rocess and I think that's the concern that I that I would just have and that's probably more for staff to address but that's that's sort of one of the concerns as we're drafting uh chair I if I can add on to what Mina mentioned is that okay absolutely you know I think it's the heart of what we're talking about is you know what you need for the competitive review and what you as a body have discretion to determine what's important or not important for that competitive review and then you know on the other side is what the IEB and the licensing division is used to and trained to evaluate for purposes of suitability I would feel very uncomfortable asking staff to be reviewing the applications with discretionary decisions about what is meaningful and what's not meaningful they are trained to look for material omissions omissions that can impact what the investigation you know whether the investigation can proceed so you know I'm just uncomfortable asking them to expand feel like that would be an unfair position to put them in to try to evaluate what would be important for your competitive review so if there's you know some way you know I know you're talking about a process you know is there some other ground you know I just don't think it's with the kind of review that staff is able to do yeah madam chair if I could if I could just call did you want to weigh in or are you all set madam chair I apologize I wasn't able to join for the very beginning of this discussion but I know that you've been in the best of hands with Todd and Mina and I have nothing to add on this at the moment so thank you so much so in other context you know with my kids where I have to go online and fill out forms all the time and you get the little red asterisk that says this one's mandatory you know you can skip some of these others it's up to you and this is what I had in my head too and I was thinking about this Florida because to your point that's that's not your role to make those determinations and do we as a commission have the ability at this point to flag so much of that application to say these are mandatory we want everything but if you don't do these 10 you will be deemed deficient and you will not go past 1121 oh there's that we could do that we also first we would all have to I appreciate that that's another that would be an in between I guess one of the the questions I had for my league over this point of view you know keeping commissioner of Ryan's good idea to the side for a second let's just say that there is some kind you know when we get the applications and I and maybe it's to to be fair you know some applicant might just have failed to include certain things so that are really obvious oh you know the document isn't attached and give just no judgment whatsoever I do understand that's time alone so let's just say we don't even have any and this is not necessarily my opinion I'm just saying that scenario there's really no review of the untethered for for fullness or completeness at all if they came to us directly and whatever they submit in a process that we're really familiar with and you know all of us have had a lot of experience in big big procurements big selection processes you get the application and somebody just fails to answer something or not attach something can we assess that as part of our over evaluation or do you think that's too much risk to commissioner of Ryan's earlier point how do we address that um is that could could it work that way or is there's a reason why you don't see that working mean a ton and Paul that can't work I think some of the difficulty we're having here is that it's difficult to envision every scenario that may present itself and what exact information might be deficient or omitted so we try to create you know this prophylactic kind of process that covers it all but I critical why would we want them to advance that's my question well I mean because you know people make mistakes as you pointed out and you know someone may have forgotten to submit something so it depends what it is and maybe we would want to go back to them and say hey you forgot to submit whatever it was can you please get it in um so it it kind of depends what it is um I suppose in many respects commissioners I mean are you going to add in I was but I see director Wells um has thank you what I'm hearing is that it really sort of this comes down to what is the purpose of the administrative completeness review is it to basically knock out ones that are not complete so that the commission isn't utilizing resources in evaluating one that's not complete or is it to give applicants an opportunity to cure defects and you know I see sort of those two competing interests and within the competitive process and the non-competitive process is Kathy Madam Chair you mentioned before it's very different I mean Derek in the procurement process do you normally cure deficiencies no for grants for anything your deadlines your deadline right and that's why you set deadlines and you know if I start looking at what's proposed here especially for the competitive side not for um the ones that are basically in legislation going to get a license and we just have to make sure they have the best information everything we want to hold them accountable to but for the competitive side you've got quite a pool of operators um so if we've already extended what we initially said from 30 days to 45 days um I would highly suggest against touching any of those until the deadline has passed the commission has already said they want to take on the role of evaluating these with the exception of the piece that the IEB is going to do from the financial stability and the integrity side of it um if they didn't if they forgot to attach something it's a five million dollar feed for the license it's a $200,000 application fee I just look at it as you've got plenty of other competitors out there that put their best foot forward they didn't and we talked about this the last time around if you're looking to put everyone on equal footing with the with the truncated timeline the more times you start letting them change or update information not clarify but actually add information you're adding more risk more questions into your process so for my suggestion would be get rid of your risk by getting rid of the administrative completeness in touching any of the competitive until until you actually open up the the deadline passes and you have a chance to open up the applications and that is the commission's responsibility to do some of this review and if information is not present well then they don't get as good a score and Derek I you articulated much more succinctly but thank you that's that that's my point of view that's my recommendation but I do not have a lot of agree I'm just going based on no make sense to me but that aligns with my thinking and again I could be persuaded otherwise but it might just be because of my own experience that that that's how I'm dealing this too why wouldn't we go that route commissioner skinner are you leaning in commissioner skinner yeah I yeah I'm just trying to get my thoughts together you know I hear what's what's being said you know but I I don't I don't agree that you know an applicant's failure to to you know complete a portion of the application or question on the application indicates their inability to put their best foot forward as Todd said people make mistakes you know we in my experience I have seen applications from you know the biggest licensees right coming in but inevitably on every single application it doesn't matter how many times they've submitted the application to massachusetts doesn't matter how many times they've submitted the same application to another jurisdiction there will be some information missing whether it's you know the fingerprint packet whether it's you know the question that gets answered see attachment a what they forget to include attachment a we will see many of those types of that's my prediction omissions and obviously I you know I would not consider those to be intentional so I think we have to build in some safeguards for those applicants the stakes are just way too high to reject an application because of a simple human error so whatever process that gets decided on today I really do hope that we are taking into account those scenarios so that's really really well framed too so the derrick and commissioner skinner's thoughts is there some kind of a process that's different I know we use the term administrative completeness in this regulation and that triggered something that's fairly familiar but not necessarily the same here so we have to just is there something caring that's in between that would be helpful here yeah so for process listening to commissioner skinner's concerns I guess the only the other option would be to derrick's point you don't touch them until the deadline and they're all passed but I guess theoretically you could bake in to the commission's review that the commission can request you know when they request supplemental information it can also include completion of things in the form I don't know you know what's what's I've deferred illegal on what's the most risk in that scenario but then it's the commissioners open it up and I would assume Derek just like any other procurement you could ask for supplemental information and a procurement review but I am not an expert in this area I defer to legal if that's a problem and instead of the IEB doing a review when the commissioners do are doing their review to commissioner skinner's point that if they you as a body do not want to reject an applicant because they forgot to submit an attachment that you could allow them to supplement with that attachment and things like that and would that cure this issue yeah my my fear is that if we don't agree on what those are that there's going to be an argument of disparate treatment that someone says well you know mine was this which was pretty ministerial but you didn't let me supplement it and yet you said to them you can go ahead and supplement on whatever there was bias there so unless we said these are the ministerials or everybody was allowed to supplement you know I I'm concerned and then there's another I forget who brought this up the idea that someone squeaks it in knowing they're going to have some more time to get a better foot forward I certainly want to want to say you know you have the right to amend it or you know I would be concerned about fairness in that regard too I'm sorry I mean I think I jumped in right friend no it's all right certainly no I I think you if it's okay Madam Chair I could sort of weigh in on that piece the there's a couple of things that I'm hearing and I you know sort if you were to do a process where you don't have any completeness review and you were weighing it as part of your process which actually is what I believe I you don't understand Derek to be saying you could rely on your cooperation regulation which would be 212 if you ask for something you don't get it or if you ask for information you don't get it but as Commissioner O'Brien saying I actually within the procurement world which is one of the things we do a lot of as well that is always a concern because you get you know the equivalent of that in for instance construction bids of unbalanced bids where someone says I think it's going to be zero dollars and I'll get back to you when it's more you get the background information that was missing the decam certifications are missing that's that's one world the non prevailing way exactly and and every every single qualified under those you wouldn't be a qualified bidder if you didn't have those submitted under and you know under under construction law you'd be disqualified right away whether you didn't ask dot or decam decalification so much back to Commissioner O'Brien's early point do we like there's no room to not include this and I know there are concerns about this but but you know just to put it one of that and we we can perhaps try to clarify this language but part of the reason that this is intended to be an administrative completeness review and I in drafting resisted a temptation to call it bureaucratic review because that that has such a bad connotation is that is the intent here it is not intended in any way to be to be as as director lilio said to be asking staff to make judgment calls about what isn't isn't there it's a way to make sure that there's a complete package as you know just as a thing to weigh if you are going to take on as a commission weighing every application and what's in and not in your your now it's harder for you to separate yourself from what an applicant can consider a truly administrative review because you're also the decision maker and so there is some value to having someone take a look at the applications um even if it's a completely curse if you're going to have any review to have it be truly administrative that you have you have someone check to see that stuff is there to put it very simply because if you're not doing that your I do think there is more of a legal risk that that you have an applicant saying you know it's a commission truly asking for more information or allowing this applicant