Good morning. We are calling to order commission meeting number 283 of the Massachusetts gaming Commission on Thursday December 5th 2019 at 10 a.m. At our offices here at 101 Federal Street in Boston As you can see today, we are missing commissioner soon the guy who is under the weather We'll proceed with all of our our matters and As always will reserve for him the opportunity to address any of them at a later commission meeting Before we begin with commissioner stephens who is at my immediate left today I want to note that we have changed the order of today's agenda after item 5 Which mr. Grossman will address a matter We will take up the racing division items that were originally set forth in item number nine so We're just going to move that item up and then we'll move back to the IE be which is Under item number Originally item number six now item number seven Commissioner stephens morning madam chair in your packet you have the minutes of the November 21st 2019 meeting I would move their approval always subject to correction for any typographical errors or any other Second Any comments or suggestions? I I do have a couple that I would just like to go over Share I'm not sure I have the fact straight, but we might want to supplement a couple of items under on page five At the top 1109 a.m. Entry. I'm wondering I I might be wrong I thought that the fiscal years were 18 and 19 And I wondered if we could include Mr. Mathis's report if my memory is correct He said and it might be 30 percent, but it might have been 35 percent that the I don't know if you remember at that the accommodations and meal taxes had gone up in the from 18 to 19 and he Reported that he believed that 50% of that would have been attributed to MGM Springfield The point was that he was pointing out they hadn't cannibalized and that that was an important fact and we've asked Our facilities to start to track those local taxes. So if we could add that in please if we agree and then oh I think we're going to get clarity on Page eight with respect to the report that I had asked for so I think we'll be all set I think that's all I have commissioners Devons. Okay, Sharon. I can go back and look at the look at Mike's presentation And at those figures because I agree with you it's important in something that we've Been trying to keep an eye on to see what the impact of our casinos have had on the local hotels and their local restaurants Well, I do have another one. I'm sorry Am I on the bottom of page seven the chair then asked If commissioners Zuniga would look into this is on the staffing issue of the Troopers, I believe I it would have been commissioner Cameron that I asked rather than Commissioner Zuniga On the bottom of page seven that 1255 p.m. Entry Commissioner Cameron, do you remember that? Yes, I do. Okay. I might have said Zuniga erroneously But it would have been commissioner Cameron. You were thinking about the money That's right, okay So we have a motion in a second Perhaps we could How would we do this we'd have to agree we've agreed to the edits Amendment second with him and okay, I'm not sure if that's actually procedurally correct But it will reflect that edit. I think commissioner Stevens always makes that statement at the beginning subject to Technical corrections. This is really you know, it's typographic or non-material matters. I don't think there's changes Yes, we're just adding to it Okay, great. Thank you all those in favor. I For zero, thank you Moving on to item number three. We have guests this morning to start us off from Vera cloud Derek, would you like to introduce this? Yes? Good morning, madam chair and commissioners. Good morning I'm joined today by Doug Brotnick and Todd Bida from Vera cloud and we fear to give a presentation on the efforts of The MGC's supply diversity program as you're aware We work diligently and we ask our licensees to work diligently on diversity inclusion Vera cloud is a company that is built Helping agencies and other entities attain these goals. I can say that it's been a pleasure working with their with the company They have helped our program at length and at this point. I don't want to take any of their thunder So I'll let them Walk through their presentation Thank You Derek madam chair commissioners. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak today And thank you very much for the opportunity to serve the Commission in the Commonwealth At Vera cloud we're extremely passionate about the mission that you have which is similar to our mission Which is your commitment to diversity in both your worker and supplier base very cloud is focused on bringing diversity access and inclusion to the public sector contracting market and we are a Boston based company and Today we're here to talk about the results of our work here over the last three years or so with commission Why we are here? Since like 2017 when we started working with Vera cloud After we were accepted into the Massachusetts OSD IT small business incubator pilot We were grateful to be Hired by the Commission to begin the process of helping you further address further succeed in your diversity of inclusion goals We serve the MGC mission as we serve as we serve those diverse businesses in the Commonwealth and we activate engage activate Diverse vendor marketplaces and diverse Companies within those marketplaces on behalf of the Commission for participation in MGC opportunities Creating access and opportunity For everyone above and beyond the tremendous commitments that you have to the to diversity in the Commonwealth With that I'd like to introduce our founder Doug right now to talk about what we do and help and specifics on the impact That we've had for the Commission from the Commonwealth. Great. Thank you again About a commissioner commissioners Okay, why we're here Okay, well I'm gonna talk about what we do. Okay. We're experts in procurement optimization We do this in real time during the open periods of procurements for the Commission We optimize these procurements to ensure that the diverse vendors and the marketplaces are made aware of these opportunities We also provide support to those vendors because a lot of them are first-time Bitters and combines our first-time Government contractors We do everything with thoroughly documented efforts And we have an amazing positive impact that tends to be lasting and I'll go over that on a couple of future slides We just increase awareness we recruit stronger participation more bids lower cost better value and Just a more effective means by which to address inclusion goals why it works It's really interesting why it works why it works is because we found a way to work directly with the Commission And not impact them in any negative manners. We have no incremental demands on their personnel There's no changes to any existing technologies or procedures that the Commission has and there's no changes to process so what we do is basically an overlay onto Business as usual in the Commission and we ensure that these marketplaces are Made aware supported and participatory in any opportunity that comes through the Commission Some success with MGC so we've done a lot of these procurements at MGC, and I'll just go over one of them in particular This was a travel services solicitation looking for an agency to help hook travel for the Commission to Go about their business so on this particular Procurement in 2018 We found out that the marketplace Was pretty extensive so we increased by 12 times the number of diverse vendors that were actually Aware of this opportunity and got them to take a look at it nine of them Participated in the RFR and some means whether it was asking questions We had five new combines accounts created from this so five first time combines users from this this one effort and four times the number of bids from the previous solicitation and We ended up recruiting this company I think was travel leaders of Farmingham a WBE they had been certified since 2009 and then they've never done business with the Commonwealth So it's not like they were a new business This is an established company that had been around and part of the program. This was their first ever contract with the Commonwealth So we found that you know quite telling that the businesses are out there. They just need a little bit of support and a little bit of Technology to keep them informed about what's happening and that's the part that that we provide and then we provide We create this avenue for direct feedback and I'll go more into that on on another slide But the feedback is invaluable in helping the Commission actually Inform future procurements and shape policy and strategy on engaging diverse vendors If you don't know the capabilities of a marketplace or their Capacity it's really hard to to interact with them and expect to get participation. So this feedback channel has been really amazing We'll talk about another success with MTC with some work with Plain Ridge Park casino Plain Ridge was you know looking to engage veteran vendors. They were struggling in that area and they Basically the Commission said hey, can you can you see what you can do see if there's any way we can help Plain Ridge So on one of their Opportunities we first looked at their upcoming procurements and they had a high-limits gaming lounge We were able to find a Marketplace of I think there were 20 or so Veteran contracting companies Plain Ridge hadn't been able to find any so we got 20 We also as a result we got 13 Veteran contractors requesting site visits documents and submitting bids We thought that was a tremendous success for Plain Ridge and that they went from zero to The head of diversity of Plain Ridge saying you know my mailbox is full of people interested in this opportunity This is a fantastic problem to have That was another great success for us And then success another success story is cultivating marketplaces for future RFPs This was a really interesting Another project we did with the mass gaming Commission This was for promotional items It was an enormous marketplace. So we're 78 vendors in it We had all kinds of feedback and interest from these vendors 17 minority 58 women for veteran 16 disadvantaged three disability business enterprises This was a great example We ended up cultivating this huge marketplace We got a lot of positive feedback from these and the Commission ended up hiring a WBE off of statewide contract at That ended up you know winning this solicitation It was part of our recruiting, but it was an incumbent So we have positive results whether or not a new vendor is selected or not The activation of the marketplace has absolute lasting results. Are you able to share that? marketplace with other State agencies do you are you working with OSD or other state agencies so that you know because this is this was a An RFP for promotional items so something that It's generally sought after yeah, so many state agencies because this is quite a collection Yeah, no, we would love to do business with OSD down the road and have a lot of great initiatives lined up that would be fantastic Perhaps optimizing statewide contracts for diverse inclusion I don't think anyone has ever taken a look at the statewide contracts available to all the agencies Found out whether or not there were diverse vendors and whether or not there's any way to tell their diverse vendors on Yeah, we would love to do that and ensure that these statewide contracts are loaded with diverse vendors would be a Yeah, so great initiative. This is one of the areas that Doug and Todd have really helped us their data mining efforts Tremendous they get people registered as diverse firms that weren't registered before They find people who are on Contracts that have are capable performing services, but they may just not have signed up for those services So their their ability to to dig into the data and at a really reasonable cost Has provided a lot of these outcomes So if you look on the statewide contract that this person That we hired for promote this company will have the promotional items came off of They wouldn't look like they could provide promotional items because they had just signed up for one separate NAICS code They dug into their business after looking and cross-referencing and saying hey you guys are diverse This opportunity is out there. You probably didn't get notified because come by works all off of NAICS code when it comes to noted Notifying people and they said hey, why don't you apply to this? I take a look at this one and this is what they've done for a lot of our Lot of our work, and we have tried to get them to In contact with OSD and OSD said well, why don't you work with the Commission for a while and let's see how your results come Yeah, yeah, good good Thank you, Todd Another success with MGC came out of a procurement. We just optimized this fall It was a solicitation Was the solicitation gaming research? Yeah, so it was a gaming research solicitation in September In the middle of our Activation of this marketplace we started getting feedback in real time during the open Period of this procurement some of the feedback was really interesting and we were able to take that feedback directly back to the Commission And there were 11 diverse vendors that had well there was a handful initially that expressed interest in doing a portion of this RFR I thought about that and I said if there's a handful that are interested I bet you there's a lot more that just didn't bother to say anything that might be interested in doing a portion of the RFR The Commission allowed us to go back into this RFR Pulled this marketplace again and found out that there were 11 diverse vendors Interested in doing a portion of this RFR So in essence, we were able to unlock this RFR for potential teaming and partnerships We submitted this vendor marketplace to the Commission. They actually added it to the RFP And it enabled even prime contractors to find diverse vendor partners as part of this bid And this was all done in real time during the open period of this RFP So this this was an amazing innovation for us an amazing result because it taught us that the larger Opportunities with the mass gaming Commission may need to be unbundled or can be unbundled for diverse participation And and the ability to access these marketplaces so that a prime contractor could utilize one of these vendors in real time It's quite a breakthrough for us. It was Absolutely amazing and I think the mr.. Reinforce the breakthrough for us came as Derek enabled us to be able to reach back out Of the community and then in real time amended The process to be able to include We can't tell you over the years how many times we've heard let's try next time let's try next time Yeah, there was no trying next time next time was too far away and Derek stepped in and made that change immediately We did it and for immediate positive impact for the common for the Commission in the Commonwealth So kudos and thank you to Derek Yeah, and this was a this is one of those areas where It was a really good idea coming from good feedback that we normally wouldn't have received so having Having Vera cloud here really assisted us because the contract manager wanted one prime Wanted one person to head up the research and with that comes their group of People they're used to working with and some of them may not be diverse by having a list of eleven diverse vendors Who are interested in doing a piece of it? It made it very easy for us to look at someone across the table saying I can't find a diverse vendor or diverse partner and say Well, then you're really going to get a zero on that piece of the scoring Because we've got a list of eleven right here You could be using that have showed an interest and say they can do a piece of this work so it was It was very impactful at it's something we'd like to do