whoever is there doing her mic check that day, we'll probably know within a half a second or so. You know, where she's going to land somewhere between one minute and four seconds and one minute and 15 seconds, by the way. So that's not going to, you know, that's not, that's not going to fly with me. But like, like Brad, I could be persuaded or Commissioner Hill, I could be persuaded on the coin toss, revisiting that and rethinking about it. But that's just where I am. I'd also like an answer on the right question, Madam Chair, that you raised because I mean, part of the reason this was easy to put to bed the last time had to do with that, I'm not inclined to say yes for a number of reasons for more I'm coming from, but that's part of the calculus for me. In addition to that, Madam Chair, I, you know, it was helpful to have Michael Levine on from the fanatics, sorry, yes, fanatics, to help answer our questions relative to garden rails. I know he couldn't quite answer them today, but offered to come back with that information. So that to me is important to this kind of discussion. If we don't have the information available to us, you know, it'd be great to get info from the operators who are in fact, intending to offer these events. The other thing I'll say too is, or I'll ask is whether sports of wagering has a recommendation. On these. Chris, go ahead, Sergeant. I think that this is something that we would recommend at least with the coin toss. I think it's a real popular wager for the public. I don't think that there's a risk in it with the coin toss because it's 50-50. It's done in front of the public. It's not something done behind the scenes. I think Andrew feels that way. Crystal feels that way. We discussed it. I certainly wouldn't go with the Gatorade or the length of the national anthem from our perspective, but I think the coin toss is a pretty safe wager and a very popular wager. So there's also, we don't have any things about like, when are you gonna close it? When's the last time you're gonna have a lot of bet on the timing of the toss? You know, is it X minutes before? Right as they go to the, like, there's a lot that's a little vague about the request that to me and at a fundamental level, if I'm not looking to add to the catalog as one commissioner. And so I would like someone who feels strongly about this as a licensee to come forward and make the ask and identify and hitch themself to the ask rather than go to you guys' back channel and then say, could you go and ask for the redo and the sleepover request? So there's a number of issues that I have with it procedurally, but also substantively where I come from in terms of definition of sports wagering, et cetera, but. Yeah, commissioner, I don't believe it was a back end request, more of our division, just seeking clarification. And then to answer to the point of the timing on the markets, I've seen in other jurisdictions that they close hours prior, even the coin toss, it wouldn't be able to wager up into that very minute when the players are walking out. Right, but my point, Andrew, is because we don't have the form that we've asked them to submit for things like this, we don't know what that is. And so to put us in a position of asking to just sort of generally do it when none of that is really set out in paper or in a form, I have a problem with that. So could I just interject right now on process? Our sports wagering division came to us with a request that wasn't supported by the process that Commissioner O'Brien and Commissioner Skinner's looking for, is that problematic? Are we saying that Andrews can't come to us and is that pursuant to policy or a drag? I'm going to turn to Todd. Well, I could, since I asked the question, Madam Chair, I'm perfectly happy to answer from my perspective. I don't have a problem at all with a public conversation on policy and to start the conversation. This is keyed up for a vote. And so for me, if I'm going to be asked to vote, I'd like the process we set out followed. That's where I'm coming from. And thanks, Commissioner O'Brien. Thank you. I was only asking because I wouldn't want our sports wagering division to take this approach if it's not going to be welcomed or discussion by the commission as a whole. Obviously they took this approach and thought that it was going to be helpful. And so, and I know none of us are saying it's not helpful, but I guess I just want to clarify so that Director Bannon and Manager Steffen have a good understanding of expectations. I'm going to turn to Todd. Can you give us some guidance here? Absolutely, thank you. Yeah, I don't believe that this is specifically set out in the regulations. I'm going to, in light of this conversation, go back and double check that point. I think this is helpful though. Obviously we're always kind of navigating some slightly new waters. I think this was just a search for some clarification. We do discuss this at a high level in the guidelines