to provide more information because they missed something ministerial or because even if it was a must it was unintelligible it may wanted more time to do it etc you just there's as Todd pointed out there's just too many permutations to really account for them all um and I I guess where I'm coming to is in some ways you'd be better off either relying entirely on it's either you either did everything you're supposed to and if you didn't maybe you'll get scored different or I use score in a small s in a way that you'll get weighed differently um as Derek is suggesting or you have some kind of truly administrative bureaucratic non substantive you know non qualitative review however many adjectives you want me to add to that uh chair we we're talking really about two kind of categories of applications the competitive application that was designed specifically designed for the you know when we find ourselves in sports wagering context we're also talking about the applications that arise out of the scoping process the BEDs the multi-jurisdictionals in the massachusetts supplement and those go directly to suitability they'll be utilized by the IEB for preliminary suitability uh as well as for uh you know the full uh the full suitability uh so I think it's important to distinguish between those two uh categories you know with the first one you know something missing may go to the quality of the application uh for the for the second one uh very difficult for the IEB to engage in an investigative process uh without a an application that meets the completeness administrative completeness standards it's all one application but I understand what you're saying Loretta and that was where I said I wanted you know could we divide it out you know later to go back and um or at the same time over evaluating you getting everything that you need on those for administrative completeness um but Karen were you gonna weigh in well and I say I think it's really interesting that we spent about an hour thinking about how all the applicants won't get any of this right that's really what we've talked about that they're going to make so many mistakes that we we don't have a system to accommodate them respectfully Madam Chair it's more about fundamental fairness and equity for me than people being missed absolutely thank you and then I was and I was going to explain that I do think our applicants are going to really work hard to get it all right right um and so what I think I'm hearing is when there is an inadvertent error so when I think about what Mina's proposing is is it a cursory review Loretta how many how many touch points would the licensing department if that's the right division have to do with this particular application the whole application all the components to complete a touch of to say that it's that all the attachments are there doesn't matter how they're filled out because that's substantive that's judgment I think Mina saying strictly administrative or bureaucratic I have no problem with that problem that word how many touches for that about ministerial completeness that's a good word too thanks general application well then no the one that we for the that we the 28 or whatever that we're 29 that we're facing is that what you're talking about that had the scoping survey the application the multi jurisdiction on the DD well I don't have that number in front of me you know how many oh how many touch points overall like applicant like attachments and everything do we know yeah I mean there are well I I'd want to go back and confirm and be absolutely accurate but there are you know there are attachments depending on who the applicant is whether it's a foreign person a domestic person we've got checklists for the different categories to be you know working guides for the licensing specialists they do go through each question make sure that each question is answered and they make sure that the attachments are there I I'm just talking not even answering the questions could be could we all agree on that answering the questions is different than attachments are we also going to say not answering questions is something that we would give them a chance to complete well it's it's tough because some basic questions have to be there or fundamentally you can't proceed like this goes back to the question I had is did we you know can we flag the bare minimum saying these questions have got to be filled in attachments these attachments must be there that defines complete ministerially if you don't do that you don't advance you don't advance and that in my my world I think of that as the musts and the shoulds the musts if you don't have the musts you're out right Commissioner O'Brien you and I both know that language so we didn't do that I don't believe in the application we didn't start so I don't know to our lawyers is that advisable now to go back and and do you know stars that are required if they fail to answer it they're disqualified that is not an unusual an unusual construct does it mean that you know people can make mistakes in human nature absolutely and I get that but I'm just wondering where we are where do we where are we going in terms of I'm Brad I'm going to turn to you because we haven't heard from Mr Hill I I'm not going to lie to you madam chair I am absorbing all of this because a lot of information has been brought up in the last hour and a half and I'm trying to digest it all I was trying to think of a way to share my opinion and Derek came up and basically shared it you know very eloquently how I feel about this and how we should move forward but I as the discussion has moved forward I don't want to penalize an applicant because of maybe their size compared to the you know the bigger applicants who don't have the staff if you will to put forth something because maybe they're a startup I you know again I don't know and I would hate to be put in a position where we penalize that applicant but what I haven't heard today is how do we address that exactly I I feel you you you got to get in your applications by the time that we've set we had a huge discussion about that we debated it we voted on it and that's what we decided right or wrong that's what we decided and I feel we should continue down that road but I do want to make sure that somehow we have something in place where we don't penalize an applicant for making a mistake and let's be honest I'm new to this as a lot of us are and I'm learning how applications are put forward in in many fields and that's why we have these discussions and they're always so great and so good but I just haven't heard yet other than the idea that Commissioner O'Brien put forth with the application if you don't fill in this field you don't move forward I can't buy a ticket I can't buy a ticket to a concert without putting in all the fields and you can't move forward and then if I go for a student loan I can't move forward until I filled out a bcd and e so I guess my question would be do we have a process do we have the technology to do that is it too late because of the you know the timing that we've set for so I wish I had a silver bullet here madam chair but I don't but my biggest concern is you know not penalizing an applicant for making a mistake and not having it come before us for discussion when it could be a very good company so commissioner hill I'm in total agreement with you it's and and and dealing with also the idea of not in any way if it ends with us somehow developing a risk because we have to be fair to everyone so Nina and Paul and Todd um first off Ken is is it even realistic to clarify the must or the asterisks areas of our application you contemplated that somehow in this regulation because you've had the executive director somehow making a determination that they could disqualify which is what commissioner skinner brought up you know a good hour ago and it was an important point none of us want to see that done unfairly right because of but we also are probably all of us are familiar with those those fundamentals that are required in order to proceed and then even with the last fundamental at what point do we close it out we can't keep on hearing because it just keeps on snowball Nina Todd I I'll defer to you first I have one one or two thoughts but oh I'm sorry well I guess by my reaction is I think it's an interesting idea to kind of identify things that are absolute requirements for submission and those that are more optional but preferred I in just looking through the application though I think it will be exceedingly difficult to draw those distinctions because every line on the application just about was included because it was considered to be important and so I'm not sure you know that you could draw a distinction between um you know your advertising plan and your geo fencing you know understanding and where you how are you going to decide which ones absolutely have to be submitted so I think that that's that could be an exercise that would bear some fruit but I think it would be very difficult to do in this case and Laura you can't really do that with the two other forms either correct chair that's exactly right I mean I get it that first form that's you know discretionary the commission's evaluative process but the other forms are are the suitability forms and they've been vetted for years and we need everything in that form to perform a suitability review okay so the month should go yeah madam chair just a different way of maybe coming at this um you know assuming that the musts the musts and shoulds would be difficult to do because I think it's I agree with what was just said it's it's almost it's it's probably not wise at all for the suitability forms and for the others it might be hard and and you all worked hard on on getting good applications out there just just to throw out as a straw proposal um one of the things that was in the in the um in the gaming regulations and I you know not saying it because it was because good the pass is always perfect but this this may work in this case was as I mentioned an actual timeline to cure deficiencies as opposed to that wasn't tied to necessarily a deadline but was a set period of days if the commission based on this conversation is going towards a ministerial review of the applications where applicants will be told you missed an answer to number 23 and the attachment to 24 I'm making up numbers I'm not sure are there you get an email or you get whatever back that says that you have in the gaming context so seven days from the filing of that 14 uh in some cases you respond you don't respond that's one threshold another so that's sort of at very easy there isn't a whole live discretion to it there may not be any further chance to it then the question is if you fail to respond that gives you a lot more ability to say there was failure to cooperate failure to respond to information requested by the commission so you get both the notice of what you missed and a very short cure period or a relatively short cure period that works within your review process without having multiple deadlines floating out there it's that's certainly up to you you know that whether you do that I'm imagining it would kind of have to be kind of for the point Derek said before be very hard if you're getting folks who submit on the application deadline you know and folks you certainly don't want you don't want to encourage it to be I guess I would say you should do it after the deadline because if you don't you might have folks who put in applications to see will they think this is enough and and then hear from you as opposed to you're actually reviewing it for administrative completeness at that point and director Wells I feel here at discomfort because you're trying to figure out who's going to actually execute that that exercise of bureaucratic medium and then sorry it also just bear in mind it impacts the timeline we built in these four buckets and so to have time to do the administrative completeness review on potentially 29 of these and then also to give them time to cure the deficiencies and then to have them that those deficiencies review that adds to the timeline as well so just want to prepare you like we should be doing this review first thing we need to get a time go through I know that that doesn't minimize the work involved but I just wondering I'm wondering if because I thought about that within five days or seven days you know you could curing it but I'm wondering if there's a way to and again this doesn't necessarily address executive director Wells's concerns about the time commitment but in terms of the language of the reg if it was changed to something like you know ministerial review to make people better more comfortable with that but if you went down to 1b where it talks about upon the issuance of a negative determination of administrative completeness ed or designee will notify the applicant of either negative determination or the omission sees in the application by email do we strike so much of that that says any application shall not proceed further um provided that and then our b1 and b2 separate do they become c and d where it says you know what they're going to look at it you're going to get it you can get a yes