going forward Especially when you know someone said we want one prime But there's multiple components that we can say hey are the people interested in doing this and if so We'll update the list in the future with the potential partners you could partner with on this And and it wasn't a subcom sorry You first it wasn't was it a subcontracting range or was it joint joint partnership and you know really bringing the the diverse Company to the table it was however they wanted to do it two diverse vendors could have partnered with one another from that list That was an initial theory as well as prime contractors selecting one of those Partner with them and team on the actual bid submission It was a level of inclusiveness that did not exist before the procurement started and it was one We were able to open up in the middle of the procurement and it's going to inform How we do future large procurements would mention Really smart. Yeah Amazing does your system track? Results I know that a big piece of this is getting the diverse Vendors to the table I understand clearly, but do you also track where they may not have been successful in order to help them? We do we do we we provide an open feedback channel that actually has been utilized in the past I talked about that travel services RFR we did in 2018 about four months after that We got a phone call from a travel service vendor that we had identified and recruited that said hey I'm trying to bid on this thing for The building commission or some other commission in the Commonwealth and the RFP disappeared from combines. Can you help us out with that? I was absolutely thrilled one that they looked on it that looked at us as a resource, but also that That's a lasting impact here is someone that we had recruited that didn't win the award But was actively pursuing new business with the Commonwealth They went from isolated and unaware to an actively engaged and vibrant company We were making these marketplaces more vibrant and we're teaching Perspective vendors about opportunity and future opportunities. So yeah wasn't your point that perhaps those that struck a struggle Do you provide capacity building assistance after that? We do we help them we help them with combines accounts We help them through any aspect of the procurement and answer any questions that they might ask So is there a way to help them understand why they may not have been competitive with that particular bid? And so that they can improve the name we've done that we've we've actually sent because combines is such a It's a pretty thorough system the scoring reports are posted to combines after an RFP We've actually forwarded scoring reports back to people that we've recruited To show them here's where you may have fallen short and part of that We've provided feedback to the commission is that we have diverse vendors that scores zero on diversity Which is a problem with the rules, but it's again if you didn't know about these things You would not be able to change them in the future, but it's kind of you know Your your diversity status working against you if you bid on something and get no credit for diversity in the RFP Even though you're a diverse vendor Why would that be and that? It's just I think one of the one of the one of the problems with the Well, it's actually you know, it's through our Constitution, but The a diverse Company still must under our rules in Massachusetts must supply a must gain a Actually record a supplier diversity partner and so often a diverse Applicant won't think that applies to them So they leave it blank and then they end up getting zero points if they there needs to be clarity Around that it's like you know WBE's will say hey, I'm a WWE. I don't need to fill that up But they still need to get a Diverse partner through the supply chain It's a it's hopefully they're correcting that With their forms because it's in but that's the feedback is invaluable. I mean, it's it's incredible to be able to To help these marketplaces Grow and thrive and we see it. I mean, it's amazing Excellent and that's and that's what Doug and Todd have helped us with some of our scoring by saying hey, they are a diverse firm They might not have the certification. They're working through it right now to get it But there are diverse firms so we can give them the scoring points. We've received actual requests from these from these Participations of firms to come in and get a debrief on where they may have broken down now. We can't compare As you're well aware, we can't compare them to other scores We can't say but we can say this is where you may have fallen a little short. Just that's really critical. Yeah. Yeah We try to we try to be very transparent On our scoring criteria and be upfront with it and give as much information as possible Which is some of the feedback we got on early procurements Giving more details around what your scoring will be allows us to write a better application So we've tried to really use the feedback that Doug and Todd have received to make this a Better procurement process as well as I mean The activation that they've gotten from the community in the list that were already out there that OSD already had Created and the certifications that were out there to just apply them to our specific Procurement would have taken us an additional one or two people and We get to pay just for that one engagement so the value feedback and the minimal cost that that they are to us is is and the results they've given us are Amazing and we have a lot of work to continue to do As we've reported to you. That's why we went out and engage Todd and Doug We still have a lot of work to do to focus and you know, that's some of the stuff Doug and Todd are talking about Unbundling our statewide contracts Using them as a wherever some of our prime contractors are willing using them as a resource to them To say hey sit down go through your budget figure out where you have some Capacity to do some discretionary spending and see if they can find you some vendors You know that takes a lot of Opening the doors with our prime vendors and then we're being willing to it to do it But if they if that's ingrained in them like it is in PPC, they'll welcome it when we offered this to PPC They asked if they could have them for more engagements. We just ran out of money that year so So yeah, so I guess next up This is about the statewide contracts we touched on this a little earlier is is unlocking These statewide contracts and that's it's really a three-part process for us is researching the approved vendors to find out which ones are capable of satisfying the demands of the contracts identifying the marketplaces Comparing the marketplace with the authorized statewide contract list finding out the Delta. Are there any diverse vendors on there and then You know a campaign to basically include these vendors and help them get on statewide contract I'm not sure of the process, but it's it's certainly something that we're willing to do to help these vendors get on these Contracts so that when the Commission goes to buy something off contract. They know exactly who's diverse on that And if there wasn't anybody before We'd optimize that contract for diversity inclusion So part of the part of the beauty of being in the Commonwealth is the power of the Combine's platform and the power of the statewide contract process And we saw the opportunity years ago We thought of the company to create well-lit pathways to these tremendous resources in the Commonwealth to be able to illuminate Clear path forward for vendors who are focused on their primary business of doing their business They're not there if they're painters they're painters They're not focused on the process of navigating a large complex tools that are that are combined in the statewide contact contract process So we found that there's a tremendous opportunity to create Again create these pathways for these for these underserved populations to be able to Continue to raise their hand and we found as we described today with some of these case studies the amazing power of even one opportunity just just being being recognized as a potential vendor and then as a as a Diverse vendor then knowing that there are more opportunities Like you said madam chair across other agencies as well Yeah, it's not just promotional items don't just exist at the gaming Commission. They are across all of these state agencies So now those vendors know my gosh in addition to my regular promotional business there is a marketplace out there and by training those vendors so to speak to Access the power of combines and access the power of statewide contracts We create a lasting impact in the in the in the Commonwealth and a lasting impact in these communities and the families and the other businesses that they serve creating a Rising tide raises all ships approach to these diverse communities Thank you. Well, I would just add and say, you know, appreciate the work you've done for Derek and his team and on behalf of the Commission and You know Doug. We had a chance to meet long time ago you were Persistent in showing up at our access and opportunity committee meetings and that helped you one not only get in front of our Licensees but also eventually in front of us. So thank you for that persistence because it's had some results not only for us But in the case of plane Ridge, they've been able to utilize you as well. So Thank you for your good work. Thank you very much Commissioner And what it means to you Greater diversity inclusion. We've talked a lot about these different opportunities and the impacts we've been able to have and the feedback from the vendor marketplaces and What we haven't mentioned is the validation that the vendors feel when someone reaches out to them They're like, oh my gosh, this is great. No one's ever done this before. These are a lot of first-time users and They need that little jumpstart to get into the combine system and combines is very mechanical. It's based on codes The solicitations that go out for people have a lot of overlap And we found a lot of vendors tend to ignore them over time because they're not a fit What we've been able to achieve here is we create no noise in the marketplace when we go out to people It's a direct fit and there's relevance and we try to humbly relate to them and we try and support them and we ask there's a whole behavioral science component to Reaching people and getting them a ball involved and getting them to to provide feedback and interact And it's it's that extra bit. That's really making making the difference and You know as far as the Commission goes you're you're touching all these vendors You you you have this mission of being inclusive and diverse and now Everything that runs through this Commission It touches the marketplace. It actually touches everyone in the marketplace So we strive for this this a hundred percent inclusiveness meaning when the when the opportunity to go public We ensure that that marketplace every vendor and we we jump through a lot of hoops with the databases to ensure that we find every vendor We search even blank data fields because some people don't put a code in some people when they when they've done their certification just Fail to realize the importance of a robust description of having as many codes for the services it to provide I could code stories are very funny. There's Typical one is snow plowers a lot of these people needed someone to plow for snow now There's a NAICS code for snow plowing, but most people that plow snow are in property management and landscape That's a different code now to get get a really interactive piece of that marketplace You have to go after the property maintenance and landscapers not necessarily snow plowing snow plowing I'll have a few people that that's all they do with cloud snow But you're missing two-thirds in the marketplace so these are the the types of things that we've been able to do for the Commission and It's just had a transformative Result, I mean it's it's it's been really really amazing and we just like to reinforce that the only reason why we're able to do this is because of the Starting with the diversity commitment of the Commission Were it not for your solid commitment to this marketplace to creating diversity access and inclusion We wouldn't be able to sit here today We wouldn't have been able to serve the Commission or work with Derek and serve him in his his leadership over the last three years Now it's and it's not It's it's not to be underestimated the power of that commitment as a leader in the marketplace and when we spoke with OSD years ago, and it was you know See what that see what happens with with MGC It was a valuable opportunity for us as a company It's also a valuable opportunity for those diverse vendors in the marketplace to recognize your leadership. So thank you Sorry just to just to really wrap up and and and confirm we we work with We work with all sides the marketplace We're trying to create new sides the marketplace new and new new opportunities for both public and private sector vendors agencies Governmentals to be able to work together in ways that are intended by mission statements and Are able to be able to deliver results in ways that are previously not possible and we are grateful through our procurement optimization programs and our diversity works programs to be able to Find ways with innovators like Derek and with the Commission to be able to constantly provide incremental value and deliver incremental powerful impact and results On diversity missions like yours, and we're grateful for the opportunity to serve the Commission Grateful for the opportunity to serve the Commonwealth and the diverse vendors of the Commonwealth. Thank you, Madam chair Thank you commissioners for the opportunity to be here today as well. Thank you, Derek Thank you great service, and I hope many others take you up on this This niche that you saw a need for and it's so necessary and helpful Thank you so much excellent just one thing I want to say I keep getting the credit But it really is Agnes that does the majority of the work with Doug and Todd and it's the managers who actually bring forward the procurements and are willing to Because this takes extra time right it builds in time to each procurement And they're willing to go with us down this path and that speaks volumes to the message the Commission Has has given the staff that this is a vital part of the act a vital part of our community and vital part of the Commission's More so thank you. Well Derek. You're always good at making sure you share credit with your team when we Agnes is out today. We are thinking of her and know that she's a vital partner for you and for our entire team So thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you moving on to Item number four our administrative update you have two parts today Ed I do and I'm going to actually ask Derek to hang around So I will start with the administrative update As you know and I mentioned last time the racing season is over Commissioner Stebbins Zunaga and I went down After the last meeting and had lunch with our seasonal racing staff to thank them I think they were probably more appreciative to see pizza than us But they got to see us and we thank them and they do a a wonderful job, and we're very fortunate to have them so That so again, thank you that staff Chair you had mentioned this in your amendment to some of the minutes, but I did want to report back on some of the GEU staffing and overtime issues We've had a number of meetings on those actually this week And I'm fortunate that we have a lot of law enforcement experience on the commission to help meeting with Detective Lieutenant Connors on Staffing issues and risks and what overtime is being used for which leads me to the second issue Which is just a