uch category so this is something that we are looking to keep going and expand because right now Jody's pretty much at capacity with this kind of telephone recovery support we're getting more voluntary self-exclusions and so we we'll see this coming fiscal year that we will be hiring some additional hours of peer support that we will also be able to offer people this telephone recovery support on nights and weekends which currently we're not able to offer so we we're looking forward to continuing that and expanding that and where urge surfing fits in with this just really this mindfulness meditation to help you get through your craving you know this is also very evidence based and we were trying to figure out a way to do it that wasn't going to take already limited staff time and we've been thinking thinking thinking and so we decided that for now what we're going to do and it's going to launch within the next week or so that on the gam line somebody will I think it's number three there'll be offered a mindfulness meditation to help them reduce their cravings to gamble and they'll just listen to this five minute mindfulness meditation that we call urge surfing for gambling and at the end they'll be asked to take a brief survey a two-question survey about if it helped them and how much both reduce the urge to gamble and also if it helped them make a better choice in that moment so it'll be really interesting to see what comes out of that and it's again just looking to what can we add for these recovery supports for folks I'm going to jump ahead now to the awards so first EVH we have Kevin and he's just been awesome because he helps the new hires get acquainted with game sense and lets them know how to interact with game sense as a resource for both themselves and patrons at the casino we have Ashley who was super helpful during PGAN we have Tan the security guy he's always just hooking up guests with game sense he's located near the game sense area and he's just always known for like bringing folks over when they need a little extra support so thanks to all of of those people at Encore and now MGM we have pictures for these folks we have Mei Lu she was really helpful with a particular challenging case around a voluntary self exclusion that we wanted to give her a shout out for we have Demetria really brought forth patron who was having struggles with the gambling and also was following up with that patron through game sense and finally Olmar he's known for being one the friendliest people on the property and he's just very dedicated to patron safety and gambling safety and it's always up on the latest game sense activities that are going on and finally at PPC we've got Ryan he's really helped our game sense team get up to speed on sports wagering at Plain Ridge Park we have Molly always empathetic helpful again really proactive about getting guests to game sense and connecting them with game sense advisors when they need some extra help and finally Ann she was working with a patron from out of state who self excluded but was having a hard time getting her win loss statement and so she worked with game sense to make that happen for the patron lastly just a few things that are around the corner Mark already talked about the MGC game sense website which we think looks fantastic and really has a nice clean almost like an apple I think of as like an apple feel clean simple look we are in the third really the third almost final phase of the game sense third party evaluation I know Mark and lung and Bonnie at some point will be reporting to you on that but still working on the game sense advisors are trying to get folks to do patron surveys and working on that diligently we are building on also not coincidentally building a new mass council on gaming and health website so we look forward to sharing that with you at some point in July we're going to be doing four outreach presentations to senior centers in the Plain Ridge Park area super excited about that Amy and Aisha will lead those efforts from MGM and then also end of July is the NCPG conference in Washington DC and a few of us will be going to that and hopefully learning some new things and taking some things back with us about how to enhance what we're doing here in Massachusetts and then lastly it's never too early to start thinking about responsible gambling education month which is in September I think it's fair to say that sports betting will be a focus of that but also play my way more to come and that's all we have for today thank you so much and Odessa and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have and I'll stop sharing my screen thank you Chelsea sorry about the technical difficulties and thank you for being patient with us we we never mind them we're very lucky that we can meet for this flexibility of the virtual platform and it comes with the territory okay I'm going to show you questions excellent excellent report no questions I just had one actually thank you so you mentioned the gambling literacy in Massachusetts is lower than another jurisdiction does that hold true for sports where you're hearing as well or unclear I could probably better I should probably defer to Mark on that question but it's and I'm not sure if we actually I can't remember if we sports betting hadn't launched when we did the research on it to be fair so the they might have included sports betting but it hadn't been live or legal yet so I don't think it would be fair to assess but Mark if you want to correct me or right so we hadn't launched sports by during yet it was the positive play study was done and in 2020 and 2022 gambling literacy doesn't necessarily break it out by gambling type but just overall gambling literacy how people understand the games the odds that that sort of thing so we we don't break it out but massive it was notable to me that gambling literacy and recommitment were the weaker areas and in Massachusetts which is sort of a a guidepost for us to to move towards yeah I'd be curious to know the sports where I know because there's a lot of descriptions of Massachusetts being a more sophisticated market so I don't know if that holds true or whether maybe we think we're more sophisticated than we are but thanks of course other questions other questions commissions very exciting work that's going on with respect to the telephone discovery work look forward to hearing more on that madam chair the telephone recovery support is something I think is a really important service that it started because we recognize that voluntary self-exclusion is an evidence-based practice that helps people reduce their gambling and and overall well-being in the in the evaluation we did that program as well as other evaluations outside of Massachusetts but what what's missing there is that connection of being able to get somebody from voluntary self-exclusion to that next step in their and their recovery journey and you know so this is really intended to to kind of provide them an at the spot of enrollment sort of a soft touch to get them connected to other services or take another step continue to look at their their gambling behavior and I'm really really excited to see that the numbers that are taking advantage of that are going up chair can I just intervene also I agree with mark and as Adessa alluded to we're exploring not extending the telephonic to cyber to digital so we're exploring texting and also sort of having a drop in virtual space for folks because we do understand technology change as sports wagering comes live we do want to sort of explore different technological advances to sort of provide that to folks right right well we'll look forward to it and you're getting metrics so there'll be something to study mom is there anything you want to conclude with no but I think you know commissioner brian asked a really good question and that's something that you know we're excited working with our IT department sort of looking at different ways understanding better those who are via seeing especially the gaming what sort of games they're engaged in and so we have a better understanding who are these folks and you know what information or what sort of intervention what sort of messaging that would be effective to outreach to them but it is exciting and you know the council we're collaborating with them it's great to understand you know where we're at and where we want to go in our directions excellent yeah so yes commissioner I'd just like to add my thanks to the council for Chelsea and Odessa for an excellent presentation and I want to take the opportunity to give an extra special hello to Odessa I think I shared previously that Odessa and I are former colleagues so really good to see your face we don't see you nearly as as much as we see your colleagues at the council but it you know it's a real treat at least for me when you do make an appearance thank you anything else okay well thank you so much and good luck on your continued work we'll see you in another quarter and thank you all for your time yeah thank you and now we're going to turn to back to Mark and I think Dr. Andrews and thank you Monk so much I'm just going to turn right over to Dr. Andrews thank you so much and thank you madam chair and commissioners I'm incredibly excited to be introducing this presentation for you today as you know the expanded gaming act established in the annual research agenda to understand the social and economic effects and mitigate the negative consequences of casino gambling in massachusetts to fulfill this statutory mandate the commission adopted a strategic research plan that outlines research in seven key focus areas including community engaged research in community engaged research the specific research topic or question is developed by the community through a community driven process the commission funded neighbor to neighbor a community action organization based in massachusetts that focuses on issues of social justice such as housing voting rights and employment in partnership with jsi research and training to conduct a study on the effects of the presence of a casino on housing related issues primarily among Hispanic residents in springfield there's been relatively little attention in research literature on the impact of casino on housing related issues neighbor to neighbor aims to add to the development and implementation of housing related policies that are informed by the lived experience of vulnerable communities this study engaged the community in the research process through a community research team consisting of local residents staff from neighbor to neighbor and technical assistance providers from jsi this approach allowed for the inclusion of the lived experience of community members in the research process and helped to ensure that the findings are relevant and applicable to the local context here today to present the findings of this study views and perspectives of springfield Hispanic residents towards the mgm casino their homes community and neighborhoods are zoomily Rivera principal investigator from neighbor to neighbor and dr ridolfo vega from jsi so i'll turn it over to the two of them and we're excited to have them here with us today hi hi everyone nice to see you all again thank you to the gaming commissioners and especially to like our community research team our springfield community it's been a long journey so we're excited to to be back here especially to our reviewers too that was that was a big one today so we're going to be reporting on our process and our findings um are we managing our slides or is managed on your end you should be able to share the slides there's a share screen button at the bottom or i can share the slides for you of course of course i can surma you want me to look to do it yeah okay okay and now yeah so this is just our introduction of slide my i'm zuma li revero again was the principal investigator i'm also an organizer with neighbor to neighbor we we are an action fund per se but we are this is part of our education fund where we literally go out to our communities and get their perspectives understanding and really try to give a true story and statement of what people's experiences are at that moment I also want to give a shout out to my compañero here Rudy Dr Rudy vega um so only our consultant with our with the john snow institute um can we switch slides oh i'm sorry i am the one doing this yeah all right so i have most of my lit on um some of my report backs on these slides and so the goal of this this study was really to it's examining the impacts of housing related issues in here in springfield with a focus on the latino Hispanic community the team which is the SRT which is the community research team was compressed of 11 community members some neighbor neighbor staff and the jsi assistance with their technical and research strategies for consulting us the study was conducted in four different phases it was a discovery phase the community engagement the data collection analysis and the decimation of the project and so in the discovery phase of our study which included some contractual agreements where we kicked off a meeting there was like the program staffing process of it the the education portion of it you know making sure that the IRBs were approved and the stakeholders we were you know to identify them and then the research protocols and technical assistance that planned that helped us plan this data analysis and develop in its phase itself i'm going to turn it over to Rudy to speak a little bit about our community engagement phase during the community engagement phase the work was done for to get the buy-in from the community and engage them train them elicit their questions where we train them on basic research methodologies we train them on structural racism we we train them on problem gambling and the next one after that was the data collection piece and the recollection we collected two hundred and ninety surveys we interview sixty three people we analyze your graphical information systems data on all of the gun shootings that happened between 2010 and 2020 there was a supplementary study and we also collect basic data on race language zip codes during the dissemination phase and so Mali you were the one that put this presentation together with the fair that you did that's in the summer presenting this to the community we presented this a number of times to the community and we collected recommendation for addressing related issues we want to go to the the typical participant you're right now we are going to go into the survey the survey finding these are the quantitative findings and soon we're going to tell us who was the typical the typical respondent yeah thanks Rudi so the typical participant here and us as a grassroots organization we you know we ask folks to participate there is a process but overall our participants were Spanish-speaking Hispanics born in Puerto Rico from the ages of which averaged an age of 46.2 I don't know how to how that number came about because it's just data analysis but they were living in rental apartments in the 01105 area and then sorry and can you go to the next five please no okay our community members if there is a third person asking something no okay so yes go ahead I'm sorry so our community members living in 01105 thought that social problems got better while those living in 01104 thought that the problems got worse and soon my goal and by problem this is what we mean and let's stay here for let's stay here for a while this is what we ask respondents before the casino open in your opinion was prostitution drug selling drug use fighting HIV using weapons through and see was that a big problem smart problem or not a problem okay then we ask after 2018 when the casino open was prostitution was a big problem a small problem or no problem there are