you're moving forward you get a no we're going to tell you what was deficient if the deadline has not come and gone you can cure those deficiencies if the deadline has come and gone you need to go to the commission and ask for permission to cure the deficiency the only issue there are like uh commissioner brian is that if i if our team gets inundated yeah like they all come in the day before right disparity you know there's no way you can do them all at once right not that it necessarily solves this issue at all but of course i think it's important to bear in mind that we can do this by category so you can look at the category one applications first and start moving those through the process and then move on to the others so we don't necessarily have to look at them all at the same time that could create some disparity issues though for sure councilor goes i think that director valis if i'm understanding correctly when you talk about the timeline and your and your plan you're you're more thinking of the untethered category three because that's the that's the longest time line that's the one that you're thinking that's the most difficult to manage um i don't want to talk to you about am i right correct because that that process aside from doing all the regulations doing all the review you have the commissioners delving into those applications and doing the review and then we also had the public portion of the review um which may take a while okay a couple of ideas one um providing additional help okay so let's think about that um we you know are there some extraordinary um folks out there who would be able to come on the team in a temporary fashion and might actually join the team later um to help in this review process um second would they be distributed to the commission comprehensively with the administrative review while the curing is occurring so that we have them we start reading them and you know hey while we're reading want to say oh no this that might be missing but it's going to probably come our way through an administrative review is that putting us at risk i don't think no that's i think that is workable i don't i don't think we necessarily have to wait per se yeah so i'm working on it i'm what i said my brain's going you'd have to fit that in so the the way the timeline was set up the applications come in on the 21st and i think there was the period of time um you did do an internal review uh and then the first action by the commissioners would be the um you know the review of the category ones and potentially the category twos but still got to get more information for you on the category twos um you also have the opportunity to review the tethered even though um there's not a competitive process they still need to be licensed they still have the same go live date according to the commission's directive but they still need to go through this process so you could do some work on the um on the the untethered during that time period um but it you know it might if you if the commission was willing to sort of wait on the process to um evaluate the applicants for the tethered for the untethered but um i think kasha brian one way kasha brian you're thinking let's have a good i i i feel like i misheard um i would need her to say that again because i i i almost feel like a tethered and an untethered got turned around maybe that's quite possible no i think what you were saying karen is that all of these are coming in at the same time we're going to be working on category one category two category one and category two's tethered um category three applicants and then we have the untethered and so you're saying we could um but those would have to be checked for an administrative completeness as well if we are concerned about that those won't be competitive so we would to the whatever extent we are looking for those to be or they are or we would not be as concerned about completeness there well they don't have so for example most of the category ones they don't you know they've already been found suitable when mass lp so they don't have their um their that's new they would have to submit but they then their applications would be subject to an administrative review too or you're doing yeah yeah because it's all going to be new to you you will not be starting to see to work on on their um background checks and in any way or start doing it suitability work on those tethered category three you will be well the exception madam chair is that because there's certainty with the tethered mobile operators we're going to go ahead with the uh individual qualifier suitability because we know we're going to have to do that it doesn't have that that's what i thought yeah thank you that's what i thought so they aren't being treated differently right so i guess i'm back to that deadline day um could we review the un tethered applications pending um you know just begin reviewing them understanding that someone is looking for administrative or ministerial and ministerial commission completeness and is that sloppy and messy well it depends and this has been the conversation when we do for example the you know as maretta's mentioned you know if you do the beds they're frequently are things missing if page is not initial i just want to prepare the commission that administrative completeness process could take a while with 29 of these so um you know i recognize the you know adding more resources um could help given that we're doing suitability of the does that help us at all can it be reviewed during the process well again for example um and laura to chime in here for the purposes of the uh report that the commission is going to get from the ieb or the suitability of the applicants for the competitive process you we have the conversations more you're going to look at litigation history compliance history um where they're licensed you're going to do some financial stability review and then open source check you'd have to have that information in the bd you know like if they missed one of those you know you either say you know what you didn't even fill out the form you didn't you know indicate whether you have litigation history or compliance history we either have the model right you know that's just not complete and you're you're out or um you'd go back and have them at least fill that out because otherwise the ieb can't give the report because we're relying on self-reporting sorry would any of that information allow them to better their application or would it just be to give you the information you need to know whether they're financially suitable or whether they meet the integrity so how does that change how does that change the scoring process because you'd either say you're out yeah what you could do right because you didn't fill it out so we can't make a determination well you could have theoretically company a and company b they're they're both suitable they can both operate but one company a has you know an absolutely clean record and compliance they've been operating for 20 years and whatever jurisdiction and they have no issues company b they have you know operating the same amount of time but a number so the commission could compare relative suitability yeah and um but if they didn't provide that one of the companies did the other one you can say i can't grade them as well because i don't know about them right it's right so that that's how the applications go it's you grade it on what's in the application right right so it's the you're doing it you're you're missing information at your own peril and if you apply for a school you have to fill it out right right sometimes you make a mistake but if you miss the application deadline you don't get back in high school students are held to that standard commissioner reinerd initially about an hour and a half ago when i spoke i was kind of going the same please chime in more frequently the same um kind of the same line of as commissioner bryan but the more i've heard this and we put together uh psa on why these applicants should make sure that their applications are really really good two hour long one um the more i think that derrick's right on just spot on right um is is you know let's not do it let's not do it half that's you know loretta you said after i spoke that it would be unfair to the staff to have them go and try to grade which questions are important which ones aren't the commission well let's just you know get the application in front of us and make a decision i mean that's that's the more i'm hearing the more i'm leaning that way there it doesn't mean we have to disqualify them commissioners they can't weigh it they get master you know a vibration but things can can offset i guess the one piece i'd ask is i know that the regulation allows for us to get supplemental information um and that's where we want to be careful right not to be unfair to get one applicant who didn't you know really do a complete job and the others did but but even if we get them they would still have just a little bit of a you know a weight less but we still could ask for that information acknowledging you know what it just it just wasn't as as complete and and your in your little scoring is reflects that but i wonder i i guess i'm i'm hearing Mina and Todd and you know not heard from paul but he agrees with his colleagues that this there's this benefit to the earlier review even though we've really spent and we do have to take a break here a good deal of time wrestling with it since commissioner hill says without really seeing a solution could the commission just take it on first of what what does that just just make two greater benefits may i be heard on the suitability side if if you if you did and i'm not speaking to the risk associated with that right if you did take the applications as they came in you made your selections of up to seven based on what came in without the completeness review you would award you based on this competitive review and at some point full you know full suitability is going to happen and i don't have a full application and i would need some kind of reg to address that that is a that is a challenge point but could we ask for them to cure that during our evaluation process so that you get the complete sorry and we do need to take a lunch break i think few of us are fading director wells yeah i'm just thinking loretta the commission could condition the license on you know on the complete application so they can't put this they can't put the switch they can't launch until they have all of the materials that loretta needs for suitability so that would that would mean that they won't hold them up the others but it could hold up their own launch yeah right what do you think about that director lios you know i think we have a lot of resources in the licensing division i'm concerned that this is a lot of back and forth and you know transmitting incomplete transmitting application that hasn't gone through a completeness review it's it's a lot it's not what i originally anticipated you know they're it could have an impact on the time okay commissioners i think we need to take a lunch break um does that make sense right now we can all think about director lios's last point and the other points that were raised a and k folks is that okay if we take a break it's two o'clock commissioners just i i just so you know i have a commitment with my kids at 445 tonight so i will have to jump off if we're not done by then just as a heads up okay um richard's lunch break everybody okay with that how about leaving turn 30 then madam chair i have a 2 p.m. that i will rejoin right after just as a heads up let them know that it's a relief it's an old colleague of yours so i'll let him know oh i'm happy to join a nice thank you so much minna for all your input okay um we'll rejoin it 230 thanks everyone thanks knows kathy i'll be back in one second please go ahead without me i'll be right back sure um we're going to reconvene uh meeting the 398 of master's gaming commission we are holding this virtually so i'm going to do a roll call good afternoon commissioner ryan good afternoon i'm here good afternoon commissioner hill hello i'm here good afternoon commissioner skinner i'm here you changed your background and and good afternoon commission me i'm here great thank you so um we need to return to our discussion around the um uh reg that's presented before us at 218.0 way um and one thought i had is that maybe we should clarify is that as you know our application right now by regulation is comprised of four four parts the scoping survey uh our evaluation application which indicates all the um the um um issues that we felt were really important for our evaluation process and then there are the two standard uh suitability documents that IEB is very familiar with and take it they routinely but without it being not complicated deal with BED and the multi jurisdictional form one thing i think maybe it's really important to clarify is that i don't believe IEB has to do any administrative completeness for us on our form that's not a form they're familiar with that's not a form that they would evaluate but they are familiar with are the other two forms which actually are really pertinent in part