clarification on some of the overtime costs Which Detective Connors helped us understand Much like happens in other areas of Boston. There's a nightclub in On-carb called Memoir. It is staffed on weekend nights with some Additional police officers whether they're state troopers or local officers. There's a switch Those are what is called in the vernacular detail officers Those are folks who are not associated with the GEU who come from the state police troop in that area or Everett police officers And they are paid directly by big night entertainment the nightclub operator So that is not across us that and that is similar to what they do in their clubs in Boston and everywhere else So just to clarify that however There is there has been since opening a request By on core on certain nights usually weekend nights or holidays for enhanced GEU presence And sometimes they will want those folks in uniforms as opposed to the The I don't want to say dress down, but the less formal GEU attire Those items that those Billing items are going to be absorbed directly by on court. That was a direct ass also be So there is a little bit of Clarification we will do in the overtime budget and we are also working on the staffing issues With detective lieutenant Connors. So I think that that clarifies I had that understanding and I and I think Derek in your last report. There was a little bit of Ambiguity, so I think that's clear. Is that correct now? That's correct. Okay good, right? Excellent, and then and I think we'll hear more on the staffing later day. Absolutely So, thank you And the other thing I would in Derek is here But I just wanted to tell you Derek and his folks are over at Angkor this week doing our Statutory audit, which will be a little bit abbreviated because it's obviously a half year in a startup mode But they still there's a statutory requirement and they're over they're over doing that So thank you there and your folks and also I want to give a shout-out to our Game and agents despite the weather we were fully staffed at all the casinos during during the weather So that's as we all know was not in unchallenging Commute in weather time. So thank you to those folks for keeping our facilities well staffed So that is before I get into item B. That is my administrative update. I don't know if anyone has any questions on that Okay, great. Thanks. All right, so let's get into item B Which is the potential questions? Concerning a Potential RFI and what I'd like to do is try and Break this down into two processes so as you Well know the Commission has considered what if any information it needs to help Evaluate the future of region C in that previous meetings you had potentially discussed seeking either public and or expert Opinion on a number of issues related to region C what we're attempting to do here is provide a framework for the beginning of that Discussion and I'd like to suggest there are two related issues one is process and one is substance in terms of process The Commission has a number of tools available to it First it has an RFI which is the An acronym for a request for information and I this is one of the reasons I have Derek here He is a little more proficient in this area, but an RFI Presupposes but not Requires a subsequent procurement process an RFI is a way to help Clarify a subsequent procurement process Public comment as you know is public comment is is is I don't want to say I don't want to diminish what it is It is a different vehicle and and actually Derek made a good point This commission is uniquely situated maybe from other public bodies because of these meetings because of our transparency You do have an ability To do public comments I think in a way other bodies may not get responses for just putting out public comments now I also understand RFI and public comment are not mutually exclusive There is something that could be combined an RFI process is something that goes through combines Which is you just heard about Which may tend to Get different types of responses that may be just a public comment response So that is something to think about The other issue process and substance the the substance is obviously you will see the the questions The sort areas of questions I have proposed market study impact on Regency and potential potential mitigation in Regency Are things you might want to think about what is the type of information? Whether it's an RFI or public comment it is most valuable to you as you think about going forward I just wanted to take one more minute and just remind you of some of the statutory criteria that are in either an expanded gaming act or 23k that Could potentially influence your thoughts in section one Which is the enabling section of 23k? Section two talks about establishing This is the general court talking about why they passed expanded gaming in section two It talks about establishing the financial stability integrity of gaming licenses as well The integrity of their source of financing is an integral an essential element of the regulation control of gaming under this chapter In section four of 23k, which is the powers of the Commission section 12 talks about Develop criteria to assess which applications for gaming license will provide the highest and best value to the Commonwealth and That's my emphasis the region in which the gaming establishment is located in section 18 Which is the objective by which? Licensees would be measured and granting them section 18 Section 11 talks about maximizing the revenues by the Commonwealth And finally, you know this I'll just remind you of this Section 19 that talks about the issuance of category one licenses It is a permissive Statute the Commission may issue not more than three category one licenses It is not required. I don't want to delve too deeply, but I would be remiss if not mentioning Section 91 the expanded gaming act that did Talk about the difference initially in Regency in terms of a set aside for tribal gaming And that could be a whole nother discussion if I did want to mention it And well, I'm not going to mention much about tribal gaming my presentation obviously Todd and Justin are going to give you an update on what's going on in that the other thing I will mention before Is that In the packet with Todd's materials is a letter from the lawyers for math gaming and entertainment In which they suggest their own RFI questions, and I know you've had an opportunity To look at and I know they have representatives here today So I did want to mention all those things is by way of introduction So maybe as I said the sort of two areas I Suggest talking about are both process and substance in RFI versus public comment again Not mutually exclusive and then the areas that I that I have suggested some questioning on which again are not Exclusive there may be other areas you all are thinking about commission Yeah Executive director for Georgia and you mentioned that you thought that the It's typically presupposed that the RFI then will help inform the RFP correct The RFI is generally used to help inform a future procurement process Yes, but does not mandate right future procurement process. I think when I thought about the RFI it was It was information Valuable to help Think about timing as well as The appropriateness of of when and if that should be happening. I did not think about it as Well, you know, we're going to presuppose that we will one will lead to the other So I just kind of wanted to clarify that I think that that's a that's a very I think that's fair And I think I did the same Gail Commissioner Cameron. I I think that the footnote is is Is noted But one of the questions that is laid out here. I meant it is about the timing my thought was an RFI could be a vehicle and maybe it is also public comments either one to find out If we're going to spend money on doing a market study We would want to do it at an optimal time as opposed to receiving a market study that starts with a premise Well, this is not the optimal time, but if we make certain assumptions, this is what you could you could You might find to be the case So an RFI if we were to issue it and correct me It's like a director Brezhogen if I'm wrong could be What factors do we have to consider when we are thinking about the timing of getting a market study? And if they and that would inform If we do do an RFP for a market study When we would issue it. Yes. Yeah, so it would I looked at it. Yeah So I guess it's not necessarily forming in that case. It's not informing what's in it, but when we actually issued it I mean my Conundrum with the RFI versus public comment to is Your different audiences different questions and my concern with putting what our broader questions that we all have Into an RFI is it goes into combines and that is structured It's not mandated to have anything that follows a different process it follows But that is somewhat what is anticipated. So while you may be getting some responses from people who would give you market study There are a number of other questions that are in this Proposal in front of us to think about and what we've all talked about So not only are they not mutually exclusive, but I'm not so sure we should be grouping them together I think there might be a more streamlined RFI question that really does speak to potential vendors and Then a broader question of public comment in terms of the bigger questions in the statutory questions We have in front of us that I think we're going to want to answer Before and maybe at the same time is so you're suggesting that certain questions are more appropriate for public comment Right, and then I I think and I'm not certain that it might that it might you know clutter an RFI too because The conversation that we just had about you might have people that are looking at their codes looking at what you're doing You may see all this other chatter on there and they may just turn a blind eye or deaf ear to it and think that's So much of that is beyond what I'm doing. I'm not so sure it's gonna be very effective if we do it that way I'm I'd be curious to know your experience in the past with the RFIs in terms of what they've Looked like and the types of things that you've looked for So so most RFIs are are what led to it's a way of gaining information That most state agencies don't have like we have here We have open public meetings you can bring people in you can get points of view You can talk about the policy of it and you know most state agencies have to put together a round table or Discussion group and you don't get the big thoughts so you would start off with those Concepts that you're coming up with here and then you would pair them down into an RFI to get the business community to then engage And and get that thought process. So what you're talking about I have seen Wide-ranging RFIs that don't get much response or you don't get what you're looking for And then I've seen the round tables followed up by a very specific RFI For information and some of them have led to procurements and other ones haven't led to procurements So that it isn't a requirement But it usually is in the whole procurement process, which is what you're talking about with Regency anyways, do you do it or don't you do you do the actual application or don't you? So I think it's an appropriate vehicle for you looking for I think if you can streamline it down after you've had public Discussion or public meetings over the broader broader discussions, there'll probably be more more effective, but It doesn't mean you have to do it that way and that was my conversation with Ed We have a very unique platform here with the public meetings and with the Awareness of our public comments that you can pair the RFI down quite a bit I mean Do a public comment process first? That's that's helpful. So and I really thought it was interesting the idea of Not doing both to give us the same information maybe utilizing the two vehicles in a different way to gather different information And from different audience or as I said, yeah, different stakeholders Even the folks who come here are going to be different from Folks who might be responding to a combine. We might get Folks who aren't following us which which might be Interesting Mr. Stubbins, do you have a question right now? No, I mean I I agree with a comment been made Maybe there is an opportunity and I've had some of this conversation with the executive director Bedrosian about maybe tailoring We're narrowly defining some of the questions. I think You know the first question right off the bat is what obligation does the Commission have? I think we know that You know is Our executive director just pointed out the places in the statute where we have that authority I think to help answer that question for ourselves. I think where we get into the meat is on the second page With a list of questions that continue as well as the questions under Impact on Regent see Again, you know, it's it's a way to kind of tailor the questions. I think I think Both your points put it out there and not only solicits on public comment We do that a lot, but also hopefully engage some folks that are really This is their market niche. This is what they do and try to get them to Step up and offer a response again We want to make sure the RFI does not exclude anybody who responds from participating in an RFR or an RFP is the neck Move to that next step But I think I think some of the questions are right on what is What is the impact? What's the market look like in Regent see? What is the impact of what neighboring states might be? Do you know neighboring states have been doing in terms of the impact on the marketplace? So I Offer those comments and you know just think I Know this isn't up for a vote. Do we Narrow down the specific list of questions and come back The future meeting and do a vote to officially endorse the RFI But I think I think it is a helpful step for us to take Well, I think we can get to the ultimate process at the end of our discussion Maybe just right now address some of the substance. Do you have any substantive questions? about By the executive director and then also of course we appreciate I'm sorry. I'm stepping back from my microphone My point was that we want to make sure that Substantively we're addressing any questions and then also I want to know my appreciation for good in Proctor for submitting its Comment and the others who have submitted public comments we we heard also from Denton which represents Mashpee Mopinak tribe and We also heard from the state of Rhode Island So we think always folks for submitting public comments. It's a very instructive as Executive director Projogen mentioned the Goodwin submission does include Potential questions I thought This is certainly something that we heard during the the motion for reconsideration whether in fact there would be interested parties in Regency who would be inclined to even engage in an application process That might be a question that we do want to put forth. It's straightforward With that said, I don't know if we'd want to in any way that that wouldn't tie Anyone down in terms of if they didn't respond There's no application requirement in front in front of us. We wouldn't make company Commit at this point, but that might be an interesting question to present Substantively I am I do think one thing that is Would be hard for us to assess and I think expertise from it through an RFI might be helpful is how would we structure any kind of a Request for a market study to properly assess the implications for the Commonwealth Versus the region for some reason the region seems more straightforward to me How we assess the Commonwealth and I think we do have an obligation to consider the best interests of the Commonwealth as well as the region The questions do reflect the struggle that we have with respect to equity And