three options here and we did the conversion statistical if it was a big problem before and not a problem after that means the things got better if it was a small problem before and a big problem after that means the things got worse and of course not a problem before not a problem after then that means that things stay stay the same I want to I want you guys to look at I want you to commissioners and participants I want you to look at what we are doing here okay no no no no no that that's the that's the one let me go back for one second I want to so the zip codes are next to the zip codes are next to to each other those those two zip codes are place next to next to each other all three and all five and there are no hardly any any differences between between the two there are no no difference between the two so Sumali are we what slides are we watching now yeah we can go to um slide 11 and this is that's the birthplace I mean did you see so you can see my slides yeah we can okay okay okay go go go ahead yeah we have to switch to slide 11 okay okay here you go I don't know I we it hasn't updated on my screen I don't know one about anyone else maybe okay let me let me let me let me do it let me do it let me do it again okay okay can you see it now I can yep okay okay so we when we were doing our research we realized that the birthplace it really didn't have a significant association with the perception of the social problems on there that is whether you were born in Puerto Rico or whether you were born in the United States there was no difference in perceptions that things got better or that things got worse and another thing that we should say is that the people that we asked that questions were people that have lived there at least four years before the casino opened you know so we took that consideration into account next and this is regarding home ownership people that own people that home owners people that own homes they thought that the problems got better that the things the situation got better after the arrival of the casinos while the renters they tend to see the things stay about the same so the researchers found we also asked questions about safety quality of life and rental affordability and those were significantly related to improve social conditions let me translate that that means that people who tend to say yeah I feel safe here I feel very safe here people who say that my quality of life is good yes I can afford the rent they are the same people who say that social conditions changed that things in the casino got better okay so yeah this is about the interviews yeah so some of the conclusions or some of the feedback that we got from the interviews like Rudy said this the 60 interviews they they revealed like a broad category of like perceptions of like how they view the casino which highlighted both positive and negative aspects of the casino's presence and so some positive aspects was the job creation the entertainment the improvement on the aesthetics on how it looked in the neighborhood while the negative aspects including like the crime shifts and the concerns about being criminalized and so like the so the casino perspectives perceptions and I'm going to reach a quote here they were you know they again they they're appreciative of the job opportunities that were created and the vast improvements again on the aesthetics of the neighborhood and one of the quotes were impacted it's impacted like I said before by providing jobs stable income providing the family with you know able to pay the bills they said you know if there were to build it somewhere else they could have built the in lower income how they could have built lower income housing and persuaded their workers that that to work for them while they provide you know while they were able to live in the affordable housing that could have been provided for them can you go to the next one the one negative aspect of it a quote was where they attributed to the casino was the high the rent increase and housing prices also the higher police presence that might lead to the criminalization and they pointed out that police tend to prioritize responses to incidents in the casino over what occurs in their community okay and this is about gentrification yeah so that was another concern of our our community members about the gentrification one quote was a quote was well because in my in my mind there's displaced they're displacing everyone and everyone has nowhere to go now because it's going up in prices and that can't be good for the market right very negatively the casino has caused a lot of gentrification in springfield in the downtown area because it's it's right downtown on main street so yeah cool no you go ahead no no so these are two two important findings right the concerns about gentrifications and and the issue that residents seen more police presence that doesn't necessarily translate into a sense of safety you know that doesn't necessarily translate into a sense of safety and you can yeah you can see this here this room again yeah so while some residents feel more secure due to the increase in foot traffic and the police presence and others still remain very concerned about the potential crime in the area and the influx of outsiders due to the neighborhood right in the downtown area the aesthetics are you know phenomenal they're lit up but you go down the street and they're really concerned about you know some of the crimes being like pushed pushed pushed up the street another you can go so another like perception that we had was that some interviewees said that having the police presence around them doesn't necessarily make them feel safe although that's like the idea that we that's you know given that more police more protection but there's a huge disconnect with the community and law enforcement and having them around doesn't make them necessarily feel safe in the area one of the quotes that we had is that so it's interesting because we're supposed to feel safer because of the casino but like more cops but we but you don't feel safer the fact is we have more we have more just because we have more doesn't make you feel safer which has been a narrative for the Latino community for a long time and you know many participants they and knowledge that crime existed before the casino opened these residents they were talking about the life circumstances they were not making attributions to the casino they are talking about how they feel you can see the dialectic the paradox between these between people say I don't feel safe with all of these outsiders coming in people that I don't even know and others say I feel afraid to so many police in here so this this you know these two that at least two things contradicting contradicting each this is what one of the providers one of the respondents tell you I wanted to tell you the truth the 31 years that I have been living here and in this area is one of the poorest I live in the historic area which is just a little bit but around where I live which is union and school I haven't seen a big change in terms of crime they have always been prostitutes on the corner for the 31 years that I've been there they have always been drug dealings and the police have the time to clean up all of all of that and there is time when you have to fight with the police so that they can come back to to to clean up some people say crime has increased others say they can decrease and other people say it has moved to other places okay when mark commission I'm not Mark I'm not Mark when the Massachusetts gaming commission commission the study on crime and the Springfield casino they concluded that there was no really noticeable changes like increases in crime around the area but what we did and and we examine the same data said that was presented to the commission like a couple of years ago and what we found was yes no significant increase however it has shifted it has shifted to other places stay the same the crime has shifted there is another deep we did the study and and we think that that's the main that's the gist of the of the study that yes crime has not increased for in the last 10 years before they be comparing the before and after the casino open crime has shifted we didn't present the study today because that's like we don't have the time to present that entire study yeah it says that that the resource shows that that is confirmed that it has shifted also just listening take a look at the what we've been listening from the community they are telling us these folks that have a sense of belonging that they're satisfied with the quality of life those are the ones that say what things conditions here are are are improving conditions here are really improving we do know that a strong sense of community and belonging and their sentiments of sentiment of social and inclusion social and emotional support I'll let you Sumali these recommendations yeah thank you yeah so some of our recommendations which also came from our subjects or our community were you know that politicians and stakeholders should consider investing resources that enhance social the social circumstances in the location locations that were that located some of these conditions that deteriorated since the casino opened such as in the 01103 area code the study collected information about participants like you know the age ethnicity again the birthplace race a number of years living in Springfield zip code among other things but based on our results we suggest that money should be put into resources to help build the community such as education some more leisure and public safety can go to the next slide please yes so followings are some examples of educational and communal spaces that benefit the community the community centers are a place where people can go gather for social educational recreational activities they can offer various programming and servicing such as after-school programs sports weeks fitness classes etc around job training and something closer to their neighborhood versus like a south end community center where they have to go a little further out they would like something in the neighborhood for the neighborhood again libraries are important for educational resources that provide access to like books technology education programs that they don't currently have and the other recommendation is examples the communal spaces which are the park and rec spaces that provide physical activity socialization relaxing opportunities youth programs are huge asked in that neighborhood after that offer opportunities for young people to develop in their skills explore interests and connect with their peers adult education programs that offer lifelong learning skills ESL classes that were provided at some point from other institutions but no longer really available like that and they can also include classes topics such as like computer skills you know language justice which is huge and financial literacy and that would be the end of our recommendations right now I can say that I can say that from my experience that the community research group they were educated like Rudy said on the systems right and how systems work and they pretty much govern our lives because these in grassroots organizing um we have to take into consideration the lived experience and the story that they're saying I can say like from my experience that some of these folks these folks these folks told their true experience but may not understand the systemic like the systemic part of the systemic portion of the education so they may not they may although some homeowners may see it as positive because it's the aesthetics are great and lit up they're not really seeing the impacts of like how when the casino came the increase in their taxes because of property values was really tied into the you know the the like the upbringing or the how should I say it the the investment into the neighborhood made it so that their property values go up so although the aesthetics look great I don't know if they're tying the property values or their taxes you know because of the upgrade to the community and in the other part where those that say it got worse are experiencing at that I think they're they're hate to say it but almost accustomed to living in these poor conditions right and I and not that they should they feel or they're stating that they should have better living conditions but it when they say it hasn't gotten better that I mean that it hasn't changed but doesn't necessarily mean that it's gotten better it's it's actually everyday experience for them to live under these conditions where when we did ask what can be what can you have to help your neighborhood considering that gun violence is a real thing and that we're constantly trying to figure out how we're going to combat that crime is constantly happening and so these recommendations came at like you know community resources where you know crisis center you know the after-school program the safe place for these folks to come to to be able to to you know just not feel like they're surviving on their own right that there this is some places that they can come to to I would say maybe enhance or better their situation so that you know they can make the most informed decisions for their for themselves so and my commissioner we would like to thank you for your time commissioner Skinner I want to say that we are also in the Odessa bandwagon we like Odessa a lot and the work that that she does and we now will open the floor for questions missioners questions thank you Dr. Vega Ms. Rivera excellent we've been looking forward to this report thank you missioners Michelle Bryan so I was trying to just translate the zip codes to the actual city and so I just googled while we were sitting here and I just want to make sure I had it right that the the 0-1-1-0-5 is the area that encompasses the casino itself and that the 0-1-1-0-3 is heading for the central center and beyond is that the fair description of the code areas you sorry the I don't know if it's my zoom but I you know it was commissioner Bryan you just there's always did it follow I had to go to data because the wi-fi was is kluji I think your your question is generally what areas do the two zip codes comprise? right right what generally described each of the zip codes the one that thought on the other way Dr. Vega okay can you see can you see my screen we can we can look where the end this is zip code 0-1-1-0-3 only like 2,000 people this is zip code 0-1-1-0-5 12,000 people when you if you google compare zip code 0-1-1-0-5 0-1-1-1-0-3 the demographic just about the same 1-0-3 similarly it's like it shows to be like 47% Latino 0-5 it's like 78% Latino but income housing it just those issues are about the same look where the casino is located the casino strutters the line between 0-3 and and 0-5 and summa you you have some things to say about those two neighborhoods say you know more than any of us about those two neighborhoods yeah so 0-1-1-0-5 tends to be more homeowners we we canvassed up and and receive and receive feedback from those more headed toward the state forest park area but where the casino is which is the 0-1-1-0-3 5 like borderline we still have like what we we still have why don't I just like that's the area that seems to be getting worse and it's not right where the casino is on main street it's a couple of blocks up like the high union street area where it's just it just continues to get worse the train station towards the union station no not the train station toward if you pass by state street high street it's in the 0-1-1-0-5 I wish I could just like have a cursor to point out but you know the high street area which is very high crime prostitution a lot of just a lot of criminal activity happening there and we've been trying to remedy like what is what is