the BED mostly for a portion of our evaluation and then of course the the forms you know jurisdictional as well as BED for the ultimate suitability review so I am wondering if we could um I'd love to start calling the question if we could think about this that um we uh segregate and I know Mina's not here but Todd is here and and perhaps Paul is here that we segregate and we don't worry about administrative completeness for our um our portion of the application and then the team and its normal process the licensing team somehow does an administrative completeness in whatever form Director Wells and Director Lilios thinks is necessary for this the work that's before us and we get our applications on deadline and start to review them and then we would go in you know reviewing for our own intake and then we would go into our evaluative process we will unless I don't know if I'm wrong but I don't think we were going to be reviewing the BED and multi-jurisdictional documents themselves so much um that's really uh something that we would rely on expertise of IEB to evaluate um so I think that we really could look at it differently and I would adopt Eric Lenin's approach and would make that recommendation around so we could get going these applications are going to be coming in on time the majority are going to get it you know right um and you know we are all empathetic about human um you know errors we could evaluate those and in with respect to our application as a commission and Director Lilios and team could could do what they normally do in the course of their administrative completeness process Director Wells what do you think Cameron before you jump in just for completeness Kathy and for the public the third um or the additional form is the Massachusetts supplement form yeah and that is it's actually so it's really five pieces we should have we were combining it thank you thank you Loretta so again to correct the record from earlier this morning it does include the Massachusetts supplement so um Karen Director Wells thoughts on that or Director Lilios well you know Karen and I were speaking at the at the break um that would be helpful to the licensing team to remove the review of that evaluative uh piece from their responsibility your correct chair that is not a form that they're familiar with you know even to this day very few if any of them have have ever seen it and we don't have a work aids on that the way we do uh with with the other pieces and the process that Derek Lennon laid out it's really I'm sure that Derek was thinking you know that that competitive don't want to put words in your mouth Derek but that that component of the um for evaluating of course the other two um it sounds as though the industry is probably more familiar with the opportunity to maybe correct when they leave out something with respect to the multi-jurisdictional and the form in the in the uh BED Karen would that work yeah I mean I'm less concerned about uh sort of the errors for the uh on the applications on behalf of the licensees I just want Loretta to get whatever she needs in order for her to do her job and so Loretta what I'm hearing you saying is that an administrative completeness for the BEDs and then ultimately the um multi-jurisdictional mess up would be helpful to you um it it would you know but I have been very uncomfortable with the idea of any operations commencing without the ability of the IEB to engage immediately in a full suitability review to try to get deficiencies cured uh after an award and operation commences is not a good position to be in so could that happen simultaneously while we're starting the review of the um evaluation process first reviewing it independently and then I think you can begin it I think again it it's it's also dependent on how many applications we actually get now I realize we're doing scoping on a lot of them but you know to be fair they haven't had to submit any any uh application fee until the application fee comes in I don't think we know for sure how many how many we have we might get far fewer than we expect so if we get far fewer it's a much more reasonable thing to do the deficiency letters um and then uh have an opportunity for them say 30 days to cure their deficiencies but I agree with Loretta that um you know having an understanding that if they have not submitted a full application and complete application they should not be allowed to operate operate but in terms of getting through from the time of submission of the application to the time when uh first heard to do the suitability is there time in there to complete whatever administrative completeness that you need to do to get everything that the Loretta and team can do for their job to get their job done and and that that time would be between November 21st right when the applications are due until mid-march is that do I have that right early March for the untethered right or potentially handing out a license to somebody before we know their suitability right am I hearing that correctly well I guess the question is are you licensing them at the time you narrow it down to seven or are you making a preliminary finding and then you don't license them later I don't feel comfortable giving a license to somebody until suitability is determined so I never I never envisioned doing it the other way I mean the narrowing down to me was never a licensing we do that though all the time so it's not getting not for operators you know not for the operators no but we need some level of suitability I guess I'm trying to figure out as written this reg does not differentiate subsections of that application and send some off to IEV it says the application is a whole so what does what do we need to change in this reg that makes it clear that IEV continues to do their administrative review and what if any is happening to the four corners of the document that we posted as the application itself and the questions that we want so um Karen you asked a question our Commissioner on Brian asked a question of you in terms of suitability maybe we should just go through what the plan was um under the so let's just talk about the untethered the other one's sort of pulled into the process untethered the applications do on uh November 21st Loretta is saying that they they would do the scoping the folks would have to submit their BEDs and multi-jurisdictionals on a before that date yeah at that point November 21st cat one cat two the commission can get all of the uh general application but the IEV would uh and the licensing division within the IEV would review the BED the mass-up and potentially hold off on the multi-jurisdictionals because of the time frame but at least for the BED do a suitability do a uh administrative completeness review and do a deficiency letter so so do we need to rewrite this reg to make it clear that they are not including in that administrative completeness review what you've called the general application right because I didn't know the lawyers can I pause for that let's not be so tied to the language in the wreck I think our lawyers our legal team is going to hear us and they're going to revise this reg to be voting on this today or are we hammering out language because to me the language in the reg matters today then if we're voting on it well we so I'm looking for the legal team to be hearing us and see if they can help us get language today and it would be ideal to move on this yes so that's why I asked that question on but I would say we need to rewrite that word rather than going through each word and us uh rewriting could we have a legal team kind of hear us and give us I just want Madam Chair with all due respect I'm looking for an answer to the question on whether or not as written it reflects what's being described procedurally in one it does not appear to be consistent with that process so that needs to be redrafted yes I agree with you yes okay yeah I think we all agree on that um and I think even from the very beginning of today's discussion we agree it needs to be rewritten so that's why I've been resisting going back to the language so but has been proposed now is a little is a difference and so if I could just make sure Executive Director Wells if you could if you could frame what you're thinking you're hearing or has worked out and then the legal team because I know how good they are maybe you can help us think about crafting and if we could get language today that would be ideal otherwise we'll move on to the other sections see what comes out at the end of the of our discussion is that um what we're discussing right now is the option of an administrative completeness review for the BED the multi-generational and the mass sub and that the plan would be when the applications are received then commission gets the general application the licensing division reviews the BED the mass sub and the multi-jurisdictional personal history disclosure form they create for each one that's submitted a deficiency letter let's assume they all have something everyone gets a deficiency letter they would have a period of time say 30 days to cure their deficiencies if they don't do that within the 30 days then they either are out or you could hold up an operator license until it's completed but loretta shouldn't be in a I understand she should not be in a position where they have to go do a suitability investigation over the next year a full suitability without a completed application I think that's fair I think all of us are nodding our heads on that absolutely I'll agree with that correct right so the issue the issue I see is is the number if all 29 are are actually going to submit we may want to have a conversation about about how long that's going to take or resources but if you know hypothetically only 10 or 11 or 12 that that might be different and then we can probably fit it in with the timeline so we may just have to take a pause and be aware that as things progress we might need to take a look at the timeline and resources can I ask another question if the applications come in early are we able to work on them in this way without any kind of compromise I'm asking the legal team in other words could this process that director wells just outline commence upon the receipt and not just the depth first of all I just wanted to be clear make sure that I was clear as to what the proposal is so essentially and then the madam chair of course I'd like to answer your question so there's really if I'm hearing this correctly there would just be an administrative completeness review for the so-called suitability applications and not the general application and that suitability administrative completeness review would be done by the division of licensing and they would release any deficiency letter that's necessary but the general applications would just come in it'd be immediately transmitted to the commissioners and then the chair's question is essentially as I understand it can the commissioners commence reviewing the applications when they come in or IDV also commenced its work well certainly the IEB could I don't think there's any issue there I don't believe there's any issue with the commission beginning to review applications as they come in obviously you shouldn't be deliberating them and I know that wasn't the question or scoring them in any way until you've had an opportunity to have all the applications before you but I'm not seeing any harm in starting to review them when they come in but I asked a question around scoping the scoping survey last week whether commissioners could be those and you raised a concern so what's the difference in the scoping survey and the applications I'm sorry commissioner I didn't hear your question so I had asked last meeting whether the commissioners could review the scoping surveys um on a rolling basis as they come as they interrupt um the our computer has gone down so we need a pause so we can we configure streaming we'll just pause our technical glitch we'll figure this out in like two minutes all right I think we appear to be re-streaming so you guys should be good okay commissioner steering we're making a point so I realized that the deadline for the scoping survey has come and gone so we have them fall um but I had expressed interest last meeting in reviewing those on a rolling basis as they came in and I'm taught I believe you advised against that but I'm hearing something completely different for purposes of the application and I'm just wondering what the what the what the difference is point um and I apologize but I don't remember exactly what I said about that what I what I would say neither I just remember it was no I think I wasn't sure that commissioners would be reviewing the scoping documents because those are really for IDPs um purposes so I did I raised that issue um and also that it was a pre-react but um I don't know if it was about rolling basis so much I can't remember that Todd yeah I think the underlying issue with all of this would be kind of any bias that we might inject into the process and protecting against that so where we are right now uh based on my understanding and I think we're all on the same page here if there is no administrative completeness review