within the catalog itself, but it doesn't get into the particulars as to whether these actual propositions would be allowed. So I think that this is a helpful conversation. I don't feel like the commission is dissuading the team from coming forward for clarifications in any way. I think we all understand the concerns, but I don't believe there's a clear process in place, though we will certainly make sure that we have one moving forward. I do think there's a little dissuading because there's a request that they're not getting the paperwork from the operators in affirmative request. I'm sensing for at least two of my fellow commissioners that they wouldn't necessarily want to go forward. And maybe it's because these are harder. Let's just say it was an easy one. We still want to make a better way of asking my question, and it's just strictly processed. I'm not looking for outcome, but if it were an easier decision that we saw the event is without risk, would we be asking for the operator's paperwork as well? Does that help commissioners get on process? Adam Chair, I can clarify. I'm certainly not trying to dissuade sportsway during division from bringing any request forward to the commission. The trouble I'm having is this being presented as a request for clarification when the discussion has already been had, right? And this commission approved a single prop bet relative to the Super Bowl, right? So, I mean, I, as I sit here today, engaged in this discussion, do not have the benefit of having my memory refreshed relative to that discussion. So to me, that's the difference. If we had this discussion already and made a decision, I don't think that there's any further clarification necessary. Now, if this is a request being brought to buy sportsway during to the commission to add additional props to this event, I think it just should be characterized as such. And there is some information that I think, you know, along the lines of what Commissioner O'Brien referenced that would be important to make the decision because it is, I mean, it is a request and for a new event. And I think it's interesting, you know, although I can't really explain why other than that, you know, they declined, but the sports wager operators did decline to bring the request forward. I want to know why, I guess. So that's where I sit. That's where I sit right now. And I no doubt about it. There's a market, I'm sure, for these wagers. And so I, you know, Madam Chair, if we have the opportunity to get this on the agenda for another meeting before the Super Bowl, I'd be interested in doing that. And we have agenda setting. Maybe we can meet for a brief period of time after that before we go into our next meeting. Just throwing it out there, just for consideration. And that would certainly give us time to do our due diligence, just to, you know, come up to speed, come back up to speed on what we've already talked about a year ago. Fisher-Grane. So my position on this is, you know, again, I want sports wager to come bring conversations and issues for discussion to us, but I don't view our role in terms of looking at what is in this catalog as proactive in any way. So flagging an issue for us is one thing. Alterations in addition to the catalog, in my view, whether they're added or not, that's what we decide. And we decide when they're brought to our attention because an operator puts their name on the request and gives us specifics that we've asked for to have a conversation in a manner that allows us to be prepared. So I come from it that way where, you know, if, again, I don't see my role as a commissioner as being proactive to do that. And if it's a request to reconsider, then there would have been a protocol to say, you said no here, you know, whatever, like that's all missing from this. So whether we have, you know, recurring agenda items for sports wagering to bring up topics for conversation with us separately, I don't know, but I don't find my position as commissioner to be suesfante adding things in when a licensee doesn't put their name on it. Commissioner Maynard, Commissioner Hill. So there's a process question that's going on here and a substantive question. I think we're, there's a clear consensus that putting process aside, well, I can't speak for a commissioner's, a skinning commissioner right, but I can speak for myself and Commissioner Hill. I think in Commissioner Maynard, that process aside, we're probably not comfortable with data rating and national answer anyway. Okay. Commissioner Skinner and Commissioner Bryan, process aside, are you gonna agree? Yeah, I could get with that. Okay, so we got that checked out. So, but I'm going to make my own personal, I'm, you know, private that on the answer now that I've got some information from Commissioner Maynard. So thank you. Now, in terms of the vets, we don't have backup information from an operator. Commissioner Bryan, I think Bryan would look at the reg, it does say