like you know I don't know if police presence is is is needed sometimes they sweep the streets and sometimes we have to like ask for them to come you know and be there but it doesn't make the community safe so we're still trying to figure out what's the real remedy continuous work but even though the people from 0-1-1-0-5 are saying you know yes it's gotten better the some of the shift that used to be on main street growing up as particularly for me right has shifted up more toward that high street high street school street area which I believe straddles between 0-1-1-0-3 and 0-1-1-0-5 thank you other questions so one of the group follow-up saying I don't think you can delve into this in any depth but Mark Ford and Dr. Andrews director Vandalan they this report comes with a set of recommendations so I guess I'd love to see some recommendations might be outside of our control but we have the ability to pass on these reports and live their recommendations and highlight some of the recommendations to other stakeholders and then there might be some recommendations where we could act so I guess maybe the follow-up for you Dr. Andrews and director Vandalan and this is just that right to keep this research alive and sort of thank you Madam Chair certainly this is this is a key stakeholder group the report earlier this week was shared with the Springfield Health Department including the director Colton Harris and the Teresa remember Teresa's last name but anyway Teresa's last name yes thank you we've also shared it with MGM Springfield who is also a key stakeholder in this and understanding its role as a community member and community member in these two zip codes and then certainly above and beyond we can continue to kind of carry this forward this might be a great report to share with the the legislature you know to send out to those who are interested not particularly if you have some legislatures who have expressed interest in the Springfield area so if we could follow up with that maybe Grace and Karen can I see Karen I don't see Grace and looking but Karen may have other ideas too for stakeholders we'll leave it at that Commissioner is there any others? And I just want to add if I can add one more thing that these were interviews that took about like maybe 30 minutes right and so these are giving broad overarching kind of experience of like what the participants understand the world around them as is right and so there is opportunity to go a little deeper with them in the sense of education around their lived experience and the systems that they live under and I I believe that if we do happen to continue in the future that one of our learning curves from here is that we have to go a little deeper in the relationship that will be part of it so that we can understand what is their understanding of like their lived experience and what is actual but again with our participants you know just giving interview these were not like deeply rooted understandings these were well they were deeply rooted understandings but I think there's an opportunity to go a little like more in depth without the what's your future participants with relation relational organizing and Zoma if I can and just add to that that's the beauty of this research agenda and our research mandate is that we embarked on this community-based participatory research because other research methodologies wasn't really tapping into perhaps what that human condition is that human experience and largely people who may be disproportionately affected by by gambling or by the presence of a casino so I think this report really did a fantastic job of highlighting the experience of those community members but it's triangulated with late in the summer we have a casino jobs impact report that will come out that we'll talk about you talked about casino jobs and that they're but let's talk about what kind of casino jobs there are and how what kind of impact that's having we have another Springfield public safety report and you talked about how perhaps the data analysis from the previous report wasn't necessarily representative of crime shifts that you observed in the community so we have another public safety report that is going to come up sometime this summer and then we're embarking and the commissioners you approved a study examining the impact of casinos on human trafficking across across the state it's this idea that we have this fantastic research agenda that allows us to take a look at any of these specific issues from a variety of different perspectives in order to have a a clearer more robust picture of what's of what's happening exciting yeah excellent okay commissioners any other the good questions Dr. Vegas always great to see you Mr. Fair thank you and I do feel that with the potential of a continuity I'm sure that there's further opportunities for building trust and in the depth in the of the intake that you're you're seeking leave that to Director Vandalinen and Dr. Andrews as to next projects thank you thank you so thank you for having us nice to see you all later thank you very much okay coming to our agenda commissioners we have next that completes our research and responsible gaming we have Christo Bushman who's going to give us an update on the lottery for the sports wagering division and I'm at a conference here and I just want to note that I was approached by a few people and they are so appreciative of the sports wagering division Bruce and Stirls and Christo's work so I just want to say it's so nice to to meet perfect strangers and have them rave about our team and know that all commissioners and I are very very proud of that so thank you thanks Christo Madam Chair I wonder if this is a time to break to grab something to eat I know I need it I don't know about anyone else 15 minutes will do it for me if that suffices for others I appreciate if it could be 15 minutes only because I would like to get to the conference so I this 15 minutes work for you folks I know Jordan looks like Commissioner you're in the office that's harder for you you need a half an hour no I'm buying with 15 minutes actually we could do 20 I'm gonna need about 20 we can't hear you we can't hear you Eileen Eileen you're maybe um you can work on as you're you're not coming through in your connectivity that sounds like she's asked for 20 minutes I heard 20 minutes I'm just thinking if she can get her all right so we'll reconvene at 110 that works everybody thanks thank you everyone and just like Karen for your team I hear sorry for your team you know everybody stays on during these meetings that is not a requirement of the commissioners for sure I assume that they're just not really tuning in but if they want to turn off completely they can okay because we can always call them but I'm noticing you know today it's a very lengthy meeting and everybody is hanging in there but that's not my requirement that's for sure and I don't think it's probably a requirement of any commissioner so thanks okay thank you so much how's everybody doing then we're back we are back right Dave if you could take down the screen that would be great okay so this is a convening of the Massachusetts Game Commission we met we've been meeting since nine this morning holding it remotely so we'll do a roll call Michelle O'Brien Michelle O'Brien are you here I don't think she's here I can hear you Kathy hold on thanks Commissioner Hill are you here I'm here Michelle Skinner are you here no can you hear us Eileen on the meeting it's Karen because Kathy was trying to Commissioner Skinner good afternoon good afternoon Commissioner Maynard good afternoon good afternoon can you Eileen should try it now she switched devices okay I can hear you there you I can hear you can you hear us hold on a second Sturl is suggesting the chat which I appreciate but we do have to kind of have a regular record of this so and Commissioner O'Brien needs to be able to precipitate how's that I mean still no go you didn't so Dave Susa says if she can't hear us it's probably a speaker input snack which she can access in the bottom left corner where the mute function is so does she need to go to that carrot are you going to call her Karen yeah let me thanks please this is I think the the our most difficulties in terms of tech our meeting Commissioner Maynard you didn't end up having to restart huh no I did I switched to my iPad long enough to restart the computer then the computer restarted and I switched it back out of the iPad she didn't pick up so I'm not sure if she's on the phone someone else or oh I think she's calling in that may just resolve everything oh gotcha okay okay so can you hear me now on the phone there we go yeah okay yeah I don't know I literally have a screen, a computer, an iPad, and a phone so we'll have to use four devices today and internet connection so there we go all right Commissioner Maynard are you here I'm not here I'm actually not here believe it or not after all that on every platform right you're not here any platform yeah all right so we're going to get we're going to get started we're just back on the public meeting number 462 I'm returning to our sports weight ring division and Director Bann I mentioned that I'm at a conference and there are nice compliments headed your way and your team Sterl and Crystal so yes today we have a crystal mutual reporting on the sports weight ring licensees and working with the lottery division Crystal thanks first so my remarks today are actually really brief lucky you in your packets I did provide a summary document of the responses we received regarding the communications with the lottery from our operators at this point almost all of our operators have had introductory meetings with the lottery and I've had a few brief conversations with no longer in term Executive Director Mark William Bracken who has stated that he's glad for the outreach at this point and is in the process of evaluating the conversations and proposals he's heard to determine what's best for the lottery myself and the sports weight ring division will follow up to see if there's any work MGC can do on our end to assist or facilitate but that's my comments at this point and just a quick side note that we have asked all operators to include a brief summary update on their work or conversations with the lottery in their quarterly reports going. Any questions? Any feedback? Good memo. Any questions? Just appreciate the work. Okay. Crystal, we thank you. We thank you for the Commissioner Hill. Yeah. Yep, the only thing I would say is thank you for staying on top of this. This was something that we all cared about during the process of the applications and we want to ensure that the promises that were made to us are kept. So thank you for staying on top of it and then the memo was excellent as was the presentation. Thank you. Well, and just to echo Commissioner Hill, thanks for your work on this Crystal. I just said I want to make note of a comment by one of our operators relative to a regulation that they may have been expecting the Commission to promulgate relative to mitigation and just asking legal to take a look at that. I don't remember the discussion. Apparently it was on January 19th but just make sure just if you could legal and I guess Bruce and Crystal and Sterl take a look at that to see if there's anything that the Commission needs to do in order to I don't know put some teeth behind the application requirements and that will enable us to continue to ensure that the operators are meeting those obligations around lottery mitigation. Thank you. Okay, anything else? All right. Thanks, Crystal. Appreciate it very much. Now we're moving to Chief Lennon and Commissioner Skinner as treasurer and team. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm just going to kick it right off to Derek Chief Lennon who needs no introduction. The only thing I'll say beyond that is directly to Derek and his team. Thank you all so very much and the staff as well for putting together such a competent budget for FY24. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and commissioners. I'm joined by John Scully and I'm pretty sure Doug O'Donnell is on the phone for any questions regarding revenue. He had an emergency that he's trying to deal with but he did say he would be on the phone if there were any questions. We're here to review staff's budget recommendations for fiscal year 2024. The budget documents begin on page 184 of the public meeting packet. The MGC went through its annual process for developing a budget and then on June 1st presented those recommendations to the commission for consideration. In addition to the details of increases, decreases, expansion that we recommended, we also in that public meeting discussed and adding an additional FT for the executive director as well as adding 750,000 to the sports wager and control fund to alleviate the timing of expansion or additional contract of assistance needed. And then we'd come back and updated each quarterly budget meeting on those. We posted the budget with those two additions for public comment for two weeks and we did not receive any public comments. We reached out to a few people who had thought about providing them and said they might to verify that we didn't miss anything and we were confirmed. No, they did not want to provide any public comment at this time. As a result of the aforementioned, we're recommending an operational budget of 55.79 million that funds approximately 134 FT's and six contract employees. The MGC's FY24 budget of 55.79 million represents a $6.4 million increase or about 12.86 percent over the currently approved FY23 budget and is funded from the Gaming Control Fund, Racing Oversight Development Fund, the Community Mitigation Fund, the Sports Wager and Control Fund and the Public Health Trust Fund. We went into the details of all this information in the packet on June 1st. So in today's presentation, we'll give a high-level overview just as a reminder of the budget as well as the changes and how they, of where they were added from the June 1st meeting. This budget does include a revised cost allocation method for charging the costs of staff that work across programs and racing, gaming, indoor sports wagering. And we also shifted 28.5 percent of the lease and shared IT costs from the Gaming Control Fund to the Sports Wager and Control Fund. The tables on page three of the memorandum illustrates the changes in FTEs as well as how the cost allocation adjustments distribute FTEs across each line item within the Commission's budget. We're recommending an FY24 budget of $37.46 million for the Gaming Control Fund. It's a 4.15 percent increase over the currently approved FY23 budget. Just a reminder, this item funds both our regulatory costs as well as statutorily required costs. 