and let me be clear about that I think that's an important component of the of the general I'm talking just the general application not the uh the suitability documents if there's no administrative completeness review there I don't see harm in reviewing the applications as they come in as as long as you don't begin scoring them um or forming you know orders or any evaluating them in substance you're just looking at them to see what's there and just by way of contract can I just ask you about Todd in the procurement context they don't like you're looking at them till the deadline has come and gone so are you talking about we we can get a dump on the 21st or the 22nd are you talking about rolling and if so what's the distinction between the concern and procurement reviews before the deadline but not this well I think that that I'm not an expert in procurements but my my sense is that the concern is that uh you would uh potentially bias uh future uh applicants or by beginning your review too early and perhaps forming opinions and whatnot let's take that off the table but IEB could start its work on a rolling basis without concern well certainly the IEB could um and I yeah that's good that's that that's all we need to say we don't need to look at the modern rolling basis when they all come into us the evaluation then we'll start that process commissioners do you agree with that except that depending on how many applications we have you know it would be good to get a head start on reviewing them if we're expected to meet the timeline that's been set forth ideally um that would be great but if this comes with some risk then we'll just maybe have to work a little bit later hours or something like that um and uh but IEB that gives IEB access to them if they come in early Karen right but I'm hearing you know I mean you raised a really good point in the procurement world you wouldn't get them normally early but for IEB's work getting them early would help them out Karen do you see this that is helpful yeah and it's important just to distinguish the suitability process which is not competitive in nature there's a standard that the IEB is reviewing and ultimately the commission to determine whether suitability has been met so I really I and I would let Loretta chime in on this if I have this wrong but I don't think it really matters what order they come in or you know whether one is more suitable than the other in theory you either are suitable or you are not so Commissioner Skinner to be clear I'd love the extra time too but just Todd raising that flag makes me nervous do I have um I don't want to take that off the table for folks um I'm being conservative there uh I think Commissioner Ryan flag the issues uh do you want to explore a rolling basis more given Commissioner Skinner's fair point for our piece or should we wait for the deadline maybe asking me that question or legal everybody yeah I'd love anyone to chime in no I mean if it's legal obviously it helps my concern is you know I have from procurement experience that's frowned upon so I just want to make sure that we're not doing anything that's going to tink the process yeah I think it might be helpful um if we can maybe not make that decision today I don't think that necessarily affects the the language in the regulation as to when you would commence your review and just give us an opportunity to think about it and take a look at whether there are risks that we should identify and reasons why you would not want to do that or at least that we're all aware of what those risks are and are the commissioners on like general consensus that the general application that's we're calling that part two um subject to our review and not subject to IEV's administrative completeness process I see Commissioner Hill nodding his head Commissioner Maynard Commissioner Ryan Commissioner Skinner how do you feel yeah I mean if that's the way it's normally been it seems to me as long as the normal process is followed by IEV in the suitability realm then we're safe okay Commissioner Skinner I also nodded in agreement okay and so what would you propose I'm sorry what would you propose instead did you make sure let me make sure I understand what you're asking now chair could you repeat your question oh okay I um I was I wanted to make sure that we didn't just jump um because I think I was doing that so I apologize um that um that we're comfortable having IEV do administrative completeness with respect to the three forms the well that actually it's really the two forms the mass supplement and BED and then they'll do the multi-jurisdictional down the road a bit um but they would do their administrative completeness in that process that's what Director Wells was recommending and we would receive um the general application outside of of any administrative team led staff led BED I am in agreement I'm okay with that and okay that's proposal to postpone the answer to the question is to whether or not Commissioners review on a rolling basis versus on 11 I'm fine with that too okay okay so we're going to postpone that till we get some more legal advice because I think we'd all love the extra time um and but I do think we want to weigh that legal risk uh and and maybe there's a means to make sure that we we preserve ourselves against any kind of legal risk if there is you know what what what um practice we could employ to ensure that they understood we were not operating that we were reviewing etc etc okay so with that how are we getting closer to this 218.03 legal team oh um I think um I have a good understanding I may say I can't make these edits while we're talking but I don't know Paul if you have kind of been able to capture some of this we can try to circle up after but I think we understand the the the direction everyone would like to go so then we have a consensus commissioners on that point okay all right I'm just looking for eye contact there we go all right um so is there anything else Commissioner O'Brien on 218.03 in terms of that you would want to preserve any language there that you'd want to preserve given given what we just agreed upon it was not so much the reserving but I guess I I understand some of the language I was going to propose to strike if we're amending it to omit the general application then it makes sense to me in terms of why the ED allows the curing of deficiencies I was going to propose that we strike that but if we're only talking about the BEDs and the other suitability forms and that makes a little more sense to me and we're comfortable if they don't cure under IEP's direction with the executive director and they're just out are we comfortable after did you want to say 30 days do we need to add that director Wells you know we could also do a 14 you know defer to loretta you could do a 14 day timeline you know if they've done a decent job and we identify the deficiencies especially this is not a couple of you know it's a report or something that's that's in the the general application maybe give them 14 days um but I think the reg should allow the um licensing division to submit a deficiency letter so they would identify what the deficiency is you don't have to say whether they're in or out I would think there should be some language that if the deficiencies are not cured that the commission may either deny the application or delay or deny the ability for the applicant to operate until such time as the deficiencies are cured then it would be up to the commission what to do if because if you if you leave it up to IEP to knock somebody out then you'd have to give us the standards and that's that's going to get complicated so if we just put language in there that it's up we can report to the commission the commission can make a determination that's probably more fair commissioners which which language are you looking at specifically I so I think she was looking at 2018 if you look at 218.03 and subsection B a 1B that's where there's a negative determination made by our IEB ED so I think what she's saying is rather than having it be they they would make a determination of that that it's down right that they're out that they would report to us that they haven't been a cured deficiency within a timeline and then we would make a decision yeah so it's the IEB is not making a negative determination of suitability they would just be identifying the deficiencies in the application yeah but that's what this says I mean right so that doesn't say negative suitability it just says negative I'm sorry I'm sorry a negative determination right but you're saying that rather than having to cure anything prior to 1121 because that's not realistic you would do what a 14-day window and the rat is okay that 14 days is reasonable for them to cure okay so this the extending the deadline under extraordinary circumstances is that pertinent to this or is that a misplaced subsection too that's more for you know if that's us isn't it really yeah so that's our general application so it seems like maybe that's not it doesn't have a home there aesthetically if someone was you know trying to submit their their art their uh multi-jurisdictional needs and all that and their computer crashed and they got he was like 10 you know late at night and they couldn't get it in and the next day would we give them a pass I would suggest and they have to come to us and ask for that under extraordinary circumstances right okay legal commission is getting you know it also is 14 days in which to cure the deficiencies in the application 14 days from when is it 14 days from the deficiency letters and the deficiency letters will be issued on a rolling basis okay and they can start as soon as they that process can fire measure scanner once the applications are received so that would keep them all rolling for on the basis and if I understand the discussion after the 14 days has passed and there are still deficiencies it the the matter would be brought to the commission to then consider a request for an extension do I have that right thank you for giving us sorry but you should have language in the reg that basically gives the commission authority to deny the application give an extension or at least hold the uh the ability for the applicant to operate until such time as the deficiencies are cured because otherwise it's just going to go on and on and on maretta's going to be chasing down all this information so do you have that language legal team on those three options you've got to be courted yeah I I mean in all practicality so my support here has other obligations so they're not here anymore I can't obviously write this while we're on the meeting so this might be something we need to bring back to you at some point I understand but you understand I love how Director Wells just outlined those three options commission do you agree commissioners yeah I think I I think we understand what would like to be done I'm not sure I can whip this up no I understand that's fine okay anything further on 218.03 and all right then let's move on Todd thank you sure okay um so that brings us to 218.04 bottom of page 44 of the commissioner's packet onto the top of page 45 a couple of uh provisions in here I would just like to draw your attention to so this is the part where we talk about well we'll have to kind of modify this too because it refers to commencing the review after an application is deemed administratively complete since we're not doing that anymore we'll just say that once the application is submitted the commission will commence to review the merits of the request and that you may take any of may take any of the following actions the first is to refer any part of it to a number of individuals or entities including the executive director or the IEB or staff to assist in the evaluation that includes part B where we discussed last week the retention of professional consultants by either the commission or the executive director in certain circumstances to assist in the review and to make any appropriate recommendations as requested and then getting to paragraph C and this kind of dovetails from what we've just been discussing so this is important and worth pausing on for a moment this also allows the commission to require or permit in the commission's discretion the applicant to provide additional information and documents and I certainly heard all of the conversation before this is a an area that you may find to be useful in really understanding an applicant's plan and if you were to engage in this it's something to make sure is well documented and recorded and what I mean by that is that if there is a request for specific information that we commemorate that in writing and flag and mark any information that came in as a supplement to the application and that of course that it be applied uniformly the alternative to that of course is just to as discussed a little bit earlier and I don't want to interpret what was said too narrowly but the alternative of course is to essentially just say whatever is in the application that's it that's the application and you kind of you know have the decision made based upon whatever the applicant submitted so I think it's important to just recognize paragraph C here and make sure that