that the information has to come from an operator because remember, we were getting some of the requests for coming from integrity monitors. And so we did say operator. What I see here is an attempt by our sports waiting to provide some efficiency. I think that's probably there, right? Director Van, you are seeing some requests for in trying to anticipate. You want more information, Commissioner Skinner, Commissioner Bryan, I'm hearing you that you're not even sure how you feel, whether or not it is a sports play during that. I think this commission may have actually already applied and moved on that because we do have some, including the Oscar. Where we looked at the broad definition that Todd just shared. But that would be something that if there were a motion before you, you would, not that, you would vote and explain your rationale on. Now I'm gonna get to the items before us. Commissioner Snell and Commissioner Maynard, you've heard our fellow commissioners expressing concern about process. Help me out, how are you thinking about it? Well, Madam Chair, I, when we had this conversation a year ago about who could ask for changes, I was very uncomfortable with the vote that was taken that would only be an operator. I felt very strongly that, yes, an operator should be able to come forward, but I also believe our sports waiting department should have been able to come forward with suggestions as well. And I as a consumer should have been able to come forward, but that was not the consensus at the time. I understood this at the beginning to be a request of clarity. The sports waiting department was notified by a couple of our licensees to clarify if this wouldn't happen or if this wouldn't happen. I don't think it was a request by anybody. I think it was clarification. And I really am very comfortable despite the concerns that have been brought up by my fellow commissioners. And you know me, I try and be as kumbaya with my fellow commissioners as I possibly can be. But today I really have a disagreement with them on this particular issue. One, because of the timing, it's a week away, two, it benefits the Commonwealth if we do allow this to move forward. I myself don't need anybody to come before me and explain why they think this should happen. I know exactly why this should happen. So I am going to be making a motion today to allow these things to happen. If nobody seconds it, so be it. If it gets voted down, so be it. Understanding that there are some concerns that I appreciate. But I think in my view, and in my opinion, we should be moving forward with allowing these for the Super Bowl. It's a simple adapt for me, Madam Chair. Commissioner Hill, we have not heard from our legal department that there's any reason why we couldn't move forward on this. I'm going to turn to not Commissioner Gross, who's the Interim Executive Director in General Counsel Gross. I can't think of any reason why you can't move forward with this. Certainly, obviously, there's a process by which an operator would come forward with a proposal and whatnot, but the fact that the commission would like to potentially take this action, I think is completely allowable under the statute. And as we talked about before, there's that question as to what a sporting event is and whether it meets the definition and what have you. And I think it's fairly broad, but there's discretion that the commission can exercise there too. So the short answer to your question is, I think you can take this step if you were so inclined to. And I do think the regulation does say operator based on what we had. I don't remember us ever saying, but not ourselves. We are, yes, ordinarily very careful not to restrict our own ability to take certain action or not take certain action. That's right. So I do see a distinction there. That's helpful. Madam Chair? Yes, yes. Madam Chair, I believe the clarification is being sought based on our current approved event catalog. As these are pregame proposition waders, prop waders, prop vets are allowed in our event catalog. And I think that is the seeking the clarification from our event catalog, I'm gonna read quote, the following waders are approved for all approved leagues. Single game vets, teaser vets, parlays over under, money line pools, exchange wagering, in-game wagering, in-play vets, proposition vets, straight vets, point spreads, pleasers, round robins, cash out three ways, spread handicap, totals, player game team props, futures, out rights, yes, no, win place each way. So the seeking of the clarification is based, or is being sought off of our currently approved event catalog, seeking the clarification on the language of proposition vets. As these are pregame Super Bowl prop waders. Yeah, thank you. Because that was gonna be my next question. Did I miss that of how, so thank you for reading it. I don't believe this would be a, I'm sorry, yeah. I don't believe this would be a new addition to the event catalog. We