65 percent of the cost for the new position for the Executive Director's Office is included in here and increased that budget. The Racing Development and Oversight Trust Fund is decreasing by 5.6 percent in FY24 from the currently approved FY23 levels. That can be seen on page seven of the memo or page 190 of the packet. Decrease is coming just as a reminder for this one, the decrease is coming from the revised cost allocation implementation and the shared costs are going from 10 percent in previous years down to 6.5 percent in this most recent cost allocation plan. Following suit, 6.5 percent of the new Executive Director's Position, the new position for the Executive Director's Office is included in this funding as well. Community Mitigation Fund is staying consistent to where we were before at the June 1st meeting at $385,000 and that represents a 10 percent increase from FY23 funding levels. Staff is recommending an FY24 budget of $9.12 million for the sports wagering control fund. This is a 92 percent increase from where it's approved this year. This increase includes the additional $750,000 as discussed on June 1st and shows up in the table in the memo on page 8 under Object Class 00. This item also funds 28.5 percent of the new position for the Executive Director's Office. So now that position is funded out of the gaming control fund racing and the sports wagering control fund and then the $750,000 addition is also funded under the sports wagering control fund. Finally, we're recommending a $5.9 million budget for the Public Health Trust Fund and this is a 12 percent increase and that did not change from our June 1st meeting. Moving on to the assessments, this is a big area where the memo did change. The budget requires assessments on gaming licensees for the gaming control fund as well as $5 million for the Public Health Trust Fund. On June 1st, we were unable to provide assessment amounts in apportionment for the gaming control fund and the Public Health Trust Fund as we did not have estimated gaming positions and slot machine counts from all of the licensees. Since that meeting, Doug has received those estimates and the difference between our gaming control fund budget and revenue estimates amounts to approximately $33.65 million which will be assessed upon our gaming licensees as shown on page 10 and required by both Chapter 23K and our regulations. The same proportion, yes? Oh, my apologies. That's all right. I'm reading my notes so if I hear anything, I jump over. The same proportion of gaming positions will be utilized to divvy up the $5 million Public Health Trust Fund assessment on gaming licensees. That's shown on page 10 of the memorandum as well. The budget requires two additional assessments on sports wagering licensees, one for the sports wagering control fund and another $1 million assessment for the Public Health Trust Fund. In the meeting on June 1st, we were unable to provide the apportionment of these assessments as we recommended using the actual adjusted gross sports wagering receipt figures of licensees from implementation to the end of May 2023. We didn't post those until June 15th on our website. Since we've posted those, we can now say that the assessment we are recommending is $8.16 million for the sports wagering control fund and it's to be divided across the 13 sports wagering licensees shown on page 11 of the memorandum. One of the things we did say is this would get us started and then on our first quarterly update, we would come back and provide an assessment of based on what they actually brought in through June 30th of this year as the statute contemplates in our regulation contemplates. We also brought up in that meeting that we would take a look at the we had two licensees that were not going to have any adjusted gross sports wagering receipts by the end of May and we would give them an assessment which is the same as the lowest licensee for adjusted gross sports wagering receipts which I think was 0.25 percent 0.25 of a percent or 25 basis points and those that 0.5 percent was taken away from I think that's dug on the in the car so he may be chiming in to correct me on anything. That's me directly you're correct. Yes that 0.5 percent from those two were taking away from the highest garner which would be DraftKings in conclusion and then finally the million dollar assessment on sports wagering licensees to be deposited in the public health trust fund is shown on page 12 and it uses those same adjusted gross sports wagering receipts except we back out the brick and mortar or the three licensees who have in person sports books because the statute said that that million dollars is spread across everyone except people who have casino licenses in conclusion we're proposing an FY 24 budget control fund FY 24 gaming control fund budget of 37.46 million a research and responsible gaming budget funded from the public health trust fund of 5.9 million the community mitigation fund administration and oversight budget of 385,000 a sports wagering control fund budget of 9.12 million and a racing and oversight development fund budget of 2.93 million we're open to any conversation at this point and additional consideration and I think we I apologize it's shorter I just didn't want to get into all the same details we went over on June 1st but we're here to answer any questions or refresh any memories deck I have one quick question I remember the issue around the assessments on the three you know the two that haven't started generating revenue yet but I missed the impact on draftings that last line that you said please so we had so we had to take that away from someone otherwise we'd have 100.5% so we just reduced it from the heaviest one okay offset that all right thanks okay commissioners questions okay I thought commissioner bryan was leaning in commissioner hill are you all my all my questions were answered on June 1st so appreciate the second go around and I'm happy to report that there were no public comments and that our operators seem to be okay with what's being proposed okay commissioner skinner are you ready to move I most certainly am I move that the commission approved the FY 24 budget that's included in the commissioners packet and discussed here today second okay any further questions or edits as to the motion all right commissioner bryan and she for the record I saw her say I but our vocals aren't working commissioner hill I commissioner skinner I commissioner Maynard all right my vote yes so with commissioner bryan's okay the thumbs up she's trying to get her phone back but she's gives us a thumbs up on this vote so five zero for the budget excellent work to Derek and company John it's nice to see you thank you so much and I know people and it's always important for you and you're so proud of your team if you want to give them full credit right now go ahead and list away thank you John Doug Noel Cherise Jay Jacqueline Sarah it's just you know it's a great team Nikesha coming in and helping out Karen this is our last budget and it's kind of sad but you know into all of the directors I mean this is where it all starts right they give us the information we get to come up here and present it and to the commission for being so thoughtful on these areas and working with us on some of these challenges because none of it's easy you know we'd love to be able to give the perfect assessments at the beginning but you work with the framework that you have and we appreciate the commission working with all of us on that so thank you excellent all right but thank you well I forgot Jay Lee too because he's on vacation I apologize Jay Lee never want to leave him out thank you appreciate it okay then we're moving on to legal and our we've got a couple of regs to consider today and I think Commissioner O'Brien do you want to just test right now again can you hear me now we can okay so I went back to the original iPad on wi-fi so we're we're going back to the beginning well hopefully this works for the remainder of the meeting okay great thank you all right so now I'm turning to Carrie good afternoon yes good afternoon madam chair and commissioners so we have two regulations for you today for discussion we will start with 205 CMR 255 the play management regulation it begins on page 258 of your packet this regulation just to remind you is currently in effect by emergency it's been working its way through the promulgation process and we did receive some comments during the comment period and have made some adjustments to the draft regulation in response to those comments so I'm going to turn it right over to Annie Lee from Anderson and Krieger to walk us through those comments and those changes thank you Carrie and good afternoon commissioners and madam chair as Carrie said the play management regulation as you'll see on the cover memo on page 257 of your packet just briefly lays out the history of the play management regulation as you'll recall this regulation came before the commission on January 20th 2023 during that meeting the commission discuss some components of the technological feasibility of what was initially proposed including having play management options available on kiosk as well as things like a net loss and so after discussion from the commission and also with input from gli we revised that regulation to address some of the concerns raised including inclusion of the kiosk and the complexities of some of the specific play management options that were first included and the regulation was brought back to the commission on May 4th when the commission voted to promulgate this regulation by emergency in the interim between January and May the commission received a number of comments about the technological capabilities again what was it seemed that comments were largely addressed on sort of the feasibility of having play management options on kiosk which had already been addressed during the commission's January 20th meeting these comments start on page 261 of your packet and are in reverse chronological order so the comments that were received originally in January are going to be at the end of your comments between May to today there were some follow-up comments continuing to raise concerns about sort of the technological aspects of what was included in the regulations specifically the commission's requirement that operators remind patrons on a monthly basis to enroll in play management if they haven't already there were also a number of comments received on the requirement to conspicuously display a notification to patrons when they're first accessing a platform that play management is available those comments were largely those comments said that those aspects weren't infeasible but required a little bit more time for build-out and also testing and so those operators I believe six of them submitted requests for waivers from those specific parts of the regulation and the commission approved all waivers on May 23rd so for the large part those comments have all been addressed the comments that we also received prior to today's meeting specifically on June 20th the close of the comment period also raised some questions about whether or not operators could impose additional or perhaps more restrictive play management options and what the commission currently contemplates so for example one operator raised that when they loosen restrictions so that is to say when a player sort of raises their budget and say they have a daily budget rather than what the commission is currently included in its regulation which is that loosening will take place the next business day this operator said our practice is to allow that loosening 72 hours rather than 24 hours so a longer period before it takes effect and so to clarify this we included some red line which is on page 260 of your packet to clarify that if operators want to impose in addition to new limitations they want to do something that's slightly different to what's already required so that is to say if they want to tinker around the edges there is the ability to do that if they submit that request to the commission and the commission grants approval of it and so this is the only sort of change to the regulation that we are recommending following from the version that was approved on in May happy to answer any questions and just to add one thing there so the version of the regulation that's currently in effect that emergency expires on August 9th so we recognize that should you accept these changes today and vote on this version of the reg with the red lining in 255.06 that operators might need some time to get those written requests in so it would allow them time this final version we would file on July 21st and it would ultimately go into effect on August 4th so we could work with the sports wagering division to allow the operators time to get those written requests in Questions and they and this would have to come in front of the commission rather than the sports wagering division that's the way we've written it but that's certainly you know if the commission would prefer to to delegate delegate those approvals to the sports wagering division we could certainly adjust the language commissioners I guess the only question I have about the language is is I'm assuming this was written to say you can be more restrictive if you want to be or is this also offering them to be less restrictive because I wouldn't want to change the language that allows them to ask for less restrictive than what we set out the intent is for more restrictive we're not suggesting that the operators can lower the floor on play management options but rather if they want to impose something that's more restrictive than what's currently in the regulations such as a default deposit limit for players under 25 or again a longer period before a loosened sort of budget takes effect then that's that's how they would utilize or that's how they would seek permission from the commission to implement that play management option so the only thing I'm wondering is should we just have a short phrase that makes that very clear that what you can what you can request in 255.06 shall in no event loosen the limitations otherwise set forth in 255 loosen left lesson I don't know what term you want to use but yeah less restrictive I think is the phrase yeah yes we can wondering if we need that phrase we can certainly include that for just clarification purposes at the end of 255.06 to say nothing in this section shall be construed to permit a less restrictive limitation right so if we include that commissioners would be would this be a place where we can have the sports flagering division not have to come back in front of us trying to create some efficiencies here Karen you want to weigh in there yes I mean I think you know the chair and I've had talks about this and we're actually talking about this quite recently that you know we've got a lot going on at the agency so creating some efficiencies and allowing staff to be able to make some decisions as appropriate may help because our mission has expanded greatly with the introduction of sports wagering so you could either have the sports wagering division or it could be an or so the commission without having to change the regulation could allow at some point the division to handle it and then they would of course consult with Dr. Vandalin correct missioners Mission Hill I have no problem having the sports division take the sports wagering division take care of this issue and not have it come to us however if we could have language in there that allows it to come to us should there be a need I'd feel comfortable with that as well but I have no problem delegating this to the sports wagering division my feeling on that I mean I I think some combination of the sports wagering division and our responsible gaming team makes sense I wonder if we should have it in the reverse though that we should delegate the authority because it centers around play management which is a responsible gaming tool that Mark Vandalin did and his team should perhaps take the lead on that with consultation with our sports wagering division Karen I think it probably is helpful for you to think about that it's a sports wagering matter and I know you're integrating everything from different sides what do you think yeah I mean I I'm certainly open to however you'd like to do it I think that the thinking on just the big picture model of the sports wagering division was that we have these new operators and that division is going to have to interact and be working with all the other divisions in the office legal finance responsible gaming all of that so I think the model is that there would be collaboration and cooperation so you could do it either way I just think the model may have envisioned more of the decision making at that one central hub because that's going to be the person that has those