this is something that the commission is interested in doing when you use the word information does that include interviews I know we'll discuss interviews later but there's a possibility that we may decide to to meet with the applicants right so they might be providing additional information that way oh yeah so that's discussed in the section that follows but this is more at least my intention here was that it's more when you're reading the application through whether it's the commissioners or a consultant or member of the staff who have been designated to perform certain parts of the review if there's some information that's not clear or if there's some supplementation that might be helpful or if an applicant comes to the commission says hey I forgot to include what have you that there be some vehicle that allows for that and that's what this is though it on its face is somewhat inconsistent with some of the comments that were made earlier so it's important to understand this the existence of this language and determine whether you want to include it or not in the first sentence when it says the commission will review the merits of the request what what is request referring to the request for a license that we could modify that to maybe it's application yeah and it should say like timely filed is because it's really got nothing to do with administratively complete right it's like any timely filed application yep yep we definitely need to modify that well application includes IEB's portion so we would still need that administrative complete language in there now yeah but then we also need the time to file the application right because you can get your IEB stuff in and miss the deadline right so however you need to word it to capture all five sections of it now I think all five have to be submitted on time yes but I was just making the point that that the therefore the five components are being reviewed for administrative completeness yep well yep so the language is relevant yeah but it's not all encompassing I guess my question is it still doesn't give a nod to the general form I agree yeah I think we'll have to do a review to kind of make sure that we reconcile this language with the discussion today that's part of the reason I don't think we can necessarily do this today on the fly I think it'll take attention yep okay so to Todd's last question 218.04 subsection C he was asking about are we comfortable retaining that language yeah because didn't we talk about even a best and final as something we might want to put out so that would be asked for right that's a slightly different area that is the best and final part I think on what he was saying that subsection C really is is about the application supplementing if we want more information maybe we need to clarify that time because I asked again the question about even doesn't include interviews so you're really saying require permit of course it's in our discretion with this additional language provide additional information and documents relating to the general form general application yeah if I may come to a bunch of caveats right I would just draw one distinction to kind of hopefully clarify Commissioner O'Brien's point what what we're talking about now is the the period after the application has come in before the Commission has begun evaluating it as part of the hearing and so there's language that we'll get to it's in 06 on page 46 at the top that talks about once you're in the evaluation process allowing for best and final offers and supplementing the application at that point and modifying the proposal and we'll have to talk about that obviously too but that's where that is so I would just kind of draw the distinction between allowing or requiring further information at the out from the outset versus once you've completed the initial review now you're evaluating it asking for best and final well I guess and my question would be a subsection C you're saying we've all had the chance to review them individually now we are sitting down together our public review process are we starting then where we're saying do we want any additional information because we see some things not complete is that what you're saying before we actually begin to review so I think paragraph C is before you begin the evaluation at a public meeting so that okay so we just sat down yeah we're all looked at that culture do we want to reserve the right in our discretion to say these you know applicant ABCD&E we'd like supplemental information and with that comes a bunch of caveats and I see Derek Lennon um charming in but do we want to reserve that for right now Derek I just if somebody could explain .04 and .06 like what is the purpose of 04 compared to 06 because I mean the chair just described sitting down and diving in but .06 kind of described sitting down and diving in so I think that was my question this is before we dove in this is actually we just sat down before we dive in before we get our feet wet we sat down together we're on the pool side we haven't gotten our feet wet so that's what I think Todd is saying because we don't have the administrative completeness process can we at that juncture ask her am I right Todd is is that fair that's exactly right so this is us doing our own administrative completeness then that's on the general form well it's more than that it's administrative it's this is more of a substance this could be a substantive supplementation it's not just you're missing a document can you please give it to me it's you know you've provided some information but we would like a little more clarity on that and I think we should let Derek jump in here I think he can kind of talk a little bit about the risk particularly as it pertains to procurements and what the distinction is here but this is just an option and again if we do use this and for what it's worth it was used as part of the rfa2 process that it has to be done very methodically and very carefully yeah so I think a good question that the Commissioner Brian you just brought up and Todd just kind of addressed as 0.04 and 0.06 had this belief that each commissioner was kind of doing their initial review and they were of a certain section and they would go back and get the clarifying information not supplemental clarifying because if you do supplemental information and you may decide to do that and everybody on the line you're changing you're changing the application right you're letting them add to it so they could go back and ask for clarifying information and you know you'd really want so what you could do here is kind of roll that into six and have each commissioner at the beginning of the public hearing say I would like a clarifying point on this piece this piece this piece and this piece and have staff go back and get it then you can start reviewing the applications holding off those sections and once you've got the clarifying information you could kind of do the holistic review of those sections and the application but what you're seeing there was the kind of dual process of one each commissioner was reviewing a separate section of the application getting the information and clarifying information so they could make a presentation to the other commissioners and then the point where they could come forward in public and give additional information if it was asked by the whole body right and we're all getting the entirety at once you're getting all of it you're getting all whether it's all 20 some odd or some smaller group that comes up with the 200 000 Derek could you give me an example what what a clarifying information request would be so so if they said something along the lines of we're providing benefits to our employees and the package is this is that to full time is that to part time is that to contractors what are you offering so that would be a clarifying it was a distinction between how many of your employees are going to be full time versus part time right that's a clarifying thing so you can get a better understanding but it's not letting them say I'm going to change this to be 10 000 employees now because I got to see what everyone else is offering once once all the applications came in so if we thank you for that so I'll just give you an example of something else to make sure I'm clear on what we're at what we can and can't ask for I would not be able to ask well I see under the community section that you said this can you add to that then that would be a no correct that that's but you could ask that during the baffle right once I understand that but during the initial evaluations where you're just evaluating the written applications you just want clarifying no new information yep thank you that would be under the procurement and that's held up pretty well but this is an application so I want to say you guys have the ability to do different things right this is an application but if you want this to you know follow a pretty well established set of criteria that would be an area that you would want to really consider with legal weighing the risks of what allowing supplemental information would do to other applicants that didn't get that same opportunity so madam chair to answer your question I would be very hesitant to use this tool if it was in the regulations however always love having that tool there if we ever needed it mm-hmm I agree and how do we feel about how it's written I think it gives us discretion right to use it can I ask clarifying question huh but not to be funny Derek but I want to make sure it's okay to ask that clarification clarifying question about just one of the 28 or one of the you know 23 or 19 whatever it is or should you ask it across the board but if it really is just you can ask one you can just ask one and you'd usually want to post that so that if other people wanted to come back and say I have the same information I'd like to provide then you would consider that right but you'd want to post it all it's just like a question in answer period the best way to do it is never to take them verbally get an email respond put it up in a public place or so that's the same thing you'd want to do if anyone else wanted to update their application at the same point which is why I'd recommend you do it in the public meeting so if someone else wants to respond and say I would like to update now some people may try to provide supplemental information and that's where you would want to say we're not going to review this because it's clearly supplemental we'll only review clarifying points overall premises now where we have to do that treat everyone the same way across all right really helpful commissioners do we have a consensus that's that subsection c is good to me keep right now as a tool that anyone opposing that okay and we understand that it's going to get reworked address the issues that we've discussed prior should we continue commissioners is it okay all right hearing no nays we'll continue time please great okay so we're on 218.05 this is an area where we talk a little bit about again some of the tools that the commission may elect to employ and it says that the commission may conduct one or more meetings to do the following to receive public feedback so we talked about that a little bit last week if if the commission is so inclined you may conduct just a general public hearing on all the applications to allow members of the public to share any feedback that they may have and that would be specific to the applications secondly you may may choose to allow each of the applicants to present their application to you at some point it could be soon after the submission of the application it could be closer to when you're prepared to evaluate the applications but again this is a tool that you may find to be useful in understanding what their proposal is and then again just one of the other tools is that you may choose to allow an applicant to respond to any questions and again this is before you commence your evaluation as a body of the applications this is one way to kind of ensure an understanding of the proposals so those are three of the options Todd can I ask you though the latter part of C as directed by the chair or the designee it says like the commission may and then when it gets to C it sort of narrows it saying as directed by the chair of the designee does that then narrow the authority so there's a communication between the chair designee or I'm a little confused about what that's yeah it was I mean we can certainly clarify that it's a good point the intent was just that at a if you're at a public meeting and you're allowing an applicant either to make a presentation or the public is there commenting on an applicant application you may allow the applicant themselves to respond and the reason why that specific language is there was just as a kind of procedural matter where the chair ordinarily presides over the public hearing it was not it's not at all designed to suggest that other commissioners can't comment or anything along those lines but we can designee thing too as it doesn't seem to make sense that you might say like okay Karen you go talk to so-and-so and get their response to you know what you're saying it's the public hearing but if we um