it's not lost on I don't think any of us here that a Regency Folks not all may be interested in having a casino because of the Economic benefits that we've seen are coming through both region A and B Yet we are not obligated as you mentioned through our statute to issue the Another another license, so I am particularly interested in the question around the impact of a region C in the absence of our issuing a License so that's a little bit of a different twist and I I'm not sure if it would be in the same market study or if we could ask under the same R&P For both a market study of Regency in the Commonwealth and then also the the absence of a of an issuance of a license Because it's with that Could that be served? Could the that question be answered by the same RFP? So again The the vehicle for answering questions this one. Are you thinking RFI? Well, not our feet, right? Okay, the RFI Okay, would on would a single market study be able to address so many diverse questions or would it be better to parcel it out? well, I think Informed opinion on that would be invaluable. I do remember from the last time we participated in this process With market analysis that we conducted for region C They did in fact talk about Different parts of the region and how they would affect other Regions meaning out of state as well as our own other licensees So we did have access to some of that information Previously and I do think it's really important that we look at it the entire Commonwealth So I think it's possible. I guess is what I'm saying because we did have some of that Information available to us when we were reviewing Regency the first time Did you have it gaming only or other economic? We really they really well they gave us Different regions of the and then we did this for all of the regions. This wasn't unique to region C They talked about the market analysis if you put it in this side of the region and have the ability to make This kind of money for the Commonwealth As opposed to here, but here you may be able to make more money But you will be cannibalizing from your other licensees So it's so it's not so straightforward There were lots of considerations that we talked about and factored into our decisions With with the slots as well as the other licensees, so I know that was valuable information to us the first time We're able to gather that kind of information And so including jobs and yes, yes well, I think and maybe a next step and Please chime in would be perhaps to think about these questions and including any questions that are both Directly raised in our public submissions are less directly raised and see And and think about which would be best Addressed and Which vehicles public an RFI a public comment or something else that we're not thinking about right now What do you think? Is that I think that's a great approach, you know Regardless of the questions we put in the RFI to put those out for any member of the interest of public to weigh in is valuable also might also help us guide some Directions to our next steps Yeah, I think that's a That's a good path because I could you know see some of these very easily letting themselves to public comment More as they're more policy based public comment base and some Around the granularity of a market study when that should happen one of the best factors to consider seem to be more Letting themselves to a RFI so you'd have you know the people put eyes on that and hopefully respond And I do appreciate the fact that if you there could be some Mixing up of of interest, you know if you group them all together, but why don't why don't I go back with staff? We've heard the conversation and come up with a List of RFI questions a list of public comment questions With the idea that the RFI questions will be more specific on The on sort of the metrics and granularies of when to potentially do a study how to measure impacts And I think the public comment questions might be more policy based in you know, I think Issues about the expanded gaming act or maybe the authority of the Commission or something And do we think? Information a critical piece of Regency the first time it was open was the fact that because The the tribal casino potential casino Was was the backdrop That really restricted those some of those Potential applicants from from finance from from obtaining Finance so I don't know if that would be a public a public Comment question, you know, how much is that change? in the number of years is there still the same Thought that because that is still out there as a possibility that that that Hurts Competition so I think that's that was really so you remember in your in the early reports that financial Institutions were we're just not prepared to to make the capital investments because they thought the tribe Potential the tribe undercutting that business. Yes, so a fair question would be given Where we are now and what we're about to hear from mr. Grossman does that? That status shift that analysis for any financial institution That's a that's very interesting and I it may be that the being that would that is one aspect of the potential tribe Gaming I think there are probably other Implications of what is the from a commercial side? How are they valuing that risk if at all correct? And you've certainly got finance to be one I'm sure there's all there's a whole bunch of others that the experts in commercial Casinos would maybe also comment on well that would be informative so I think a natural Next step if we're extending to public comment public comments are It's I understand what we have Requested are usually done in writing This is different from a public hearing which I understand you've conducted in the past where you would Go to the various regions to hear from the people of the regions at this juncture Are we asking for that or are we going to ask for more technical? the more technical policy driven Questions and comments now through both the public comment Request and the RFI the reason why I asked is because we have already received of course through public comment Letters from Folks who live in? Regency and they've stated their position with respect to I believe all that I've seen are rocked and based right Are we inviting that now or do? and is that an important piece to ask for at this juncture I would think this information gathering public comment and RFI would help inform us if in fact we then would need a hearing And that that's a better vehicle for getting that so community input. I think so right I would suggest that let us go back sort of donate and make more granular the questions separate about RFI public comment Having said that chair I think you make a good point There's members of public who listen and are aware and want to send their thoughts in and that's public comment will always accept they may just say this process is Crazy or it's not crazy or whatever they whatever their feelings are and they're entitled as we take those at any time So we'd never say we're not accepting public comment. It just may be slightly different once we it's a different form Right now than what you've done in the past with respect to a public hearing But of course they could always submit through the public comment process Yeah, I would I would share that it'd be an agreement with that, you know looking ahead to We've had numerous public hearings We've had them as part of a process for looking at applications if we find ourselves beginning to a more Meteor stage of a conversation either we have We're moving to an RFP phase where we have Maybe selected somebody to come in and give us their analysis. I would think that might Be in more opportune time to have a public hearing to share more that media detailed information with the public Good, so I think I have some direction sufficient direction any any and of course this will allow you to Also speak with Commissioner Zuniga. He's not here today. I know that he would have input You can update him and see if he has additional thoughts Excellent, thank you. That's the respite. It helped very much Thanks, sir. Thank you. Thank you Thank you, Derek. So this is a simple exercise Thank you. We're now moving on to visits Item 5 we've completed item 4 and now we have our Interim General Counsel Todd Grossman with Attorney Justin Stapak and we've asked them to provide a status of the tribal litigation and federal legislation Regarding the tribe and as I said, it's not it is complicated. So thank you for this this effort And thank you madam chair and commissioners. Good morning As the Commission has requested mr. Stempeck and I put together a presentation relative to the status of The litigation involving the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe as well as the federal litigation legislation related to that subject matter before we dive in though There are a couple of points. I just wanted to make about our presentation if I may The first is that we will not attempt to project or predict or Handicap the outcome of any of these pieces of legislation They are all being litigated by very able capable competent attorneys on both sides And it would be unfair of us to sit in this forum Without benefit of them arguing directly to us and attempt to Assess who has the better arguments who's going to win anything of that nature? There's been ample public Pontification as to the outcomes of these matters including the legislation But nobody can sit and predict the outcome with any measure of certainty. So if it's Okay, we don't intend to Get into that realm Here today, we will of course present you with the facts of the matter and The status and any answer any other questions that we may be able to The second is that We will offer you a broad overview of the law and jurisprudence affecting these pieces of litigation and legislation to Enable you as commissioners to Uh guide your decision-making relative to Region c However, there have been masterclasses taught on some of the areas that we'll discuss here today We've attempted to distill these issues though down to their essence to just provide you With the best information we can again to help inform Your decision-making. We are of course prepared to expand on any areas that are of interest To any particular commissioner With that if I may madam chair and commissioners I'll kick things off by jumping into the first a couple of slides then I'll turn the presentation Over to Justin who will take it from there and we'll start with The first slide here as you can see The law actually mandates that the commission do precisely what it is that we're doing here today And section 67 Says that the commission shall continue to evaluate the status of indian tribes and the commonwealth Including without limitation gaining federal recognition We're taking land into trust for tribal economic development The next slide Is designed to offer a roadmap of the presentation And help put these matters into chronological perspective While it's not an exhaustive list of all things Related to tribal gaming we have selected those matters that we believe Are necessary to inform decision-making by the commission relative to regency We'll discuss most of these items in the further slides that will come and detail Them as best we can for you and of course we can reference back to this slide If that would be helpful as well The only not the only but one of the Issues that we realized that was not included on this particular slide that may be an interesting point of reference It's just that the commission's Decision on the application in regency for the gaming establishment in brockton Was made on april 28th of 2016 So that would be the top of the second column here On slide number three Before we move into the litigation involving the mashpee wampanoag tribe We thought it'd be helpful to touch on a bit of the law injurious prudence Jurisprudence that's at the core Of the cases and adds some context to the discussion that will follow The first thing to just be aware of is the indian reorganization act or ira as it's commonly referred to The ira as you may be aware was a piece of what has been referred to as the indian new deal It was enacted in 1934 An efforts at a time when efforts were being made to assimilate indians into american society To the detriment of preserving their culture and their history So the ira was a recognition that this was not the proper policy direction for the united states The law set out to strengthen encourage and perpetuate indian tribes and their historic traditions and culture The supreme court recognized this in a 1974 case where it said that the overriding purpose of the ira Was to establish machinery whereby indian tribes would be able to assume a greater degree Of self-governance both politically and economically And finally on this point, there's a passage in one of the cases that Justin will discuss. This is the case out of the dc circuit judge Collier there summed up the ira Better than i could so i thought we would just include her language right in here where she said that the ira was adopted in 1934 To change a century of oppression and paternalism in the relationship of the united states and its native american tribes And this is the part that's relevant to our discussion here today Its purpose was to create the mechanisms whereby tribal governments could be Reorganized and tribal corporate structures could be developed as well as to make the acquisition of lands easier To be held in trust by the united states to enlarge or create new indian reservations The united states secretary of the interior is delegated the authority to acquire land in trust for indian tribes The secretary's authority under the ira is cabin by whether a tribe meets the statutes definition of indian found in the uh the ira and we'll discuss that definition momentarily But it's before we get there. I just wanted to point out that it's notable what the ira does not discuss And that is gaming the ira was not a gaming act in any way the gaming piece of the equation is addressed in 1988 By congress when it enacted the indian gaming regulatory act That's the federal law that governs indian gaming contains the familiar class one two and three Categories of indian gaming What it also does though is essentially requires that indian gaming be done on what is referred to as indian land This is how uh the uh The gaming act ties into the ira The ira governs how land is taken into trust and becomes indian land And specifically the ira authorizes the secretary of the interior To acquire land and hold it in trust quote for the purpose of providing land for indians It is the definition of the term indian that forms the basis of most of the Uh litigation that we will get into momentarily So we can have a look at That definition here on slide Number four Where we talk about um an important case Relative to this which is kichiri v salazar So kichiri versus salazar Is the widely cited and off Reference 2009 us supreme court case In which an important part of the definition of indian under the ira was interpreted by the supreme court And as we say here on the slide the case addressed the authority of the secretary of the interior to take land into trust on behalf Of a tribe based on that ira definition of indian prior to To kichiri it appears from A number of commentators and otherwise that the bia's position was that the ira applied to all Federally recognized indian tribe. So it wasn't until the court addressed this issue that the Jurisdictional issues became Really part of the landscape So the ira defines um The term indian as we have up here on the slide and it has three components to it It's really the first two that we will focus on here today. The third has never really been part of this litigation so kichiri itself talked about the first definition of indian which is All persons of indian descent