could maybe, I'll leave this up to commissioners or legal to make an amendment to our event catalog, including these certain types of waders under prop waders, but the clarification is being sought based off our event catalog. Madam chair, question. You just said clarifying question. So if these waders are allowed generally, right? I mean, why do we need to clarify specifically which of the prop vets are authorized for the Super Bowl? If they're generally allowed, why the distinction? I think, Andrew, is it fair that you got the inquiries and they just didn't want to, they didn't want to offer these without confirmation. They didn't want to offer these waders and then be out of compliance. It's found and offered for these certain waders. They're being, I think, cautious. And so they changed to us, which I respect that. Commissioner Skinner, so. No, that makes a difference with your clarification, Andrew. It, to me, it makes a difference. Do you want that in front of us in any way? Commissioners, it just didn't happen to be in the memo. Is that helpful or do we hear it okay? Or did it okay to push up? I'd like to answer to bring it up if you have it available right now, yeah. And then maybe incorporate it into our documents. But that was my question, Andrew. So thank you for. So we're looking at the event catalog. This is under our guidelines and comments section in our event catalog, subsection 2A. And I do recall this being approved when former operations manager, Sterl Carpenter, was presenting these almost a little over a year ago. These were all approved as approved waiters. So if it was approved a year ago, did they offer this a year ago? They did not. All right, so to me, this is a request to change this, that in my view, should be coming forward with them and giving the detail in terms of when are the bets gonna be cut off, that sort of thing, in terms of us moving to redefine this. Commissioner O'Brien, just a reminder, the Super Bowl usually takes place at the first or second weekend in February and our online operators did not go live until mid-March. Right, but we had three brick and mortars that were working off the catalog by the time. Correct. The Super Bowl. And they've had a year. So this thing that we're doing on the fly, I find frustrating, not for you, Andrew, but that they brought this to you where they have been operating brick and mortar for a year, 10 months for online. Yep, and it could be something where the operator made these wagers live in other jurisdictions and then they're seeking a clarification here in the catalog. Yeah. They've had 10 months to come back, though. Andrew, I think we should also take a look at number six, just so the commission can get the full picture here, which is the impermissible player of prop wagers. Certainly. So this language, it makes it clearer why the clarification is being sought for me. And Andrew, I hate to say it because I feel like I'm going back and forth. There was the discussion a year ago about the MVP being the only prop that we approved for the Super Bowl. So I'm trying to reconcile that with today's discussion. And I just don't know how to deal with it. I just don't have enough information. So there's actually one on awards, too. So anything about 50-50 in this language on permissible or impermissible? Nothing on the point. All right, I hate to make it even more, especially where we are. Judy happened to find in the minutes where we did discuss this. I think 205CMR 247.034A, regarding that we had a conversation where A&K was giving us information about allowing events to term solely by chance. Yeah. And he mentions coin tosses, right? Those are from the December 22nd, 2022 meeting minutes. So they were actually mentioned in the minutes. I know earlier it was said that they weren't, but I just wanted to clarify that for Commissioner Hill when he was Secretary, they're there. Commissioner Hill, thank you. What's the reg citation, Commissioner, please? According to the minutes, 205CMR 247.03 subsection 4A. So I'm going to bring that up for me because it's a little tricky for me. Thanks. There we go. Thanks, Todd. Happy to quote, Mr. Macarius stated that the provision in 205CMR 247.034A, regarding not allowing events determined solely by chance, would be more akin to prohibiting wagers on a coin toss. That's the direct quote. Oh, could you say that again, please? I was trying to read it and now I know you were quoting, okay, sorry. Mr. Macarius stated that the provision in 205CMR 247.034A, regarding not allowing events determined solely by chance, would be more akin or akin, however you want to put the emphasis on this a lot. Prohibiting wagers on a coin toss. There, that's my memory. There we go, guys. It was on, when he said chance, 50-50, yeah. So now let's look at the provision. Not sure why we decided it when I hear today's discussion, but shall not grant the petition otherwise winnings unless the following, the outcome can be verified. And