the chair or their chair if you just allow any applicant to respond to questions or public comments the commission would have to allow that yeah so do you need the other qualifier I guess that's I don't get where it's there we could know I take your point I think we can we can remove that language I don't think that's necessary in this context whoever is the chair of that hearing um should it be public meeting and hearing to preserve our options because it does so we see public input so that would be in a hearing setting okay uh yeah so in absolutely um and then same as to two right meeting or hearing yeah oh so this must have contemplated the like the legislative stuff that where one person might be sitting over it yeah I think that then I think that's under the contract where the chair can designate somebody else to stay home yeah I think that's where their way that we sort of inherited where one presides over the reg comment yeah I think that's by statute that it can do that yeah okay well yeah no I that we can certainly make those edits um of course um okay and I think two just basically allows the commission to determine how it will receive comments whether written oral uh setting time limits uh things along those lines it's just that single two of those three lines right right and everything is struck below any questions there commissioners okay commissioner I'm assuming you're not raising your hand thank you okay um so then you get to I'm not sure if it's a new subsection or not Todd evaluation of the application might have it yeah so this is uh 06 this is uh 2018 06 and we're on the bottom of page 45 under the top of page 46 um this is once all the uh we'll call it preliminary uh matters have been performed you've had time to evaluate the application conducted any uh hearings uh or meetings or allowed presentations allowed uh questions to be answered now you're sitting down to evaluate the actual application as a body um and you'll see that this particular section is is really kind of broken down into uh two components in some ways most of it the the first three quarters if you will applies to all categories of uh application the bottom part that we'll get to applies only to um and I want to make sure I have this exactly right but the untethered category three um application so that the regulation draws a distinction between those processes the primary distinction being uh that we can certainly envision uh that the untethered category three applications will be reviewed as part of a competitive process where the others will not so that's why there are additional uh rules here that pertain solely to that okay if we take it from the top of 2018 06 though um this provides that the commission will commence the substantive evaluation of the contents of the application and again you may utilize technical assistance uh as part of that if that is something you choose to do i.e. uh you could have a consultant or staff member make parts of presentations during your evaluation um or things of that sort again just a tool um number two says that and this is I mean there's a lot of important parts but this one is particularly important um that the commission shall analyze the factors that are described below in no particular order and giving uh and not giving any particular weight or no weight to any factor so I believe that that is the direction the commission by consensus anyway set out and this is how it is reflected so each of the criteria will be independently reviewed and they be weighed however the commission chooses to do so and we're deliberating in public on all of these yes and we we do get into that a little further down but yes that is the way this is designed paragraph three gets into um oh actually it's right here in reviewing the application the commission may utilize any of the following so you may again conduct any public meetings allow any presentations and again here's the part we talked about a little earlier as part of the actual review process at this point you may request additional information allow modified proposals or applications or request best and final submissions you need not do that but this is a tool here and of course if you are to do that it needs to be done with precision and very carefully to avoid any of the concerns that have been already been raised but it is a tool that proved to be helpful in the past and we're not doing this just because that's the way it's always been done but this is a potential tool that you may elect to use depending upon the circumstances so before we keep going I just want to make sure everybody is okay with this language here any questions if we're good time okay so four says and again important that the commission shall deliberate on license applications in public in a public meeting and shall not be required to use the 101 procedures which are essentially the adjudicatory proceeding rules so this is a decision point for the commission that you would review this just at a public meeting and not as part of a 30 a adjudicatory proceeding there is no constitutional right that attaches at this point so there's no right to an adjudicatory proceeding here you could certainly elect to allow that in the case of the racing application to draw a distinction there is case law that says that those need to be conducted at an adjudicatory proceeding there is no such requirement in this particular case so there is some discretion afforded to the commission here but to be clear this language says that the application would be deliberated upon at a public meeting I can I can keep going here so we're on paragraph five now and this gets into the criteria if you will that the commission will be actually evaluating each application for what you'll see here is that it includes all of the criteria that the commission has already reviewed and approved what we did though is for your review and consideration added in some sub criteria and these are based upon the questions that are included in the application and you may find that this would be helpful in breaking down the criteria and kind of really helping you to evaluate the applications against one another in some cases or just really distill whether a particular criteria has been satisfied to your standard there's certainly no requirement that there be sub criteria but we wanted to show you what that would look like and we can certainly supplement any of these sub criteria if there are other items that emerge as being helpful as well but that's I think I could make that suggestion to go back to the application but I didn't do a side-by-side with the application I noted this in my review of the proposed break is there any commissioners did I assume that you all saw that that had you know that that's where it came from the application right here was anything missing that it looks like you generally followed the application from my memory but Jordan you were closest to the application having worked with the team on it anything that you would have added as we go no and I went over it last night too I think it pretty much captures everything that we talked about in that but yeah and I think it's good to have the right detail right so Todd nice job thank you great okay so and again just to reiterate we've already talked about this but I think it's important just to highlight that and I'm now I'm down on page 47 paragraph F that's the part that talks about suitability which again is incorporated into this process it's not a separate process suitability is one of the criteria the commission has identified what you will I think it might be on page 40 because some documents were taken out so just oh okay yeah that's fine I'm sorry I'll stop by using the page numbers I was might be going off an older no you can look at your page number like seven I just wanted to point out that you'll see in F little one that there's a reference to 205 CMR 215 that is the suitability section that we anticipate coming before you next week or in the coming meetings and that would set out the criteria and other considerations that would be applied in reviewing a suitability that's that section that directability we refer to as relative suitability correct and I'm just looking through these criteria here we just need to make sure that what you get from Loretta will give you the information for this because remember you're not getting the full suitability investigation for maybe a year so the in order to make these determinations just remember you're going to be getting their licensing history their compliance history their litigation history and some metrics with respect to their financial stability and also that open source check so just so we're clear that's the information you'll get make that determination on subsection F and and so that is all of those subsections though are in the application so the applicant has to this has to answer them themselves correct correct yeah so madam chair against my recommendation we went forward with actually putting those questions back into the application after we had actually pulled them so it looks like that actually was a really good idea oh you think that's good because I felt that about that good good thank you I can't say I actually saw it all coming to this fruition Mr. Maynard thank you all righty um and then of course it's paragraph g which is just kind of a tool the commissioner commission may use if another criteria somehow emerges um that you'd want to include as well would have that ability to do so if we move on to um subsection six so this is the part that I referenced earlier that applies just to the untethered category three licenses this was designed to reflect some of the comments and consensus that was developed in earlier meetings relative to this process so it says that in determining whether to award this type of license the untethered the commission shall and we should look at that word take into consideration the variations between the applicants as they relate to any other applicant for a licensee and how granting any particular combination of applications would maximize the overall benefits and minimize overall harms or risk of harms to the Commonwealth so that is the general standard that we are setting out for commission review of course you evaluate all the criteria but when you distill it that is essentially the high level standard you would be looking at in determining how to select the up to seven untethered category three licensees the next part gets into a little bit more about the process so part a is more kind of the standard that you're looking at part b is the process and again these are tools at your disposal and we say here that the commission may in its discretion implement competitive processes for awarding this category untethered category three license and you may as part of that either utilize scored or unscored selection systems grant or deny one or more particular applications while reserving action on other applications for future deliberation or review the applications in multiple phases or rounds and use different review methodologies in each phase or round but I would say about all of this is that decisions on some of these should be made prior to commencing the evaluation and not during the process of course so once the applications come in and you see what the universe looks like at that point we would want to discuss the process that the commission intends to use to evaluate them you want to ensure that you don't make this decision based upon the contents of certain applications so Todd they'd have the commission would have to regroup and make a determination before they look at anything correct that would be ideal that protects against any assertion that decisions were made because of the contents of a specific application or a number of applications that you may or may not find to be more appealing of one way or another could we bring that piece up then in the regulation um somehow you know where we just decided on that subsection three and whatever number it was where we said at the top of our process before we touched the you know we're still on poolside and not taking a deep dive we said we might think about supplemental information should we have this piece come in where that we have to we have to determine our little s i mean a little s scoring system is that is that does that make sense uh commissioners just in terms of process or should it somehow be flagged uh we just want to Todd if i could i i'll just jump in just on structure yeah okay i i think you wanted to stay here because it's about how you're going to determine it and and the flexibility you have to do that um that's not this i think what what Todd's getting at to correct me if i'm wrong and we all agree is that because you have some flexibility you you you can preserve it for as long as you need to but at some point before you start using that flexibility to actually determine to do a competitive process you need to decide that but that's really an internal scheduling issue for you as opposed to a message of to the external world and for the regulatory process it kind of fits within the chronology of this is when you determine when you're doing the licensing so and that's that's