who are members Of any recognized indian tribe now under federal jurisdiction And it's that underlined and highlighted language that the court focused on in kichiri it's The second part of the definition that became relevant to the massachusetts litigation that you'll hear about and that part provides that an indian includes All persons who are descendants of such members who were on june 1st 1934 residing within the present boundaries of any indian reservation So those are the two important parts of the definition of the term indian from the ira The supreme court held specifically that the authority of the bie to take indian lands into trust hinged on the phrase now under federal jurisdiction the court held that the term and now under federal jurisdiction unambiguously and this is a quote from the case refers to those tribes That were under the federal jurisdiction of the united states when the ira was enacted in 1934 So that was really the subject of the case is what does the word now mean in now under federal jurisdiction? And the court concluded and it was a majority decision though. There were Concurrences and there was there was one dissent But it was a majority decision the court held that now meant in 1934 When the ira was enacted so that obviously had a big impact on Indian law and how the bia was able to take land into trust on behalf of indian tribes Cacheria is interesting for what it did not address and that has led to some of the further Litigation and the m memo that we'll talk about really briefly on this slide as well The majority did not address the timing under which the tribe had to be recognized under the definition Nor did it determine how it should be determined what under federal jurisdiction actually means and that's what the solicitor of The doi addressed in the m memo that we describe a little bit below But she picked up on a theme that justice bryer talked about in kichiri and his concurrence and he pointed out that Um an interpretation that reads now the word now as meaning in 1934 May prove to be somewhat less restrictive Than it first appears That is because the tribe may have been under federal jurisdiction in 1934 even though the federal government Did not believe so at the time so That has left the door open to Um the doi the bureau of indian affairs and others To assert that a tribe may be covered in even in light of kichiri Under the ira and land may be able to be taken into trust so There's the the distinction between formal recognition and being under a jurisdiction that is a critical component To the upcoming litigation So with that if there aren't any specific questions, we can move right into the mashpee wampanoa case And so i'm going to be addressing the three federal cases As todd mentioned, um just also with respect to his partial disclaimer at the beginning Each one of these federal cases has dozens of filings comprising hundreds if not thousands of pages, so This is really a a sample Understand to really distill it down to the key factors that are relevant in each case There's a lot to discuss and unpack with each one of these cases I'll try and touch on all of it, but if there's any further discussion on specific points. I'm happy to get into that Possibly at a later date with a later presentation But so if we look at the slide here, there's three cases a little field case that took place in the district of massachusetts There's the little which was then appealed to the first circuit in little field The mashpee wampanoa get indian tribe and there's a separate and an independent case out of the district court in Washington dc, which is the mashpee versus the secretary of the interior Originally, uh mr. Zinke now a mr. Bernhardt So just starting with the massachusetts case first This case, uh, as you all are aware was a citizen group challenge to the land and trust status of the mashpee wampanoa tribe As todd mentioned this was a challenge under that second definition in the in the ira. So really what was being analyzed was Uh, the the phrase um Such members was the focus is descendants of such members. How is that interpreted? So uh, what judge young in this case was looking at was When you're referring to such members, what does that mean? What is it what it what how do we interpret that under rules of statutory interpretation? And what judge young concluded was he said such members refers back to the first definition in the ira of This is also from that same definition All persons of indian descent who are members of any recognized tribe now under federal jurisdiction So he says he what he said was since the tribe was not under federal jurisdiction in 1934 It could not qualify as indian under the ira and thus the secretary could never have taken it The land into trust and as a result of that decision he remanded it back to the doi for further proceedings along the lines of the other definitions of indian in the ira Critically the factual question of whether they the tribe was actual actually under quote unquote federal jurisdiction Was not before judge young And he was actually asked to clarify his his original opinion with a motion for reconsideration and clarification And he explained that he said he said oh, I my decision was not I was not analyzing that particular factual issue That was not before me That can go back to the doi for further interpretation by them as they are the administrative agency charged with Interpretation of that statute So what what then occurred was so the do the department interior accepts that clarification decision And they go back and they come up with another record of decision interpreting Tribal status and land and trust they requested evidence from the tribe They received what I understand to be reams of evidence hundreds if not thousands of pages of historical documentation and the like And then in a secondary record decision which came out in september of 2018 They determined that the tribe did not qualify as under federal jurisdiction in 1934 And so that's this that was Pursued to the the that first definition and then they refer back to judge young's Judicial decision said okay, so the tribe doesn't qualify for land and trust as indian under either the first or the second Definition as put forth in the ira So that then takes us to the appeal of the decision um so after the decision by judge young um The originally the department of interior actually appealed the decision to the first circuit But then with the change in the presidential administration They voluntarily dismissed their appeal which created some procedural issues in the federal district court Which I don't need to get into too too much depth, but basically there were questions raised as to um Whether that the cause of action in the first circuit still was valid in light of what was going on in dc because the dc action in in uh a nutshell is challenging the The decision of the department of the interior of the secondary decision in september of 2018 So the judge in the first circuit asked The parties in the first circuit to show causes why is it not moot by what's going on in dc if dc is Challenging the actual record decision isn't that kind of moot what's going on here in the first circuit? Um, and then there's a secondarily this procedural issue about the fact that since the department of the interior Dropped out of the first circuit case. Is there really? um And there's only a tribe which is essentially a private actor charge Challenging an administrative action which was remanded. There were some questions of whether there's proper jurisdiction and standing um So, uh, what's what's happened most recently in the first circuit case is Uh, the tribe has filed its appeal brief challenging judge young's reasoning They mostly focus on the interpretation of the phrase quote-unquote such members. So there's a lot of statutory interpretation and rules of construction um dozens of pages on How you were to read that and how it could be interpreted differently than what judge young's uh conclusion was The the the opposing brief has yet to be filed that first circuit case remains pending Justin, um When Can you remind me it's not it wasn't ken Salazar his successor Yeah, um under the would have been under um the last administration um The bottom of the administration his name or her name The secretary of the interior The the secretary of the interior that rendered the 2015 decision right. Um, I actually have the 2015 decision Right here. So I think they filed that secretary in the in the appeal actually filed briefs with their arguments Before the administration changed. I know it was a close time period No, there was no briefs. There was no briefs. It was voluntarily dismissed before appellate briefs were filed in the first circuit By the new administration. Yes. So the old administration never filed any briefs No, they did not file any substantive they they filed a notice of appeal, but did not have the opportunity to file briefs, right? And the uh name of that interior Oh, it was a woman. That's right. Okay, and the author of the original the uh, the original I think Record of decision that may that may have been jewel as well So she just had a chance to file the notice of appeal and did not file briefs So I just um I was curious to get the benefit of Those arguments that would have been presented by That secretary even but we don't have the benefit of a written brief, right that that that's why there's been this sort of Procedural and substantive wrangling that's taking place right now as to whether the tribe as a Because the tribe was originally a party to the district court decision They came in as an intervenor Yeah, and so then it was some procedural questions are being raised now about whether they're they can properly maintain the appeal Since the original appellant uh has has now voluntarily dismissed me. I understand that judgment. So okay, but there just were no documents No briefs filed Okay, and then Okay, thank you that just clarifies that sure I think you were going on to the next yes the next case here, which is uh the The dc case so as I mentioned in the district court in washington dc What this case is is the tribe's challenge to the record of decision from 2018 So that was the second record of decision put out by the department of interior The one that found that the tribe was not under federal jurisdiction in 1934 despite the record of evidence submitted by the tribe um So the tribe's argument in in very basic terms here is that the secretary failed to properly consider all the factual evidence that was submitted And uh failed to properly evaluate that it was under federal jurisdiction in 1934 Um, the department of the interior has responded and asserted that it did properly consider all the evidence in reaching its conclusion They make the traditional arguments that most administrative agencies would make and that there's a deference to administrative agency But there's a narrow scope of review That their decision was supported by the administrative record and that they properly evaluated all the evidence um Now the the the trial the the tribal interest also aside from the the sort of factual challenge and Calculating the weight of the evidence they referenced the fact Sort of swinging all the way back to the ira. They say your what's happened here is the original purpose of the ira is not being met by uh in terms of What the the policy guides were there and also that there's a indian canon of construction which loosely Says that statutes should be construed liberally in favor of indian tribal interests um So in that dc case the little field plaintiffs from massachusetts moved to intervene that they're also now part of the dc case They've moved to track to transfer the case back to massachusetts, which was denied by the washington dc judge And but they have also filed briefs arguing in support of the doi decision in dc. So right now you have a number Motions and cross motions for summary judgment and oppositions there too Filed by both the citizen group by the department of interior and by the tribe So those are all currently pending. No action has been taken on any of those Motions thus far and each one of those is a fairly significant piece of litigation on its own But that's that's a very again a thumbnail sketch of what's happening in dc in Any anticipated timeline on that? I what i've seen uh what i've seen Sort of reference was a six to nine months possibly for a decision But these are fairly some of those filings are fairly recent as well. So they were you know this this fall about a month ago so we're The the ink is still wet on those documents. Um, so I think six to nine months I would I would I would think probably in a longer Okay, the longer end of that estimate to because there's a lot of issues that need to be unpacked here by the judge um And now if there's no other questions on the litigation, I'll turn it back to Todd for a moment just to discuss the federal Legislation initiative so Um, thank you. Um before we do that I don't know. There's one other case that there was some interest in discussing and that's the keiji urban Matter which we can get into This is the right time for that. I think this is probably a good time to break into that I'll just if I may madam chair just quickly tee it up and point out that as the commissioner Cameron and stephens will recall as having been named defendants in that case Uh, it was decided by the first circuit in on august 1st of 2012 Essentially, there was an argument by keiji urban Uh, who filed this litigation literally the day the new gaming act Was enacted Asserting that really section 91 of the gaming act, which we'll get into in a little more detail in a bit Uh discriminated on the basis of race and violated the state and federal equal protection clauses of the respective constitutions um So those cases were it's important to recall Though that case was decided at a time before the commission had really done much Of anything as far as making decisions or opening region c or anything of that nature. So Um, I don't know if there are specific questions. We can try to get into those but Uh, there has been assertion that the Some of the language Highlights equal protection concerns relative to not immediately opening region c by the commission We have always been of the opinion That where the commission has already opened region c and already rendered a decision That the equal protection argument has dissipated In that there's no present indication that the commission is not opening region c because it's waiting Uh to see what happens with any of these cases or that section 91 precludes Any action or anything like that. So it is my in our opinion, at least the legal staff that That the Language in kg urban does not in any way at the moment anyway preclude or or preclude the commission from Taking a close look at region c In that there's no real no equal protection concern at the moment Can you just give me a short what's the holding of kg urban? kg well that basically I'm trying to remember exactly The holding was that Part of it. Yeah, thanks. The part of it talked about the gaming policy advisory committee, which isn't really relevant to this particular Conversation because the tribe had a seat on the gaming policy advisory committee. So there's some question as to the legality of that The the court held that the company's equal protection challenge was right for judicial review. So it sent it back to The trial court to take a look at that And that it also found that based on the information it had before it at the time That the factors weighed against any injunctive relief. So the court wasn't going to step in and order the commission to Not enforce the gaming act or to open up region c immediately or anything like that So it was really a lot of it centered on whether injunctive