where, and which one is he precisely referring to? Yeah, there it is. Whether and to what extent the outcome of the sporting event or wager category is determined solely by chance. I think we have a prohibition, Andrew, in our regulations and that may be the end of this conversation for now. Am I right, Todd? Well, if you're on mute, I'm sorry to say. Sorry to my heater went off. I'm sorry. Yeah, this all, I don't have a clear memory of that, but that does sound very familiar. I did have a memory and I'm very sorry that I didn't take the time. No, actually I forgot to take the time to go look. I had raised my interest unless we're reading it incorrectly. I feel as though we, our break doesn't allow the point hospice and direct a ban. I can't tell if you're speaking, but we're not hearing you. Yeah, no, I was speaking, I didn't see that right. See that right? I remember, I do remember, that's why they're not in there on visitors and I have to say, I think I understood at the time why we wouldn't want to include it, but it took me a little bit of time during that discussion. What the risk is, Michelle, where it's left up entirely to chance. We don't have, we know what we could, we know what we could do as a solution. Me now will be joining us around one. What if we table this and then we can revisit our regulation and Mr. Macarius can remind us of this? I'm sure, does that make sense? But right now I would say I would borrow, Commissioner Haley just went off on video, but I would say this is not ready for prime time given this regulation. I agree. Okay, Commissioner, did we all set with that then for right now? Okay, Andrew, thank you. Now we know why they were seeking clarification because it wasn't clear. We'll go back to it when we have Mr. Macarius. So in terms of my anticipated timing, we're running just a tab late, but not bad. Andrew, good work. Good work, Director Van. This is all coming together nicely. You're raising the right issues for us and it's all good reminders for us in terms of our regulatory framework. All right, now we're gonna turn to item number seven and then Commissioner will probably think about, well, we'll see. We might be able to get through a, probably we don't need to have some lunch break, but we do have a lot of work this afternoon, including an extensive presentation by Mr. Macarius. So all right, so we're turning now to item number seven and I see, hello Katrina, you're joining us. Good afternoon and- Good afternoon. Is there a lead on this? Is it Carrie? Yes, good afternoon, Madam Chair. I can kick us off here. Madam Chair. Yes, Commissioner Skinner. I'm sorry, I hate to do this. I know we have guests joining for this presentation. Items seven AMB seem to be pretty lengthy items for discussion potentially. And so I would at least need a break, five or 10 minutes if we're not going to break for lunch at 12.36 now after three and a half hours. Yeah, I'm gonna need lunch some point in the near future. Carrie, what do you anticipate for this? I think Commissioner Skinner is correct if there's a chance this could be fairly lengthy. So if you want to take some sort of break now, whether it's a short break or a lunch break, I'm gonna be very mindful that we at some point we have to make sure that Dr. Wall presents because he has a very narrow window. So we're gonna have to go out of order. We've got Mr. Macarius who wasn't available to a one and then we've got a whole group from the Attorney General's office. I'm navigating as well. So I think everyone for their patients, commissioners, could we take about a shorter lunch today? What do we need for time? Well, it's 12.37 now, if we come back by one, that's 23 minutes. Do you feel okay about that? Come back about one. That's fine with me. Yeah. Commissioner Maynard, are you all right? I know you're in the office with me. You okay with that? All right. Okay, everyone, thanks for your patient and thank you, Mr. Christian. Christian, we did see you join. We'll reconvene at one, everyone. Thank you so much for your attention. Commissioner O'Brien, does this sound better or is it still echoing? You sound perfect now. I reset it, but I left the meeting and came back so I don't know what happened. It's just like a glitch. Yeah, it was almost like you had two of them going and you could kind of hear what echoing. It wasn't bad, like we couldn't understand you, but you'd never had it before. Excellent, okay. Thomas, thank you. Hey, Gly, we got that subtle, Brad. And if Katrina is listening, thank you. I thought it was supposed to warm up a little bit today, but ooh, it is still cold out. Well, thanks for that, Brad. Of course, my dog loves that, so she's going, she's barking to get outside every five minutes right now. I have to trench home through that cold, so thanks for that. Sorry, Bob. You don't walk all the way, do you, Bruce? Well, now it's going through that concrete street that's like a wind tunnel up to the de-station, you