relationships and contacts with all the operators on a daily basis but you can do it and the request would go in that way too right I express so yeah what do you think commissure skinner that makes sense the only thing I would then maybe insist upon is to have more of an active role by responsible gaming so rather than a consult you know require some form of approval right some form of sign off in that rather than just you know because there could very well the opinions of each division could differ so I would want to make sure that we are you know I understand that this is is a request that will come from a sports wagering operator but I would like to lean a bit heavier on the responsible gaming side of the review here if possible so could we add in to the reg if approved by sports wagering and responsible gaming divisions and then it makes clear they're both supposed to say yay to it that works for me and I you know Chief Angeline and I don't want to you know speak for you and in your team but does that does that sound something like something that you would a responsibility that you would readily accept I think I know the answer I'll let you speak for yourself thank you commissioner skinner yeah I I think that makes sense I since play management truly is a responsible gaming tool I appreciate having some authority in that area the sports wagering division is also very important and we kind of track it I believe from when the request comes in if it's approved the process of seeing it implemented so that makes sense to me too does that sound any and carry in terms of language I I'm hearing a few things I think commissioner hill wanted to reserve the option for the commission to weigh in on these matters but that's the sports wagering division coupled with in this case research responsible gaming's approval to be able to go forward on these matters I just want to clarify is the suggestion that in order to submit a request for an additional or different limitation the sports wagering after would have to first obtain approval from the sports wagering divisions and the responsible gaming division prior to any actual submission no that's not I'm seeing shaking no I I guess I thought we were talking about sort of delegating the approval I see I see to those two agencies in the first instance I mean those two divisions rather than having it come before the body of five that's how I thought this conversation was going but yeah I think what I'm hearing is I think what I'm hearing is essentially the language that says the sports wagering operators shall submit a written request to the commission etc etc would be adjusted to be submitted to the sports wagering division and then the approval process a bit further in the paragraph would go through both the sports wagering division and the responsible gaming division right but the other leaders held me to caveat that says this does not in any way restrict the commission's ability to to review I mean I don't know commissioner Hill's looking for that language to just ensuring that if it needs to come to us there's language to do that well and if you put the opera go ahead commissioner sorry sorry mom Jared if you put two different divisions with an option of veto power over each other eventually it may have to go to a commission to sort this out so I think it's even more important with that caveat yeah and and for the operators they that's inside baseball they just need to know that they submit it to the the sports wagering my my sense on this quite frankly is that the sports wagering division is going to be working very very closely with director vandalin and there is not going to be very much of a difference in the opinion what I'm guessing I was just going to add that we've worked very closely with them all along on all the issues and I don't foresee us not continuing that that's right and and I think that's how karen has envisioned the sports wagering division is to have your center but then all the different divisions are integrated pulling into your decision making so good thanks so does that work for everyone harry what will you need for a motion on this would would we be able to just say something reflecting the today's discussion or yep I think rather than as included well you could say as included in the packet and as further edited for today's discussion among the commission and then we can make those changes before we move any other questions for during the year turning to recent okay do I have a motion I'm happy to make a motion before I do that I want to say kudos to you madam chair for opening the door to this delegation of authority discussion and I really do hope that we are able to continue that discussion across the board and perhaps other areas within within the within the agency well it's really important when we think about delegation of authority there's there's customary matters that come before us there's matters that and that's because of custom perhaps then there's also policy decisions commissioner Skinner that we have that we need to weigh in then there's regulatory matters that we weigh in on and if it's creates an inefficiency that we're supposed to be weighing in then we should mix the regulation then there are statutory matters and those are to delegate statutory authority is problematic legally so we really have that those sphere of sort of influences in the policy probably lies with us unless we figure out we don't care about it so much regulatory we can reexamine any regulation always and today we've created an efficiency but we've preserved an option for the commissioner so all right thanks that the commission approved the amended small business impact statement in the draft of two five cmr 255 has included in the commissioner's packet and discussed here today and further that staff be authorized to take the steps necessary to file the required documentation with the secretary of the common law to finalize the regulation promulgation process second thank you thank you any further questions or ads okay Michelle brian hi misha hill hi misha skinner hi misha maynor hi and i vote yes five zero thank you thank you very much thanks gary so the second regulation that we have for you today for discussion is 205 cmr 256.05 this is a section of the advertising regulation that came before you initially well it's come before you several times but this section in particular that's in the packet today came before you on May 16th and at that time you asked us to see comment from operators or other interested parties so in the packet you do have the comments that we've received to date as well as the version of the regulation that you discussed on the 16th so that's why that that red line of the regulation is in the packet that's the version that we received comments on so Meena Macarius from A&K is going to walk us through the comments we received but I do just sort of want to set the stage for kind of where we are on this regulation today this is not in process at all so we're not really we're not under any sort of time constraints for filing or anything on this regulation so there are a few options depending on how your conversation goes today you could certainly vote on a version of the regulation to be filed and we could we could do that either by emergency or the standard promulgation process you could ask for additional modifications to the regulation and we could return at a future meeting with those modifications that would just require an extension of the waiver that's currently in place that waiver is in place through tomorrow and then of course you also could review the comments discuss the comments and decide to come back for more discussion at a future date which of course would also require an extension of the waiver so with that I will turn it over to Meena Meena I good afternoon everyone so we are returning to 256.05 as Kerry mentioned the reg itself as presented to you last time with the red line being the potential addition from what's enforced today subject to the waiver of course is at page 279 of your packet there is a brief memorandum from two pages 277 to 278 that explain the comments received we received comments from essentially a set of four five comments excuse me that came in afterwards during this process the first was from team owners this is an issue just that has to do with the placing of logos primarily on fixed signage where they they might be visible for by folks who are under age and so not surprisingly the owners of the TD garden and Fenway park that the teams have have sought to add in I will note that on rereading some of the comments in preparation for today is noted that the comments from the sports teams were negative overall on wanting to see the change they would prefer that the reference to branding be removed they would actually ask that I think I this is my drafting but I may have misstated that they are applying it to all fixed signage what their point was actually that they don't see a reason to distinguish between branding in general so they would actually apply if if there was a 21 plus they might apply to all presentations of nearly a logo or trademark which I in prior conversations with the commission I know there were desire to maybe make a distinction between things like clothing items or other places where trademarks and logos show up on the road without without the actual from from fixed signage to other then we also got comments from four of the operators fanatics and draft kings both simply proposed removing the word branding I think that was the initial proposal that came before you couple of months ago now on this issue to to to address that PSI also argued generally for removing the word branding but suggested that if it if it was going to be left and they just wanted clarification that this only applied to logos or trademarks quote related to sports wagering so that there is some distinction if an entity that might otherwise have its its logos up there but they're not the same logos they use in connection with their sports wagering line of business that they they would not need a 21 plus qualifier when that suggested that if the language discussed on May 16 were adopted the requirement to include a notice sports wagering may only be conducted by persons 20 line or over be limited to audiences where 25% or more the audience has anticipated to be under 21 as I think we've previously noted that would actually end up being less restrictive than you have now because where there's more than 25% of the audience is under 21 the branding shouldn't appear at all or should be covered up so we wouldn't necessarily at least we wouldn't recommend going to that approach I think that opens up other provisions so returning to the conversation I think where we left this was seeking feedback the feedback we got suggests a general desire to not include the additional red line language here but rather to remove the word branding in 2506051 but to the extent that this language be included that there be some further clarification that this only relates to sports wagering and then there's of course a request by the team owners of whether this should apply to all branding as opposed to just branding on signage which I know was a distinction discussed at some some length before so that's where we are I think we're seeking further guidance from the commission on on how you would like to proceed issues for sure Brian sure I was sort of the most vocal requester in terms of studying this a little bit more and I would propose adding me related to sports way during language and then also further clarifying that something as simple as 21 plus would satisfy this requirement that's the language I'm looking for on 256.05 I did also want to point out the sports team submission in their comments erroneously implied you could be 18 to play DFS in Massachusetts and there would be some sort of conflict if you know sports way during were put into this that doesn't exist it's 21 for both and so we don't need to worry about there being a disconnect between that but that's that's what I would be looking for is the related to sports way during language to make it clear that's what it is and then parenthetically adding or by sentence saying you know the putting 21 plus and it would satisfy this requirement but it wouldn't restrict them to that just make it clear that's all that's required can I ask for a clarification about the sports way during language what does that mean for our temporary licensees and our licensees madam chair I think your question is if we added that what what if you're asking for the specifics I couldn't go entity by entity for for a logo but I could tell you what choice it would give is is a way they could use different branding for sports way during versus not but so if let's take an example of fanatics because that's a clear one fanatics is very diverse right it sells t-shirts sells hats it also is a sports way during operator are we saying that they are exempt this if we were to add the qualifying language because no would it mean that they have to have a different logo for sports way during is that what you're saying correct it would give them the choice to either put a 21 plus messaging on there or choose to go on every logo okay if they were choosing to to keep a unified logo to create well it wouldn't be it doesn't become unified anymore you know in terms so Mr Hill or Commissioner Skinner or Commissioner Maynard so I have a an example while we're you're thinking I thought about this last night when I read the comments and you know the teams commented that I think really out of equity they would think that should apply to all logos it is going to apply to fix signage I think that's probably impractical but let's assume this I am I have a fanatics hat on and I'm sitting for the entire game at Benway in a crowd of kids I don't have but let's pretend fanatics doesn't have any big signage which of course their comments indicate very much differently so that fanatics have to have a plus 21 are we making a distinction that's not very impactful Commissioner O'Brien so really I mean really are we so should be blunt Madam Chair I have a huge issue with them combining their logo and branding in this context because the same reason that you're talking about it well then I have to separate and I actually think that they should be separating for the for that very reason but the example that you just gave if an individual walks in with a tire it's very different than one of our licensees choosing to pay to put signage up in a fixed location people can't get away from I don't see any I think it's very easy to draw the distinction in that regard okay that's helpful that's helpful for me to know that's a good example that's a good response that's really helpful and and so for the those who have commented of course we we are imposing quite a new requirement our licensees perhaps right just checking in on that question of impact I think I would want to see you know evidence of the exact impact this will have assuming that it won't deter underage sports wagering I know it's a lofty sort of goal I think that it's a good idea to include the you know to I think the requirement itself is a good idea I like it even more if we're adding the suggested language related to sports wagering but I don't you know want us to lose side of the fact of the excuse me lose side of the importance of because backing up these proposals wherever possible with some real evidence that the impact is greater than you know the the burden if you will or the the challenge that operators may have in implementing these requirements thank you thank you Commissioner Maynard Commissioner Hill this is one of those things Commissioner Skinner I would like to delegate right now I appreciate that Commissioner Maynard but nevertheless I was walking