relief was appropriate and things of that nature I think one of the things todd mentioned as well should be kept in context is the kg urban first circuit decision was decided in 2012 so if you look if you went back to the timeline slide here You'll see a whole host of things that have happened after 2012 that If we had a kg urban today, I I believe that I could speak for Todd as well here We'd have a very different analysis because there's a whole the factual landscape has changed Regency we had opened it. We considered one applicant already And not to mention all the things as I mentioned with the litigation involving the tribe and the carcieri decision All of these things have happened post kg urban. So the kg urban decision although raising the equal protection issue I um and highlighting it there. We do have to recognize the timeline of Significant actions that have taken place in the intervening seven years and how those would lead to potentially a very different decision If it were the same question were to come before the first circuit today If there are no further questions on Uh kg urban and of course we can circle back on any of these issues and provide you with further information As we move forward we can move on to um slide number 12 And just like with um A lot of the litigation their Commentators have offered a variety of opinions as to the likelihood of the outcome of This particular piece of legislation both politically and legally and what have you but the the facts of the matter are that In january 2019 representative Keating introduced The mashpee wampanoag tribe reservation reaffirmation act. It was a refile from the previous Session though this time he had 35 cosponsors who joined at a variety of times and it includes the entire Massachusetts delegation. I believe the bill itself, which was actually Approved and passed by the house Would reaffirm the tribe's trust land And ratify and confirm the secretary of the interior's decision to take the land into trust It would also preclude the filing of any further matters and dismiss any pending federal Litigation concerning anything involving that particular land So it was uh passed in the house in may of this year. It was sent over to the senate There was no further activity that we could find that's been reported in the senate Again, there was an identical bill that was filed last session by senator marky in the senate That particular bill was sent into committee and no action was taken On that so that's the status of the mashpee wampanoag tribe Reservation reaffirmation act there has always not always there has been ample So-called cachery fix legislation that's pending been pending at different times in congress Which would essentially Allow the bia to take land into trust on behalf of indian tribes Regardless of the dates of their recognition. So it would take out the whole 1934 piece of cachery There's never been any tremendous Movement as far as i'm aware on any of the so-called cachery fix legislation but that's always out there and always a possibility So that's the the legislation And Finally on slide 13 We'd just like to briefly address the the tribes position which came in Via this letter from chairman cromwell on november 30th And perhaps of of most Interest is his quote where he referenced He says that unless and until the land is taken out of trust pursuant to a plain reading The massachusetts gaming act mgc lacks authority to award a category one license in region c In the absence of a determination that the united states will not take land and trust for the tribe Now he doesn't cite exactly where he's getting that from but he appears to be referencing either section 91 chapter paragraph e Which is the cited language here or possibly he may be referring referring to the section 2.6 of the compact between the state and the tribe There's i don't Let me if i'm sorry, let me make because i dug these out last night justin didn't have and i didn't have a chance to discuss this But so we're kind of That's working off the cuff here There were actually letters filed by both the tribal attorney and The rush street gaming's attorneys Arguing this very point in it first came up in 2013. It was then reinstituted in 2016 Right before the commission was about to make its decision in region c It was a matter as i was able to go back last evening and look at some of the transcripts That as commissioners cameron and stephens may recall There and it was it was a part of the broader question as to whether the commission should open region c It was a very complicated and difficult question Dating back to 2013 Ultimately, of course the commission did read it did open region c and did actually accept a bid And did make a decision on it, but the tribe Has been clear in its position that as justin mentioned both section 91 e of the gaming act and Some language in the compact would preclude the commission from opening region c to any Any non tribal so-called commercial Entity and if it's helpful We have the language from the compact where essentially in the background section It's not in this power point, but In the background section to the compact So what we would call recitals oftentimes The parties agreed that section 91 of the act provides that if a compact negotiated by The governor is approved by the general court by july 31st 2012, and that's a whole other issue It was and then it was rejected by the Doi and what have you The mgc will not issue a request for a category one license applications in region c Unless and until it determines that the tribe will not have land taken into trust For it by the united states secretary of the interior Um, and then it has a little more language, but that's the applicable language um the I don't want to speak on behalf of the commission because this is well documented In commission meetings and obviously the commission opened up region c so it Was of the belief that that did not Stand as an absolute barrier to doing so But the essential position was that section 91 Of the gaming act. It's not in chapter 23k. It's just in the gaming act Does not by it's on its face, and that's the language you have here in the power point actually say that It basically just mandates action in certain circumstances, but it doesn't preclude action otherwise in the discretion of the commission and that's That was the discussion that uh revolved around section 91 It's important. I guess for today's purposes, and we can certainly get into it a little further, but just to understand and recognize that this issue does exist Um, and that obviously there are new Commissioners who weren't part of the initial discussions who may have a different take on These provisions So in the event we move forward or even in advance of moving forward It's important to recognize that this is an issue that will come up But you um and your colleagues the legal department made a clear, um Had an opinion That they disagreed with the interpretation of the tribe That has not changed That was my opinion then and it remains my opinion today It would been the tribe and the governor's office because it's in the compact, correct You well if just to drill down a little further on that point I don't want to in any way suggest that I'm disagreeing with the governor's office because that's not Well, I just wondering because I want to make sure that The the language you just read From 2.6 is the government is the compact which was between not only was with the tribe and The governor's the other signature in the commonwealth the governor on behalf of the commonwealth Right, it's important if if we want to kind of put the whole thing in context And this is a whole we could spend and probably should spend way more time on this than just The couple minutes we may talk about it right now But it's also important to read the compact holistically and not just that one provision This is a recital That's I I would argue is just part of the so-called recitals It's in the background and you also have to understand that further on Down in the compact it specifically addresses what will happen if a commercial casino Is awarded to a licensee in regency and it talks about how the tribe will not Have to pay any part of its revenues to the commonwealth And there are other similar provisions where the compact recognizes that it was a it is a possibility That the commission will award a license in regency So there's more to it than just the fact that this language exists in the background section of the compact because I wasn't here and I just would like to walk through your what I think was the commission's thinking so The language that the tribe has quoted that Chairman Cromwell has quoted in his letter says that That if at any time after august 1 2012 the commission determines that the tribe Will not have land taken into trust then the commission has an affirmative obligation to consider bids but If the commission determined that the tribe would have land taken into Trust We weren't barred from going ahead That's been our position. That's your position. And that's why you did in fact back in 2016 Open up regency for applications Essentially, that's right And that would make sense because In order for the tribe to have Um a casino it has to have the land and trust decision But certainly the tax structure assumes that there could be both the tribal casino and a commercial casino Right the compact itself and Todd mentioned this briefly But it actually has a more of a discussion about exclusivity and what the value of exclusivity is and sort of balancing the interests of exclusivity vis-a-vis the commonwealth versus the tribe and then ultimately concluding on this Revenue adjustment based on the existence of a regency casino or the non-existence of a regency casino How that would affect the tax rate on the tribal casino in regency I understand it might be worthwhile to have an amendment That does spell this out a little bit more carefully given that it is the tribe's consistent position For those of us who are newer, what do you think commissioner o'brien? Would you like that? Just uh, are you fine? You've got it An amendment to just your an amendment in terms of to your just another page to describe what you do to the power point Adding in the compact just acting up for each for the future not to any bill No That's really helpful and just for the record. I think you just have a little typo on the bullet just so that folks know our The act the gaming act is 2011 We just celebrated the eighth anniversary That's helpful Commissioner Stevens did you have any question that you were here so you may remember this? No, no it was uh The presentation was helpful going over the other day with Todd to kind of get an update on all the pending litigation Three ongoing cases And if it you know, if it's not complicated enough, I know you've all heard this There is currently land and trust it is and as we've understand There's not a mechanism to take land out of trust They the department here hasn't done that that doesn't mean it can't happen, but it just goes there's just layers of complicated procedure here and and the power point does show that These decisions are quite fluid in doi So that if we did have a change in the administration, I know this is contemplated by Folks who have appeared in front of us or who have made public comment If there were a change in administration next year There's a possibility that doi could issue Or have an opinion that reflects the prior Secretary of Interior who initiated that appeal But can I ask this at a certain point in time there must be There's some reliance that they have to be able to be able to Build on the land in trust Despite a change in administration's opinion They wouldn't be that would be nice Some kind of degree of reliance if in other words if it were to change With a change of administration and someone began building another change from doi to suggest that There's a change. Yeah We haven't seen it, but there has been a lot of fluid decision making here And or the senate could change and Decide that to take the matter up in the senate that's right at the house bill that was passed another senate might exactly So it wouldn't necessarily just be the change in the administration to change in senate as well But it would still have to be signed by the president. Yeah, you'd have to be signed by the same administration And more questions. This has been you know, I I did ask for this When we when we looked at the motion for reconsideration I Personally really appreciate you Simplifying it. I understand how complicated it remains This was very helpful as a next step Mr. Do you have any further questions? No, I agreed. I find it helpful Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Look, we are going to take a 10 minute break before we move on to Our our new number six with the dr. Lightbound We're now reconvening meeting 283. We'll restart with the racing division dr. Lightbound, please Good afternoon commissioners. Good afternoon Today I have the co over Suffolk Downs chiptuttle with me to discuss some of their items The first item is the Suffolk Downs request for approval of their simulcast import locations Normally these items are taken care of when a track applies for their live racing dates So for instance when you approved plane ridges Application a few months ago Their locations were included in that as part of it. So since there isn't a live application in front of us now This is being done separately And their locations are locations that they've done in the past I Recommendation is to approve these locations Do you want to go over the implications of the deadline? There's a pending deadline? Yes, there's a deadline of January 15th, yeah, and And that's for all the tracks for all their simulcasting and account wagering So obviously we're hoping to have something from the legislature an extension or New bill in place by them so that we don't have a disruption in racing But until that point we do need to go ahead and have these sites confirmed so that The tracks can send out letters to their sites that they are approved to use them So simulcasting would be disrupted if that there is not an extension, right? Correct Alex is it appropriate under the of it we have We're taking two votes one is on adw and the other one is on the simulcast import location But The introduction of fan dual racing is that under the adw piece? Yes, that's under the adw piece. Okay This is just item a the simulcasting part of the there's different simulcasting sites But the two items are addressed in the one letter. Yes, the mr. Tuttle addressed them both in the same letter Madam chair, I move the commission approves the Suffolk downs request for approval of the simulcast import location That's listed in there november 8th 2019 letter Okay, second second all those in favor with unless there's any for the discussion Okay, all those in favor. I opposed or zero So the next item is the Suffolk downs request for approval of their account wagering providers several of these have been long term ones the Express bets tbg twin spires are all from the early 2000s Naira bets the gaming commission approved in 2016 as a new provider And suffix is also asking for this This year for fan dual racing, which is going to be based on the tbg backbone I get the companies are the same now but together and basically the face of it will be fan dual So it'll attract customers Hopefully from the fan dual site To racing and chip titles here if you have any more questions I know we have a A presentation on the fan dual Platform So we're voting on it and then we'll look at the presentation Well, that's part of your packet if you want to look at the slides We can flip through the slides that shows This is what they are and and what they're Would you like to have that I would love to talk about