know? Yeah, yeah. I used to walk home from the train station, but not in this weather. Yeah. I was always told, you know, the old saying about Chicago being the windy city, and they decided to do a wind test, however you do that, and Boston was like number two, or number three in the nation. Because of, you know, the ocean, I'm sure. Yeah, yeah. When I went to school in DC, it was that way too, that wind would just come down the streets and, you know, I guess all the concrete and asphalt just gives up the temperature. I don't know if dogs get sick, and I'm sure they do, but mine's been down and out for the last day or two, just very lethargic. Yeah, probably because of the cold, you know? Yeah, maybe. I feel that way sometimes too. Doesn't make me want to run outside and run around. I have a family member that just came back from Florida. When he got there, it was like 75, 80 degrees. When he left, it was 40 degrees. Oh, wow. So they haven't, they haven't somebody. It sounds like my son, you know, I told you he lives in Fort St. Christy, and he always is playing. So cold. I said, well, what's the temperature? He says 61. I said, stop whining. I always see those pictures on Facebook or whatever. You can tell who the Florida residents are because they're sitting there in their winter coats when it's like 65 and then you see us coming down and we're all without our shirts going into the ocean and swimming. Yeah. In your shorts and everything else, yeah. It's all relative. It is. Boy, things are getting ugly with the teacher strike in Newton, I see. I was just looking at some of the news and one of the teachers got hit by a car and got taken to the hospital while they were out. I think we're still streaming, Brad. It's okay. Thank you. I hope she's all right. Yeah. That's been like 10 days now, is it? I believe so. Brad, can you repeat that please? I was looking at the news and one of the Newton teachers got hit by a car while they were out holding signs and she got taken to a hospital earlier, I guess. Okay. I'll be right there. Thanks so much.  Yeah, we completed our season last Friday. You'd be back next year? I would hope so. That's good. This was a growing year for, I had a very young team, freshmen's and sophomores, and they, you know, they're coming together. Yeah, that always takes time. Yeah, it's a good, good group. I like watching that girl from Iowa play. Yeah, I guess she just came, went into second place last night, I think on the all-time scoring for college. She just has such an outside shot. Yeah. So quick, too, with the release. Yep, it's fun watching somebody play like that. Well, as we're getting into February now, you know, I've been watching the college football games, both male and female, and the cream starts rising to the top, you know, as they start getting ready for March Madness, and boy, there's been some good basketball if you're into it. Oh yeah. I... Commit to hell. Yes. I want to tell you that I have a very, very close friend of mine. I've known forever, he's my college quarterback in high school, high school quarterback, and you know, I tell this in grade school. His daughter is the head basketball coach at Rhode Island College. Oh, nice. She's undefeated, she's ranked like sixth and then eighth, really incredible. So down the road, if you're looking for, if you have one of those kids that come up and it's D3 basketball, certainly think of Rhode Island College. I will for sure. Okay, Dave, thanks everyone. I just have to thank you, I expect to call. So Dave, can you bring down the screen? Thank you. Just seeing, you're waiting for a couple more, I thought it might be last. Great, thanks. Are we live, Dave? Dave, Susan, are we live? Still are. Okay. So I'm reconvening the Massachusetts Gaming Commission's meeting that started this morning at 10. It's public meeting number 498, it's February 1st and I want to thank everybody for a bus meeting but we'll do our roll call, Commissioner O'Brien. I'm here. Patricia Hill. I'm here. Commissioner Skinner. Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Thank you and Commissioner O'Brien. Good afternoon. Okay, we'll get started. So we had quite a discussion around sports wagering, presentation on the general market request around certain Super Bowl clock wagers including coin tosses, which I actually got out correctly, Todd. I don't know if we wanted to revisit it before we end up having Mr. Macarius come on, but I know that you were going to look at that regulation because you weren't sure if it was a strict prohibition or some consideration that the commission would be making. Yes, I did look at the regulation and we can certainly walk through it, of course. But I just, the one point I was just clarifying is that there's not a prohibition on any wagering that involves elements of chance. It's just one of the factors that the commission can consider when making the decision. If we look at the language real quick just a little bit and th