by a trash can yesterday and it had a company a CCC company regulated company pictured and I did notice the 21 must be 21 language at the end of it and it's it's pretty fixed it's on it's on a trash can can I interrupt was that an ad though I it was a logo so it was it was on an ad the ad was larger than just the logo to answer your question I think I think Commissioner O'Brien I last time we had this conversation I think we're in agreement that there's not much but distinction between a logo and an ad if the logo was being put in a place to draw my business right and so this one's tough because I don't want to put a burden I don't want to put an undue burden on on any of these companies that are just getting started here at the same time I see a lot of benefit in in fixed signage including a 21 plus language and how do you feel about the sports betting so they would have to change their logo sports betting the way I heard Venus say is they don't necessarily have to change the logo it would depend on where they were putting what is that what I heard Mina yes yeah so to use the example you know of fanatics who I I will just for the this purpose say that I understand has one logo it's I think what I believe sort of a flag-looking banner they have a choice if this were added they could when they are placing that logo since they use it for both their clothing line and their sports wagering line if they were to put it on fixed signage they could add a 21 plus disclaimer just as the companies that don't have any other line of business would do or they could choose to develop two logos you know it's not my my industry but I could you know could be fanatics SB whatever it is that is the logo that they use for sports wagering and that would be distinguishable and would be the one that's related to sports wagering and therefore when they use their clothing related logo they could do it that way I think PSI made that comment I believe PSI does have slight distinctions in the logos they use between their various lines of business from just from my own memory of it so it they would have the choice of what to do with their logo of course Commissioner Hill Commissioner Bryan Commissioner Skinner we can go around again well Madam Chair I guess maybe I'm a little naive in the sense that if I see a logo put up somewhere where there's going to be people under 21 where I think I'm naive is I think that anybody that will see that logo knows that if you're going to go and do sports wagering that you have to be 21 and older so I'm not sure that they need to put plus 21 I think our issue it's when I go to the Boston Garden so maybe I'm maybe I'm confusing the two but if I go to the Boston Gardens and during the game I see one of our operators putting up their logo and it goes around the stadium for about a minute or two I see the company but I know for a fact that you have to be 21 or older to do sports wagering so I'm trying to see what we're trying to what we're trying to address here and I guess I'm a little confused because again maybe because we're involved in this and we have been for the last year that I think it's common sense that you're got to be 21 or older when you see one of these logos put up somewhere that's that's where I'm having an issue but we already require that it be there for advertising and so that same logic would mean why are we requiring it on advertising and what I find curious is even some of the sports teams that put comments into us have had the ages wrong and so I think that if you're not 21 you may not know for sure how old you have to be and so I that's one of the reasons I want it there particularly when you have some jurisdictions that maybe you could be 18 to be able to do some of this I have a deeper concern too in terms of I I think branding is advertising and marketing myself and so we're pretty clear we want the 21 plus on the advertising and so for me I don't see a distinction and I think if you want to meld your branding where some of your business is 21 plus and some isn't I think you need to redo you know your branding accordingly I think PSI indicated as much that I think some of these companies realize that and for the fanatics example it may be that you know they've reached the point where they're going to have to do it now that they're trying to do multiple facets some of which are regulated and age restricted so to be clear Madam Chair if I may as I'm reading the proposal 205 CMR 256 05 in the first section number one under the advertising to youth what you would propose is that after the word we would have the first paragraph and after the word participate the red line would disappear is that accurate is that what you'd like to see me no Mr. O'Brien Mr. O'Brien wants the red line Mr. O'Brien the red line isn't quite what you want apparently because now you want to well no I think the and Nina correct me I think I spoke with you about this briefly about the language that's in here because we didn't have any language based on the comments I think the two suggestions that were given that I actually was fine with or me and maybe you can help me out if there were two or two PSI proposed that seemed to clarify for me one of which was the 21 plus would satisfy the requirements the other one had to do with making sure that it was restricted to support to return activity so based on PSI's requirements of or excuse me comments um commissioner hill to answer your question I think what commissioner O'Brien would would say is would work here would be the language as it appears including the red line and adding so where it starts provided that branding consists consisting only of a display on of a I should say of an operator excuse me logo or trademark the next before it says shall would say related to sports wagering shall not be required to comply with this provision unless there's intended to be displayed and then the rest would read as is I think the second suggestion which came up from a conversation I this did not come up clearly in the comments but they'd come up a prior commission meeting is whether or not to explain what exactly the language would look like and that could be something as simple as an addition as saying for instance and this is just something I had drafted in case we needed it in such cases compliance may be achieved by including with such logo or trademark the phrase you know quote must be 21 plus sign or must be 21 older or such other messaging approved in writing by the commission so you could give a few examples of how to comply to try to avoid too much language on there but that's I think that's a second point that the first point on the religious sports wagering is just that simple addition trademark and shall I mean I think the only other question I think is right now branding is in this language right I think the intent really in revising it would be you'd strike the first branding reference so if they advertising marketing and other promotional materials air display disseminated or distributed distributed buyer on behalf of sports wagering operators shall state they must be 21 years of age or older participate provided that branding consisting only of that shall comply with these provisions unless it is intended to if it is intended to be there needs to be some we have a couple double negatives in here that I think we need to get rid of to make sure that what we're saying is in general branding on t-shirts and letterheads and that sort of thing is not required have the 21 plus we're talking about this fixed signage right this so it would I think we're talking yeah I think I think we're saying the same things in different ways but you can probably say cleaner than me yes so I think if you were Mr. Byron I'm not sure if you're trying to describe is the proposal that you're you would like to see versus the proposal that some of the operators have had asked for were had initially been proposed just to remove branding okay and I think actually based on the conversation what I think the real distinction is is whether or not looking at this red line language the phrase that starts with unless it is or intended to be displayed on signage is included or not because you probably want to keep branding consisting only of a display on operators logo or trademark even if got it and saying unless it is exactly for sports wagering and got it okay yep that's that's fine I'm not following this so you're going to have to help me out so sure so I think if I could let's assume for a second because I just from listening that there is a at least a desire to add related to sports wagering so I'm going to that no that's that would be I think we've got at least one person who's saying that maybe Commissioner Maynard to add what's betting I'll give my position I thought it was I'll give my position I think the word branding should come out and I'll be clear because I think it's too much to ask of our operators to right now comply with this across the industry without some kind of evidence as Commissioner Skinner alluded to evidence that it will be impactful to Commissioner Hill's point you know I think we're activating what is a passive branding device a logo you know logo is yes it is going to put in mind the companies what many of these companies are multi-dimensional and by adding this language and making them jump through hoops to now create a new logo is is really we're really stepping outside what are all of our peers do across the country when I'd like I'd like to get more information from our peers our other regulators to think how they feel I just think you know we're going to it's going to require draft kings immediately to change their signage to out their company I just wonder this is something that we're doing just sort of nature fashion it's absolutely not nature well no for you I've been thinking about this for quite some time well Commissioner O'Brien actually we did adopt a regulation that did exclude branding no we did not when it came back to and I will tell you specifically I would not have voted eye on that motion had it stricken branding from this section we never voted to strike branding that's what we're had this conversation we're having now is because we did not vote to do that and this is this is where I'm sitting there so I take Umbridge at the succession that I'm doing that I'm thinking about it and I agree with I agree your position is really really clear and I'm just really clarifying my position and and and I'll just stand on my position and the other commissioners can vote as they wish but I didn't want Mina to assume that there's that at least for me right now one one I don't know what the other three stand if we put sports betting in because that does now to guess that they have to go out and hire their marketing people to start doing a new logo for sports betting in order to do Massachusetts not the whole nation let's be clear it'll just be a logo from Massachusetts their implications for these companies are enormous these are fixed going to be changing their logo places in Massachusetts Madam Chair I don't think it's an onerous request and I thought it was a three to two to be honest with you no no I haven't heard yet let's go around and find out I have no no I haven't heard yet so um I didn't hear clearly three to two but I may have missed her so let's I'll go back Commissioner Skinner and Commissioner Mayor and Commissioner Hill so I when I spoke earlier about my agreement with this language I understood that it the first word branding in this paragraph would come out and that you're you're shaking your head that that's my I'm speaking on my own behalf Madam Chair oh no no I I didn't understand that branding would come out that's I'm sorry that's what I understand and that I'm speaking to my understanding I understood that branding would come out it was raised by Commissioner O'Brien and then the latter portion and and I know there was a session between Commissioner O'Brien and Attorney McCarrius that kind of clarified how we were viewing this paragraph and maybe I just don't understand that at this point but I would also like to see the first word branding in that paragraph paragraph be removed and just have the latter portion of the paragraph speak to branding on a fixed structure branding that is related to sports wagering so does that include sports wagering so I guess I'm asking that question because it would be any brand it would be branding wherever there's a fixed structure a signage wherever there's signage well but does that does that include let's say a fanatics fanatic signage or fanatics logo that is in a ballpark and at their retail stores and that kind of right wherever they have fixed signage so what I don't know the sports wagering connection I understand that they're an operator but relative to that particular advertisement how do we connect that to sports wagering so if that can mean it just someone has to help me there so you know the proposed language logos or trademarks related to sports wagering or I'm taking that from yeah related to sports wagering would that include the fanatics logo Madam chair if I may can I answer that and then maybe suggest a potential way to try to move forward on this because I think we're talking about different mutations yeah and so I'd rather see if we can figure out what the desire of the commission is and then we can adjust the language accordingly Commissioner Skinner to answer that question yes if an operator chooses to use the same logo for their sports wagering line of business as others I'll stay away from operator for a second to go something more universal if Nike were in a sports wagering business and they and that was a licensed operator the swoosh would be a sports wagering logo if that was the only logo they used if they designed as they do for instance for their Jordan brand a separate logo that was only for their sports wagering division and they had the swoosh remain for shoes and everything else that swoosh would not be related to sports wagering the swoosh with the sports wagering embellishment on it would be and so I think to the commissioner Maynard asked this question earlier essentially what it does obligate the operator to do is make a decision within Massachusetts for fixed signage would they rather maintain one logo but add to it 21 plus everywhere it appears on fixed signage or would they rather task their creative team to generate a second logo the same or different that is related only to their sports wagering line of business that that and that and so the question for the commission is whether you want to ask operators to make that choice not forcing them to make the choice but whether you want them to make that choice commissioner Skinner so from my perspective I wondered if we were just getting a little bit quickly over our skis by asking them to make that decision now without further information I thought that's what you when I that's why I mentioned the input you know or the impact like because it would require the licensees here in Massachusetts to make that decision either or that the two that commissioner Maynard and Mina just pointed out I mean immediately we'd give them a waiver Commissioner O'Brien would point out I'm sure I'm not sure what that timing would be but it would be a waiver and it just seems to be if it's going to be a decision that they do for national purpose you know international purposes that might make sense down the road I just wondered if it was something that we would be imposing on them and in kind of a tough fashion but I get the idea of the that they may want to brand different they may want to right down the road yeah I mean are we literally talking about only fanatics no no no all of them is that's why I said all licensees right well like but MGM is that and we're not talking about all gaming so but MGM has its own WinBed has