it before we vote on it. I think that makes sense Yeah, I think we have additional questions on the fan dual and just look the process too So if you could go through that, I'll do my best to tell that would be great Okay, this is the first slide Um This this slide was sent to us. Uh, this presentation was sent to us by the fan dual group as as way of background um patty power vet fair The british book making company acquired tvg several years ago and then Patty power vet fair merged With fan dual the daily fantasy sports company I think that was about two two and a half years ago and um, you know, they launched As the commission is aware the the daily fantasy sports companies have gone into sports betting Um, this company also had a background in paramutual wagering and horse racing by way of tvg They're now the leading provider Of sports betting services in new jersey. They're in pennsylvania. They're in west virginia They're expanding into to various states under the fan dual brand um, one of the the things that they're trying to do is Take advantage of exposing horse racing to the daily fantasy sports audience that fan dual has built up through the years They have six seven million account holders And so fan dual racing is really an effort to expose horse racing to these daily fantasy sports Customers on the fan dual platform on the existing fan dual platform So it's not being marketed to existing racing fans It's basically just on the fan dual platform now. There's going to be a An additional platform and and integrated content where you're going to be able to click If you're a daily fantasy sports player and and Open an account to to play Horse racing as well through advanced deposit the tvg advanced deposit wagering platform It's sort of the tvg back end system The orgon hub The multi-jurisdictional orgon hub Is the licensing authority for this and it has been approved in California, kentucky, new york They plan to launch in 20 to 25 states Shortly after the first of the year at around the first of the year And they've asked us if we would Come to you and include fan dual racing as one of our the massachusetts authorized advanced deposit wagering entities Yeah, so really is the same company just a new platform and an ability to reach a different audience That's the intent. Yes, and and um, but They they put it under the fan dual brand because Yeah, and and those customers I think the idea was those customers want to stay under the fan dual brand as opposed to introduce a new brand to them That they may not have heard of or understand so commissioner cameron I learned a little bit about the background on The approval of adw is from dr. Lightbound But they're the commission Did not require additional Licensing requirements like we do For instance should sports betting be approved Because you know the operator of a sports book What would likely be subject to our licensing processes that are currently in place for our gaming establishments or some sort of Level of licensing, but we don't do that for horse racing. Well, we've talked about doing a more robust licensing process but because License rather racing was in such flux And the legislature needed to play a role We made a decision to kind of hold off on that expanding our licensing Requirements when it comes to adw's until we had some certainty Um, I think we all thought the certainty what happened before now So that That is something we certainly could revisit Because I do believe we need to do a little more work here just to a little more due diligence when it comes to Adw's so the adw's in the past that have been approved Are all the ones that are listed in this letter as part of the license. They've been approved in the past Yeah, I may be able to add some color to that, uh, madam chair In 2001 In the the annual update or the the Semi-annual sometimes update of racing and simulcast statutes They there was a change to specifically authorize adw in massachusetts and and so the the only Licensing requirements were that Any adw provider, you know, it had to be through an existing massachusetts paramutual licensee could have been any of the four at the time And that it was approved by your predecessor agency the racing commission and so that that's just been the process Since 2001 But we've made a lot of changes to the racing application to the requirements to the work that the state police in racing do so we have Improved the process I would say there is more due diligence, but this is an area that we identified as something that we could We could do some more work along the lines of looking at these companies But as I said, we we really made a decision to to hold off Doing that until we had some certainty and maybe we will have that certainty With the legislature working on or considering a number of bills And I think from the talking to the legal department that We're going to go ahead and start looking at it over the dark season that we have for the winter Gives us a good time to catch up with some different projects that we don't have time for during the season and um, you know start looking at these regulations, we've already pulled a bunch of them from different states and Kind of start to see where we might want to go and then obviously see where the legislature goes with the different bills that are out there and Take that into account So you you said that california approved fandom racing Maybe last month. Yes, they do it based on the same information that we would be approving No, no, did they have additional information? They have a detailed Application procedure their application for account wagering is almost similar to our application for a racing license So it's um, you know a very detailed application So it was a rigorous review, right? They've gone through it in california as well as the states that use fandom for sports betting i.e. New jersey They have gone through a rigorous licensing process there in order to In order to operate in new jersey, so the company has a corporate entity Can I just ask you a quick question? I'm somewhat encouraged by what Vanduul is trying to do or position for the players in terms of introducing New folks to horse racing and in race betting I Guess who approached you as a tvg saying hey now, you know if you're going to re-approve us or use us again next year Let us tell you about the fanduul piece or fanduul. I mean, how did the Um, yeah, I mean it was it was tvg basically saying hey We're you know, we're launching launching fanduul racing and there are certain states that require a specific Of regulatory authority approval. There are others that don't where they're active already and they can just Do it under the the existing umbrella They identified massachusetts clearly as one of the states along with new york, kentucky, california, illinois I believe that required specific approval and came to us and said as part of your license and Licensing and and application process for 2020 could you please include fanduul racing as an adw provider and and based on our 18-year relationship with tvg and you know we were we tvg has always been sort of the gold standard of advanced deposit wagering companies specifically You know it doesn't do business in texas other other companies sometimes do because you know tvg has had a corporate policy to only Do business in states where it's specifically authorized they stay out of the sort of quote unquote gray states And so they made the request and we followed up with this action Um, I noticed a couple of the fanduul slides again I look at this as they're trying to introduce racing to their existing customer base Um, have you had a chance to go through it and just kind of see from a tutorial A viewpoint does it offer? Somebody who's new to Race betting I had enough information and enough kind of like background is how to do it and what to look for Yeah, they they um, they showed me the platform a few weeks ago out in in california at the corporate headquarters in los angeles But uh, I haven't you know gone on on my own mobile device or laptop to To experiment myself yet. Um, I suppose I could do that because I have opened a fanduul account But uh You know for for daily fantasy, but uh, I haven't yet And I don't think it's you know, I think it's in beta I don't think it's you know, it's active Uh yet, but I could I could find that out Just curious to see how they plan to measure whether this is going to be a success for them Additional questions for mr. Toddl and dr. Lightbaum Uh, adam chair had moved the commission approved suffix downs requests for express bet l lc tv g Twin spires and ira bets in fanduul racing is account deposit wagering providers Second Any further discussion or questions? I'm encouraged that um by dr. Lightbaum's report that will be exploring Next steps on On how to review the adw Council, thank you Those in favor Opposed for zero Thank you The next couple of items are uh chat fork our chief financial officer will um go through those for you Good afternoon commissioners. Good afternoon So throughout the racing season funds are deposited into a capital improvement trust fund and also a promotional trust fund For both standard and thoroughbreds Uh funds are then distributed upon the commission's approval of both a request for consideration and also reimbursement So the first item in front of you is a request for consideration and reimbursement of payment from the promotional trust fund submitted by suffix downs in the amount of 192,971 and 10 cents I have reviewed all the supporting documentation to ensure funds requested were used for advertising purposes and I also Reconciled the vendor and voices against payments To ensure the correct correct amount is being requested Which I found that it was This item does require a vote so Madam chair, I move that the commission approved suffix downs requests for consideration and reimbursement In the amount of 192,971 and 10 cents to the suffix promotional trust fund Second I I just want to point out to chad that I didn't go on my rant about the promotional trust fund Yes, I did not I I did hear about that position now commissioners devins So There's plenty in the archive Well said chad The next item we have is a request for consideration for the capital improvement trust fund And this is submitted by plan ridge park casino In the amount of 40,338 Dollars I have reviewed all the supporting documents and found them to be in good order Also included is an opinion letter from dixon silo who is the architect That's charged with ensuring that The items being requested or funds that are being requested Are necessary in his opinion These are necessary and he's recommending that The consideration be approved This is just for the consideration at this time not the reimbursement, right? Correct So we'll approve the consideration at this time. Yes, so madam chair I move the commission approved plan ridge park casino's request for consideration in the amount of 40,338 Dollars for the capital improvement fund to purchase a replacement tractor at plane ridge race course Second Those in favor I Opposed for zero Again, I didn't rant about the capital improvement trust fund Um Before we let mr. Tuttle go We're taking up an agenda item a little bit later a letter of consideration to the legislature about the extension of the Racing and simulcasting statutes. I know you've been party of those conversations any thoughts or viewpoints on the The looming deadline and yeah suggestions for the commission Well, I mean we've been part of the discussions and and I I certainly don't presume to speak for the legislature at at any time indications We've received are that You know as part of the discussion of sports betting and sports wagering bills in the spring that you know the legislature may include the longer term examination of racing and simulcasting issues as part of that And if that's the case, I think it means we're looking at another short term extension Um, you know probably through july 31st or or through the end of the calendar year of 2020 Between now and january 15th and and given past precedent. I my guess is you know sometime around january 10th or 11th or so, you know, there'll be another A move to extend the racing and simulcast statutes as they are, you know, there's I don't think there's going to be Uh opportunity for a lot of Discussion about significant changes between now and january 15th Thank you Any further questions for dr. Lightman chad? Thank you Just one for mr. Tuttle, um Fan dual originally a scottish company Um, they formed uh in in eddmer. Yes, uh Yeah chairman. I mean uh commissioner camera. Yes Where I know you've recently visited as vi. So it's a wonderful city Thank you Thank you We'll move on to item number seven Investigations and enforcement division director wells And chief enforcement counsel loretta lilios You have two items today for us Mr. Curtis Please join us I'm well. How are you? Excellent Good afternoon First I have the suitability of two mgm qualifiers for your consideration And they are mr. Patrick madamba and mr. Paul Salem each of them submitted all of the required forms and complied with all of the iab's requests for supplemental and updated information The iab also interviewed each of them in person They were cooperative and forthcoming in all regards and in keeping with our established protocols for background reviews of casino qualifiers We verified identity confirmed financial stability and integrity reviewed litigation history searched criminal history Verified that no prohibited political contributions were made in massachusetts and conducted Checks of open source and law enforcement databases Turning first to mr. Madamba He is vice president and legal counsel of mgm resorts international Which is the ultimate parent company of mgm springfield our licensee He took that position in august of 2017 and in that role He has legal oversight responsibility for all of mgm's properties Inside the us apart from los vegas which numbers i believe seven properties including our licensee He also is responsible for mgm's regulatory matters in the us as they impact all of mgm properties Mr. Seth stratton vp and legal counsel for the springfield property reports directly to mr. Madamba and mr. Madamba intern reports to Mr. Hagopian who is chief corporate counsel and also a qualifier for this license Before joining mgm in house in 2017 mr. Madamba was a partner at the law firm of fox Rothschild in atlantic city And he was there for approximately 10 years where almost all of his work was performed for mgm and he did that until mgm brought him in house As i mentioned He actually started working in the industry At casino properties and security before completing his undergrad and law degrees and during law school He worked in the legal department at clarridge casino in atlantic city where he got his introduction to gaming law He previously worked as inside council for players international in atlantic city and as an attorney at multiple law firms Representing clients in the gaming industry And he also worked for a number of years at a firm that specialized in patent law He has a bachelor's degree from stockton college in new jersey and political science and recently obtained another bachelor's degree In biology also from stockton and his law degree is from rockers He's currently licensed or has been found suitable in multiple jurisdictions in a check with maryland new york and new jersey regulators Indicate that his credentials are in good standing with no derogatory information found I should mention that the ieb has had extensive firsthand dealings with mr. Madamba director wells myself the geu From the time that mgm was a Applicant for the region b license. He has a wealth of information and experience. He's a veteran gaming law Attorney and he takes a highly proactive approach With his communications and disclosures to the ieb about activity at the mgm corporate level He's always responsive to employees by the ieb and his forthcoming in all of his dealings with the ieb He has demonstrated to the ieb by clearing convincing evidence that he is suitable under our criteria and our regulations and statute And the ieb recommends that the commission vote to find him suitable as a qualifier For the springfield license Any questions for My only question is the timing between the submission of the application in the interview Do you find any clarity as to the gap? um, I think the There can sometimes be some time before the Applications actually transmitted to the ieb while the licensing division goes through and ensures that you know all the materials Have been submitted in the format Required and you know like all of our investigations. We are prioritizing, you know juggling multiple Investigations and you know we Given what we were dealing with in the past year and our Familiarity with mr. Medamba. We combined, you know him and mr. Salem who was a newcomer and you'll hear about in a moment um, you know all part of our risk-based approach Thank you. I Agree with the ieb's conclusion here and reading this investigation report very clean report No issues of note at all So I would uh, I would move that the commission find patrick medamba suitable as a qualifier for bluetarp redevelopment llc second Any further questions Comments all those in favor. I am opposed for zero Turning to mr. Paul Salem. He was appointed to the board of directors of mgm resorts international in august of 2018 He's an independent non-executive member of the board and we perform the same sort of comprehensive review of independent directors of our casino Licenses as we do on the inside directors Mr. Salem sits on the real estate committee the community service committee and most notably the audit committee of the board He graduated from brown university with a bachelor's in economics and later received an mba from harvard business school After receiving his mba. He worked briefly for morgan stanley and left there within a year He went on to start a private equity firm providence equity partners with two fellow alumni from brown That firm is based in providence road island and under mr. Salem's tenure there as a senior managing director The firm grew to manage 60 billion in assets He stepped down from providence equity partners in june of 2019 Of interest to sports fans here. He is a part owner of the potucket another worster red socks He currently is undergoing a background review by gaming regulators in pennsylvania in michigan maryland recently completed its review and reported to the iep that he's in good standing with no derogatory information revealed I do want to note before the recommendation that it was trooper morris and financial investigators david mckay and matthew jordan Who performed the reviews of these two qualifiers? And as for mr. Salem, he likewise has demonstrated by clearing convincing evidence to the iep his suitability our recommendation is that you Approve his suitability as well Any any questions? Hey, I would just point out Director lilios did some quick follow-up. Yes, that and a couple of questions. I had about our qualifiers So thank you for turning around that information so close The reports were very thorough. Thank you. That's thanks to the investigators. They did a great job And curf another clean investigation And I would further move that the commission find paul salem suitable as a qualifier for blue tarp redevelopment llc second Those in favor Opposed For zero Thank you. Thanks to the team for good work. Thank you We have another matter on the agenda today Regarding An application form for independent directors of gaming vendor primary applicants and like Licensees so the ibe and the licensing division have proposed an application form That's in your packet the proposed forms in your packet as well as a memo on this subject And we're proposing that this form be utilized by independent directors of gaming vendor primary companies These are the companies that Manufacture and sell gaming related products to our licensed casinos. So they are slot machine manufacturers Carden dice manufacturers, etc These independent or outside board members are not management employees of the companies, but they may be Board chairs Or sit on board committees like the compliance committee or the audit committee These individuals we have found Are often involved in many companies may sit on many boards and may have a lengthy History of employment in gaming related companies before their appointment Uh to the board to the relevant board of our applicant Under our regulations the independent board members of these gaming companies are not Automatic qualifiers and we have not been performing background reviews of them We would however like to identify those independent directors that have substantial responsibility for the company's business in massachusetts And perform an appropriately Balanced background review of them and to that end the positions we would be most interested in our board chairs And compliance committee members possibly audit committee members We have found that the committee memberships on these boards. I'm sorry the committee Memberships often rotate on a one or two year cycle So the background review utilizing the same form That we do for the inside directors does not lend itself to such a constant turnover The The attached form and Proposed protocol would allow us to streamline our focus So we could concentrate on whether there are any concerns with an independent director's criminal history Licensing and regulatory history and any information in the public realm that calls suitability into question So if for example an independent director was previously Running or a top executive at a company that has a history of malfeasance. We would want to know that By contrast a risk-based approach to this group of individuals suggests that we not perform a net worth analysis Which is time consuming and intrusive and we feel does not appropriately reflect Their involvement or contributions as an independent member It's important to be mindful that we can always require Supplemental additional material if the information takes us the investigation takes us down that route and the qualifier Would be required to co-operate in that part of the investigation Attorney Hartigan did perform some research into what other jurisdictions do Here and the finding Not surprisingly is that the regulations are not always an apples-to-apples comparison, but In the jurisdictions we looked at She looked at and reported on Significant discretion is given to the investigate investigative team on whether to investigate independent directors with a focus like Our regulation on whether the individual is making a substantial impact To the company the direction of the company and its focus and strategy in the governing jurisdiction It's our suggestion that we implement a protocol like this revisit it in a number of months after we've had a chance to Work with it for a while. We do suggest going back and Revisiting our current applicants and licensees and identifying those independent directors who we feel are making that kind of contribution or impact on the company And revisited in in six months And report back to you. We think this strikes a balance that gives us a meaningful review of integrity and suitability but takes into account That these are not the inside executive team at the company So I'm sure you may have questions happy. Mr. Curtis is here as well happy to try to Answer any questions that you have So because of their role on compliance Committees and or audit committees you see Um Some control Which warrants some further investigation? And particularly with compliance where matters impacting or occurring And involving the massachusetts licensee may make their way up through the compliance committee Could be important to evaluate how the compliance committee is dealing with those matters We do try to review minutes of compliance Meetings now But membership on those committees, especially chairs of those subcommittees of the board Feel have an impact on the potential impact on the massachusetts licensee I know that the research demonstrates that everyone's read Regs are different The laws are different. So different jurisdictions Treat the matters differently, right? But there are some that That use of a form like this or I think the The common theme Through the jurisdictions That we looked at Was that discretion is given so typically from what we Can tell not all of the independent directors are routinely investigated But the team like in the scoping meetings that ib conducts jointly with the with Bill and his team Will we get the company's leadership on the phone and we really try to understand Who's doing what at the company, you know, we have our organizational chart that they provided us We have our list of committee membership that they provided us and we you know ask how things actually work and through that Discussion process We try to identify Who is having an impact on the strategic direction of the company and in particular who has the potential to Impact what's happening with the licensee here in massachusetts and that's a common theme In other jurisdictions as well they it appears That a case by case review is conducted in other jurisdictions as well But at this time you are not doing any reviews of these independent directors. That's correct your current guidelines so the touch is With respect to our jurisdiction And that would include chairs or would you propose that you're likely to always look at independent directors who are also chairs That is our suggestion that you know the typical role of a chair is To implement And set the strategic direction of the company And you know, I should note that it it's my impression that none of these companies will Object to this process because in other jurisdictions, you know, they may already be doing it and they You know our independent directors at gaming highly regulated gaming manufacturers So it's a process that they would not be surprised at is my assessment Do do we have a maybe bill can answer this question? Do we have a I'm trying to get a sense of the landscape. How many people we're talking about how many Gaming vendor primary companies do we have currently we have 24? okay So I you know, I I like Deputy director lilios's suggestion. I'd love to come back and look at this within Six months This See how it's rolling out You make the point that these chair Seats turn over periodically and that's right. It's not really enough time to maybe do an end up Look at somebody, but I'd be curious if that person was a chair all of a sudden Is no longer in the chair. They're still serving on that committee to kind of Track where their progression goes or do they move between committees? Well assuming you're you know, we get the green light We can calendar coming back in in six months and reporting Any further questions for deputy director lilios? I think it's an excellent proposal. I do. I think it's practical But also conservative enough that we're preserving The integrity of the gaming As required by statutes. So thank you Questions Do I have a motion? Madam chair, I move the commission to approve the independent director qualifier application is included in the commissioner's packet This form shall be completed and submitted by independent directors designated as qualifiers for gaming vendor Primary applicants and licensees pursuant to 205 cmr 134.04 for b to D All those in favor aye Opposed four zero Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Curtis to I mean additional work We are now going to break for lunch. I do want to uh Uh Just explain that we will Not be turning to commissioner zunica's report on the Gaming commission's annual report this afternoon Um, we're going to be looking at The ombudsman's report and a report from I guess that will be just them Well, and also a director griffin will have an item as well Thank you I will break for It's 10 of 1 to 130 Good. Thank you so much We are reconvening massachusetts gaming commission meeting number 283 at 135 We'll begin with number eight Ombudsman siemba, please Good afternoon chair and commissioners. We're here today to propose final guidelines for the 2020 community mitigation fund For your consideration. Uh, the next funding round begins february 1st 2020 joining me today our construction project oversight manager joe delaney director of workforce development joe griffin and mary thurlow our community mitigation fund program manager I want to thank them. Sheriff adard And commissioner stephens for all of their work and participation in the process To develop these guidelines Chair and commissioners in your package You'll find the final draft community mitigation guidelines a red line of the guidelines versus the prior draft I've also included a memorandum which highlights changes that were made Based on the meetings with the local community community mitigation advisory committees The subcommittee and community mitigation and the gaming policy advisory committee Additionally, the commission received three comments as a result of the public comment Request that we posted on october 25th In a minute, I'm going to turn over to joe For a brief outline of some of the comments that we heard in our series of meetings We very much thank the members of the lcmac's the subcommittee The gpac and other groups that have provided very valuable input Jill will also provide a brief overview of our outreach on workforce development and some of the issues that were discussed However, first, I'd like to just give a brief Summary of the guidelines and some of the changes that we proposed First, let me address the overall recommended level of funding After our last meeting we continued to review the recommended award target of 11.5 million that was included in the draft Since the time of the last meeting we've seen another a month's worth of revenue from our two category one facilities We also net did another deep dive into the totals of our past awards Factoring in how much of the reserves have been utilized for each of those grants Detailed charts regarding these revenues and awards are included in your packet But the bottom line is that we feel confident absent something extraordinary for the last two months of revenues That an 11.5 million program is reasonable for next year Although it's significantly bigger than the prior year the revenues will in all likelihood be available to support it We also believe that continuing a regional allocation of target awards is warranted as was our practice in the last year's guidelines And as you recall, we we are recommending a six point six million dollar region a target and a five million dollar region b target And we typically have had a five hundred thousand dollar limit waivable for category two Impacts joe will describe a little bit of the input that we received on on this matter We also continue to believe that grants for transportation construction are warranted We receive some comments that more spending could be made available for transportation construction In the revised guidelines, we put in new language emphasizing the commission's ability to increase funding For some categories based on its review Specifically, we stated that the commission could increase funds for transportation construction if other awards If other awards made for other categories do not reach the regional spending targets now Annually we always include a provision giving the commission the ability to move up or up or down in different categories And up or down on awards and up or down on the total amount of awards based on its discretion But we thought just additional language wou