it's like the only one at this point who'd really have the conundrum of coming up with another logo is fanatics I don't know if that's true I can say that Madam chair if I may I would say that there's another licensee who has figured this out right they have stuff on you know it's barstool right they have the barstool sitting on the hats and they have them on the electrolyte Gatorade type drink they have it everywhere but it says barstool sports book with the same little yep nice logo next to it so I mean I think the parade of Orbles that you're worried about Madam chair would you actually look at just thick signage that we're basically talking about really getting some ballparks and some places where there could be some young folks there I think it's winnowed down so much that it's I wonder if we're actually creating a problem for us in trying to to do this and I think where my struggle is and I can't speak for commissioner's gonna is you know I think if it's narrow I'm okay with it I think if it says broad as you are saying then I I have some reservations but I I've never thought it was that broad what do you mean broad I I think that the hat with the barstool on it can continue to exist I didn't know I gave that and commissioner Brian came back I'm saying in terms of all the signage across you know wherever they use their their logos I think I'm gonna stand my decision I think Mr. O'Brien I find it interesting that you know and I don't want to open up a can of worms but you know that signage has been out there with the casinos for long time we don't have a statutory instruction specifically to address advertising the way we do under 23n and so I don't have a problem at all with us going back under 23k but right now what's in front of us is 23n I would also say correct it to 23n I'm sorry go ahead sorry sorry Commissioner O'Brien I also say there's a difference in that you do have a checkpoint at a physical you know brick location brick and mortar these category threes at least they're on a phone and so there is a distinction we have very very strong verifications I want to be careful not to go down that that whole our verification processes that we expect of our licensees is very very strong to know your customer to make sure you're just want to be careful not to go down that road right now we're just talking about branding and logos and the idea of if there's a logo right now if there's a you know consensus we can move on this but we'll need to figure out what we give our licensees time in terms of fixing their their signage pressures you want to somebody want to move on this so so I'm not going to be no okay yeah if you have more questions good you know well the first question is is there a third commissioner that wants to join Mr. Maynard and me in delegating the authority to make this decision so I think you know to Commissioner Maynard's point about this being potentially being too broad I think that if we are talking about imposing this requirement to to an operator to include this 21 plus language anywhere and everywhere their logo appears I wouldn't I would not be comfortable imposing that such that they you know we would potentially interfere with their you know business decisions and you know where they're required to or have to think about creating a new logo and the like so I mean I think if we can if there's a way and I think Commissioner Maynard alluded to this to limit this requirement to you know sort of the places that we are really focused on like that I think Commissioner O'Brien's focused on and I don't want to speak for her but the ball parks the stadiums and venues like that I think I could get comfortable making a decision on this today but beyond that I really would like us to spend some time to invite you know yes again comment on you know if we are talking about imposing this in the broader sense what the evidence is that we will that that it makes a difference right I mean if if it's if it's impactful if you know it's been shown that the rate of underage sports wagering you know has decreased in jurisdictions where you know this is a requirement and I mean there might not be another jurisdiction that requires this but I really want to base my decision on some concrete evidence that you know we're going in the right direction so what we could do is because one of the reasons that I called the attorney Macarius leading up to the meeting was I there was no other it's actually coming up blue for what it's worth in my packet but the red lining I was expecting there to be a third color with the language that talked that they sort of put forth some of the stuff I put forth at the last meeting and so I think for the sake of getting to the commission's business today what might be helpful is and the commissioner skinners looking for specific feedback from licensees put the actual language out there that you know I would certainly be proposing which is I think Mina you talked about inserting the language unless it is or is intended to be related to sports wagering and then close with you know and you know 21 plus you know would be sufficient if that language can then be commented on and we give a short waiver to come back and really just put this event one way or the other but you're you've got a painful face I do commissioner Brian and I um I you know you could all chastise me if I'm if I'm overstepping here but I I would just urge that I think at this point you've had many hours of conversation on this and I just think it would be helpful to understand I mean I think I think the operators were clear on what they were commenting on and what they'd like to see I think the embellishment that I suggested that's not involved here is a fairly limited one about what if you were if you were requiring this on fixed signage what would be sufficient I think that that's sort of round piece but that's that's a lot of flexibility I wouldn't and so I just want to be careful about as you know that you have a lot on your plates and every you know having to restart the conversation again in a month that sort of remind ourselves where we are what I might suggest if it's okay with you Madam Chair is it would be useful to just sort of take the factual scenario first and then we can go back to the language and see if it does what folks wanted to the language with the with the red lining or blue lining now would cover a would only require let me just say that would only require a logo or trademark shown on fifth signage in a place where it could be seen by 21 year olds under 21 year olds so not within a sports book not within a a bar or other places where where folks who are underage should not be if it requires ID to include a message that it is that operated patrons must be 21 years or older to participate it is only for fixed signage this blue language would not cover the hats etc that would still be exempt from this requirement we're only talking about logos or trademarks so that if I think if we could just at least see if that is you know if I guess I want to make sure everybody understands that that does not mean and I actually wonder if it's really an arbitrary line I'm just throwing out the word arbitrary on purpose but it doesn't just mean venues sports venues we we we will be imposing this requirement on businesses signage at their retail and I hear Commissioner Maynard address psi I I can't speak for them I can only I can only think about fanatic signage and draft king signage but I'm sure there's other licenses that may have signage that involves a logo in in Massachusetts I guess I don't see necessarily these the sports and you haven't referred to sports betting option of changing their logo I I don't see that as practical because I if it's only from Massachusetts so you know we'd be imposing it from Massachusetts if that's something they choose to do as part of their business model I get that but so and I also don't even know what that means because it means it has to be some kind of intent right you don't have to add 21 plus because you're using your other I don't know what that really means or you do have to add 21 plus I don't know but right now it would not just be and we focused on Fenway Park we focused on that last time you know you've got the alcohol brands the alcohol brands we've got a couple of sports betting logos and then lots of other logos of other types of of you know sales items I don't know if there's any pharmacy I don't know but I do know there's alcohol I don't know if there's any I don't think there's any cannabis so we've got sports venues like stadiums and ballparks billboards right billboards don't typically just have the logo because it's an advertisement yeah typically I don't what are the other fixed structures that we're contemplating here could we could we try to answer that I have a direct question would it affect a company's headquarters yes right if you know it would have to say yeah so sorry I mean yes if it's viewable you know from a public area that's right that's right right outside of public area right yeah and I I have to say that that goes too far for me I don't know if there are any other like scenarios that's that's just where I am at this point maybe the same way yeah but I'm okay all right I started I didn't start with that on purpose everyone but that is where I just think it's too it's just too much right so then the question is do you say like Commissioner Skinner said you pick broader stadiums and do you just say either venues greater than a certain size or you just say you know yeah any public venue greater than you know a certain size or any public venue Commissioner Bryan I want to give you a win so bad here but I'm just it's not a win it's just to me I think it's a conceptual thing you seem to separate call you seem to see the dividing line between advertising marketing and branding is called action I don't buy that right because I think it's definitely what your psychologically trying to do is get brand loyalty and they're trying to get you to buy their product I do not see the distinction and so for me I wouldn't carry over the 21 plus requirement to branding now would there be just like there would be for advertising or signs inside their office space could you say you're advertising with things inside there yes but practically speaking they're inside their private office space there's people that's different to me so I don't draw the distinction there and I don't really have is I don't have the issue it is curious to me that you're talking about a couple operators here I also don't have the problem being at the forefront of this that if we're the ones that start this conversation and then they have to go and others follow so be it so I'm not as troubled by that particularly where we have the ability to grant a waiver and they can certainly come in and say look this is the real challenges with this that's where I'm coming Commissioner O'Brien I absolutely always appreciate you and all the commissioners wanting to be on the forefront so I get that that's why we're all struggling with it it's just I think from the start I felt it's just it's just you know a logo I feel is different from affirmative advertising and then I see almost an activation by messing with the logo that's just maybe me personally and then when it gets into signage and and you know what I I take very seriously that we have to treat all the licensees the same just because they're not all in the same position today doesn't mean they might not be in the same position come on right they might they might choose to to to have a diversification right so I just look at as the policy that extends this is what we are setting for massachusetts and expectations that we have a license sports wagering licensees and I think I do appreciate everyone who's given input and comments on this Mr. Hill what are you thinking at a point now where I just I've always tried to come up with some type of a compromise I just don't know that this is going to happen with this particular issue and I'm I'm just not ready to to move or accept adding 21 and over to all logos at this point I just I'm not I'm sorry to say that because I try to always think of everybody else's comments and they've all been excellent but I just I'm not there yet can I just be clear I think everyone's heart is in the right place and I know and our priorities and our values are absolutely aligned all together with you Commissioner O'Brien I think for me it's a practicality issue and where as a regulator I personally try and working on striking that balance right now that's fair but it's from my my lens and so I'm aligned with Commissioner Hill Commissioner O'Brien would you be willing to and I think I heard that's how you're going would you be willing to to to make it specific to science and venues because I think that's something I could I could really get behind and yeah I mean that's my biggest concern is where people under 21 are brought there particularly even under 18 and you're talking about branding and marketing and brand loyalty that's happening almost subliminally in those circumstances I think I would I would be there myself but again the reason I asked the building question is there's one particular but let's say another one you know another operator put an outpost here or what have you right but if it was to venues I can get behind that maybe we can put this to bed on a vote I'd be honest Madam Chair I don't think I heard Commissioner Maynard what you proposed you in my computer you kind of went in and out when you suggested something I'm basically asking Commissioner O'Brien if we could it looks like this was narrowly tailored the language I will say but if she would tailor it a little more with the scalp and I think she said yes and I can get behind that and now I'm just I can go with the suggestion venues big signage in venues what venues in public venues anywhere where you gather people Commissioner Hill so I'm not sure how nations how that would change my mind if I'm I'm against it may not it may not change your mind at all but that is the scenario I am most concerned by I understood but it may not I mean invite I might be standing alone on this which is fine I know I think or two of us yeah I'm staring at Commissioner Skinner's box right now yeah I'm interested in seeing the language um you know that's what I was I'm comfortable I think with limiting this requirement I think I stated it earlier to sports venues if that's what the suggestion is but it would be good to know which I heard venues now I'm hearing sports venues I'm I referenced sports venues earlier Commissioner Maynard maybe and Commissioner Brian maybe thinking of something entirely different for thank you so I think Mina I think we're all wondering if there is some sort of verbiage that's a term of art that talks about I mean you could say sports stadiums greater than a certain amount you could say sports stadiums then is there some language that captures that intent well I if we're talking about sports venues I think the easiest way to reference I'm just looking up the rest of 256 because recall that it also includes provisions regarding the interference with gameplay that was one of the things that was required by the statute and that you you have some regulation on so I'm just looking for how we use that language give me just one second we I think I think we use the word sports venue in one other place so that's you know you could place a fixed structure in or at a sports venue for the word location in that second to last line and you would you would be there if we're limiting to sports venues so instead of location it's in a sporting venue as we've used it otherwise in the right yeah I mean I would be satisfied with that I am too I'd also like to entertain a brief waiver that's still on the table for this yeah definitely so I I can make a motion but I don't know Madam Chair you or Commissioner Hill have are ready for motions or want further comment sporting venue a defined term it is not we do use it with respect to collegiate or high school sports venue the other language I was looking for and this is I'm sorry I could find it earlier we use gameplay area at a sporting event when we are discussing disruptions to viewers in the same but we don't have to worry about college and universities because they can't any business correct so that's taken care of so are we speaking about sporting venues are we talking about guess what we're saying is that those owners of those sporting venues cannot sell that ad space for a logo to these particular unless unless they put 21 plus unless they add right correct yes okay which if it's an ad they have to have it anyway it's just only the ad looks like just a logo or a brand well um the language wouldn't be responsible game in our language though correct Michelle Brian nope that's not what's not being required no okay do you have any further questions Commissioner Hill no not at this time mad madham chair I believe you have a another item between this and when I am next scheduled to speak to you which is one item away if it's helpful why don't I carry and I put together just a a word document with justice provision on it showing the final language and I can add in if it's so that you can I don't think you need to I think we've got it I think we've got it sounds like there's yeah I think we've got it it's going to be limited and in terms of the I may have you go first because I think okay that's that's fine as well so that that's completely fine just wanted to make sure if you want to that display Nina could you however just read out the language as as you are adjusting it here okay so it's a 256051 would read advertising marketing branding and other promotional materials published air display disseminated or distributed by or on behalf of any sportsways your operator shall state that patrons must be 21 years of age or older to participate provided that branding consisting only of a display of an operator's logo or trademark shall not be required to comply with this provision unless it is or is intended to be displayed on signage or a fixed structure in a sports sporting venue where it is likely to be viewed by persons under 21 years of age and what about the related to sportsway during language I didn't want to be presumptuous but if we want it is there a consensus or or or a desire to add that in that provides further options frankly to operators not last because they could choose to distinguish or there so would narrow it actually a little bit further I'd like to see it added in and I think at least earlier there was a consensus I think that's fine putting on them so I just just reading the part in blue I won't read the beginning again I would say provided that branding consisting only of a display of an operator's logo or trademark related to sportsway during shall not be required to comply with this provision unless it is or is intended to be displayed on signage or a fixed structure in a sports venue where it is likely to be viewed by persons under 21 years of age I can make a motion if we're at that point may make a motion I move that the commission approve the small business impact statement in the draft of 205 of CMR 256.05 as included in the commissioner's packet and is further discussed here today specifically adding the words related to sportsway during and sporting venue as discussed by turning the curious I further move the staff be authorized to take the steps necessary to file the required documentation with the secretary of the Commonwealth by emergency and thereafter and to begin the regulation promulgation process I further move the staff be authorized to modify chapter or section numbers or titles to file additional regulation sections reserved or to make any other administrative changes as necessary to execute the regulation promulgation process second okay commissioner brian hi mr hill hey commissioner skinner hi commissioner maynard hi I vote no so three two and uh did we include the amount of weight for doing a different motion so it's a different motion so I don't know how much time the consensus is to give a waiver as the regulation or the peace changes go into effect immediately carry is that correct they would go into effect upon filing which I could do tomorrow but I think that the more immediate issue is that the existing waiver expires tomorrow so either way you would need a waiver that would pick up after that one so most of this work would have been subject to some kind of a um contract between the venue and the the light one of our licensees so they'll need to take time to go in and work with the venue to to change that and then I was inclined to say 60 but I don't know if 60 days I don't know if that's where everyone else's mind was or whether it should be 90 given what you said madam chair I don't know enough about the business you could always if I'm 90 it would be fine 90 Mr. Hill 90 fine yeah Mr. Skinner are you okay with 90 all right if it's not enough time they could come back and we'll explain the later right I moved in in accordance with 205 CMR 202.033 with the commission issue a waiver through 90 days of starting tomorrow to all licensed force waging operators from the requirement outlining 205 CMR 256.051 and that the edits that were made today in the previous vote as granting the waiver meets the requirements specified in 205 CMR 102.034 and is consistent with the purposes of general as chapter 23 in I think any comments or edits Michelle Bryan aye Michelle Hill aye Michelle Skinner aye Michelle Maynard I vote yes five zero okay Mina we have you and I thought it makes sense to make sure I am not going to get conference today Commissioner O'Brien if we could just turn to Mina my suggestion for number 11 is that we've had a chance to see the job description that we actually take some more time I need it to think about it I don't know but that's on the respect to number 11 I think number 10 Mina was going to offer some insights as to from a legal perspective on permanent search and then we go to the succession document although I think that because that does require a little bit of discussion I think so if we could just hear from Mina first Commissioner O'Brien is that all right that's fine okay great thanks Mina thank you Madam Chair and thank you Commissioner O'Brien for willing us to change the order around a little bit so I think knowing that you will be taking further time at another point it sounds like Madam Chair on the job description this this well that's me asking so I'll leave that to others fair enough the reason I mentioned is that these are these are related issues and there is are there a couple of issues to think about at some point and they may be you know intertwined in some ways I think and I apologize in advance if some of this is maybe a little bit redundant with things you've heard from my colleague Dave Mackie in the past but thinking about the selection process for the permanent executive director what some of the legal requirements and options are the as I believe was discussed last time and as as you may be aware under the open meeting law there are a couple of restrictions on when the the commission can go into executive session if it needs to to review applicants for a position in light of that there are some there is a carve out for screening committees under the open meeting to allow public bodies especially when searching for roles that are directly appointed by that public body such as executive director to be able to attract candidates of high quality maintain confidentiality as needed and these are all options and so there are sort of pros and cons to way of how you go about designing a process that gives you the best the best pool of candidates possible we've gone through this with other boards and committees that admittedly more so more often than not on the local level but it's a very similar process and often for similar positions and there's a couple of sort of frequently asked questions that were figured we would try to address upfront so first there is an option under the open meeting law to for one for one commissioner to essentially do all the preliminary screening on their own or for a staff member do all preliminary screening on their own that would not implicate the open meeting law at all because you wouldn't have a body meeting ready to liberation of course that creates the the big disadvantage to that commissioner of all the work and the inability to talk to anybody else including any other commissioner about what they're seeing so that is typically not what we advise instead there's sort of a second approach is for and sort of the other end of the spectrum is for all applicants to be vetted by all all of the commission what that implies unfortunately is one you would be unless you're having a staff member or an outside search firm sort of make initial determinations to winnow the pile to a smaller amount you would end up having to discuss every application publicly because you wouldn't have you wouldn't be under the screening exemption so that is sort of the other end of the spectrum it is sometimes something that is used when there is a clear set of a couple of candidates and there's no no worries about confidentiality and you're sort of kind of skipped to that step already the in between step that has a lot of variety and how exactly it's carried out would be a screening committee a screening committee cannot include a quorum or more of the commission so it can't be any more than two commissioners however I would note that a screening committee does not have to include any commissioners or or two it could include one and it does not have to consist entirely of commissioners a lot of screening committees just as the one you're using for the interim position in a lot of public bodies will include other folks who might have particular knowledge on the position at issue a particular amount of experience sometimes this may be less relevant for a state commission but on the local level they'll sometimes include citizen volunteers etc who might have time and availability to help with that process what the screening committee is designed to do is to serve as exactly that it is to bring in the applications and resumes that are collected for a particular position and to vet them to determine a couple of things one is is whether the pool of candidates is adequate or whether reporting usually reporting back to the full body that there may be more more need for outreach or perhaps that's working with a search firm to ask for further outreach and further searching it is to review the applications to try to color down to a more manageable number and then it is to recommend applicants and that is the language within the the open meeting law multiple applicants for public interview by the full body that's also making a point that is there's a decent amount actually of open meeting law decisional guidance on the process on what works and what doesn't in terms of the open meeting law our suggestion is often to be mindful of the formalities of the screening committee versus the full commission sometimes actually having non non-members of the public body can be helpful because it avoids inadvertently having a deliberation with the ultimate decision makers if particular tasks need to be carried out that are maybe more administrative more ministerial such as going through resumes reviewing some minimum qualifications scheduling interviews etc talking to applicants those bodies would need to to maintain minutes they would you know be acting as you do when you go into executive session when they go into executive session opening in regular session so that's sort of the general lay of the land the question one of the biggest questions I think it's important for the commission to consider is the and where we've seen the most successful of these screening committees is to give the screening committee if you are to establish one a clear charge of what their task will be and will not be what I mean by that is one if if they are being asked to hire a particular job having that job description discussed and said in advance which it looks like you're you know that's what your plan is is a good idea and also having an understanding of when they should be checking back in with the with the body and what the expectations are while they are required to bring back multiple applicants or can sometimes be different preferences for just what that means at what stage of sort of winnowing as I keep saying well I'll do apologies to potential future applicants but that winnowing do they do you want them to come back is it when it's down to you know the a top two or three or is it a sort of larger pool that would be interviewed at least the desire and sometimes that desire may not match the applicant pool so you have to readjust but it does help to have that set as much as possible and upfront I think that's you know as probably as far as we can really go in terms of the legal requirements I'm happy to take questions but I think a lot of this will play out as you start working through it I should note that very often screening committees operate with a contracted or delegated search firm or search person in an HR capacity or something of that nature so that you are not sort of starting usually not starting fresh you're starting without even having a way to get applications and a lot of search committees out there do specialize in working with with public entities or have at least some experience working with public entities as a way to understand that the last thing I'll say is whatever process you decide it's my recommendation that it be clear not just for your amongst yourselves and the public but anticipating that folks might apply to this position could be again I know this is up to you out of state or at least not as familiar with the agency with the commission itself they you want to make sure that they understand the process and what submitting an application will meet in terms of who's who's going to be reviewing in the first instance what and what the timeline might look like and of course the potential that at the end of that process if they're continue to be in the process and selected that they're they may need to publicly interview for the position and that the converse is true that if they're not selected that they should have some expectation that resumes job applications and their names would not be become public record those maintain confidentiality and the commission should make sure to do that as well go for it commissioners questions from Mina and any suggestions on first steps Michelle Bryan now I my suggestions on next steps obviously some of it goes obviously to the agenda I don't intend to finalizing not only the ED job description but also we need to talk about whether there's going to be a deputy because to me that rolls into what that job description would be that would then form the basis of how we want to search for the next ED and I believe the last time we came up with this we started the process with an outside agency I can imagine that would probably be where we're going but obviously I think the five of us should discuss do we do we want to do that how do we want to select that agency and how do we don't want to select the one or two commissioners who would then be involved going forward with that agency so that would be my suggestions and then moving quickly on I know I've talked to Karen briefly about her thoughts on the job description I have some as well in terms of updates and different things to keep in mind but those are my thoughts on the next steps I thought about the second position the deputy par