more of a drafting thing but i i think okay all right as long as we all have that in mind thank you okay i put a big flag before you get started all right um okay any questions commissioners i have one oh i'm sorry commissioners going to return i'm sorry yes no worries um i guess that's six a why is that only applicable to the untethered category three license review just in terms of holding um a decision until all of them have have been reviewed all of the applications have been reviewed why wouldn't we want that for the category ones and twos as well i'm sorry i want to make sure i understand your question question which you're referring to right at the top that provision is limited to the category three untethered why would you want that for the other categories as well well you well this was it's designed primarily to afford the commission a manner to draw distinctions between applications where that's not necessarily a concern when it comes to category one and two that said it it is always helpful to have a general standard you are looking at and um that is if that part is what you're referring to that might be something to include for all the um overall benefits to the commonwealth type language once the license is granted does that mean so for the category ones let's say once the license is granted does that mean that they are no i just answered my own question it doesn't mean that they're ready to operate that they're good to start operating because we still have this other piece around the internal controls and responsibility okay thank you yeah there's um in the pipeline is a draft um operation certificate section so that that's a great point to bear in mind here getting a license does not mean you're allowed to just start operating it means that you are now eligible uh to pursue an operation certificate to can to begin operating so i think my question is more important when we start to talk about the granting of an operation certificate just in terms of you know creating a level playing field making sure that everyone um can go live if you will at the same time because of that question in the next section commissioners can or i'm convinced the lawyers will show me how it works um on the temporary licensure process so um yeah so let's if we keep moving here um everyone's all set so we've moved to two eighteen oh seven oh i'm okay i was sorry let's go yeah i was going to hit paragraph seven first apologies yeah so this is the supplemental suitability determination now this uh goes um hand in hand in many ways with the temporary licensing uh regulation which you haven't seen yet uh which is set out in two nineteen and will be coming your way shortly but uh it kind of captures what we believe to be the consensus of the commission as to how to move forward uh with temp or how best to move forward with temporary licensing in light of the law um and what the process contemplates is that there be a more of a limited uh suitability review as part of the initial review um and that once that standard is satisfied and the commission makes a decision to award someone a license that it could be it would be temporary until the complete suitability review has been completed at which point the commission would convene its ordinary suitability reviews in in accordance with the regs that you'll also be looking at and then if the person or entity is awarded a positive determination of suitability they then become eligible for call it the full license um and so what this section here talks about is just that um the commission may make that supplemental suitability decision after it has already determined who to award the licenses uh to and that if the entity it does not let's call it as a achieve the positive determination of suitability that the commission shall deny the uh application and not award the license to that entity so this paragraph seven recognizes the suitability piece of the puzzle and that it will be essentially conducted in two parts here there's the first preliminary determination and then what we would likely consider to be the traditional complete suitability review um and that is reflected in this section Todd if I may just one thing that I may have caught some some folks eyes is is the eligibility to request a temporary license and what that's all about that is uh tracking the language in section six of the statute because the the applicants have to request a temporary license and have to pay the associated licensing fee before the commission can grant it so this is a little bit of a of a hyper technical ad in there but is to cover that language we don't intend to add any more time or process to that it's simply uh you you're ready to ask for a temporary license and then you can so this confusion when we talk about temporary license under section six and then the temporary licensure that um director wiles has been referring to all our time this is this is using um and Todd I don't know I don't want to jump in and this is using the section six process that's contemplated to be able to provide the temporary licensing that I believe you've been talking about in your timeline the the sort of accessibility process so it's sort of giving that meaning to that part of the statute so may I just ask a clarifying question so um under this structure for the fees it would be that the we would collect a million dollars for each of these temporary applicants so keeping our timeline in February and in March we get a million dollars but we would not collect a full five million or the additional four million until suitability is done potentially a year from now is that correct correct Paul correct me from wrong but I think that's how and that will be reflected in the 214 and 221 um sections which I believe are on deck for next week those already drafted that on deck for next week that is the model that's consistent with what the statute talks about and that's that's why that proposal is and are we specifically again this reg limiting these request for temps to know more than seven untethered well it would be whoever you select right so it's going to be limited to the people that we then select through the competitive process that's right that's right so basically you make your licensing decision um understanding that the complete suitability review has not been performed and in order to allow the commencement of operation subject to the operation certificate but let's set that aside for the moment um this would allow um the prospective licensee or presumptive licensee I should say um to request the temporary license they pay their million dollars and they can begin operating once they get their certificate of operation once the complete suitability review is done on those let's say seven untethered category threes and the category one and two uh applicants uh in the commission awards them a positive determination of suitability then they can pay the other four million dollars and they receive their full license that's what's contemplated here that is consistent with what the statute talks about um and that's why we have advanced that proposal should we make it clear the temp fires when the permanent kicks in that's that's also and this this is unfortunately the next one it's not getting the other rights yeah 19 has that and I believe it's also in 2020. I was wondering if we why we didn't have in here that as soon as the full license goes up the temp expires but he said that's in the next wave we're going to be ending. So I have this question if the temporary licensure process was was not there would we be collecting let's just pretend that the temporary licensure process was eliminated would that um would the process be that we would collect the full five million um once they can operate under our temporary licensure process um pending suitability would we be able to collect the full five million dollars you would um that would be really favorable yeah commonwealth right that would be an excellent outcome for the commonwealth to be able to collect that five million dollars if in fact the temporary licensure structure was was struck yeah so this all this does so what the what you would describe if there were no temporary licensing provisions in 23n um we would probably or by we I mean the commission award a conditional license whereby it's conditioned upon achieving a positive determination of suitability you pay your five million and go on with the process we were um as we've discussed at length very aware of the fact that there is temporary licensure language in the statute that we need to somehow recognize and incorporate and this is the way that we have proposed doing it to ensure that we're in full compliance with chapter 23 and if we say that we had awarded five and not seven um what happens with the two we just would leave that open but somebody could still be seeking a temporary licensure process down the road for that same language yeah the statute doesn't require the commission to award seven I think it says you can award up to seven which implicitly means you may award less if you don't find um any others to meet your standards um Nina commissioner uh or ma'am chair I think that the just in cases I'm not sure if what you're asking is would those you know next to let's say you set a new deadline two years from now to get the other two do you have to go back through temporary licensing and I guess there's uh one short answer is these are these regs could be amended in between um first of all and you may decide then that you don't want to do a provisional licensing process what I would think of as a more provisional or conditional process or that you do I think you would have that flexibility in the future but um so sort of for that first class really helpful thank you um okay so um let's uh if if we're comfortable with paragraph seven we can move on to 218.07 um and this talks about essentially the decisions that would be before you and they include that uh you are able to find the applicant uh suitable and eligible to request the temporary license so that's essentially awarding uh the license um you could find that they're I'm sorry you could let me draw a distinction let me back up a second I missed this nuance that I meant to point out and this again gets into um the the fact that there's a separate uh suitability reg and it references in here 215.01 paragraph two and then 215.01 paragraph one um and the distinctions between paragraph one and paragraph uh two are that paragraph one which is reflected in subsection b here is essentially the complete suitability once you've gone the applicant has gone through the full process um and a decision is made that that entity has uh met the standard. Little two which is reflected in paragraph a here is the preliminary finding of suitability that is achieved and we will of course get into when you look at that reg how an entity would go about achieving that preliminary finding of suitability but uh we say here that if the entity achieves that preliminary finding of suitability you may deem them eligible to request the temporary license so essentially you're designating them as the presumptive licensee they can then request the temporary license and move forward subject to final determination of suitability by contrast if you look at paragraph b this is a scenario where you have found the entity completely suitable there's no preliminary finding it's just a complete finding of suitability in that event you may award the license subject to conditions um and the conditions are set out in a section that again will be coming before you shortly that's section 220 and of course there are certain provisions of chapter 23 and uh to consider here too so a and b that you're looking at under 218.07 are both scenarios in which you are awarding essentially at least presumptively a license to an applicant paragraph c is the opposite that is that you may deny an application for any of the reasons set out in the regulations including section six or nine of chapter 23 and and just by way of explanation there section six talks about looking into during the investigation that an applicant has failed to establish essentially their suitability that they don't have the requisite intent integrity or they haven't been able to demonstrate responsible business practices or other reasons why would be injurious to the interest of the Commonwealth to award a license to that operator and then section nine talks about denying a license to an applicant because they have knowingly made a false statement or they have had a license revoked by any other governmental authority or they have been convicted of a felony or again have affiliates or close associates that wouldn't otherwise qualify for a license so that those are the elements that are discussed in chapter 23 and section 60 and nine and so you may certainly deny an application for any of those reasons or for any of the reasons in 205 CMR which would include that they didn't they weren't one of your top choices under a competitive process. May I ask the question and this is to Commissioner Skinner's earlier question when we being eligible to request a temporary license and then we give them that temporary license you know assuming everything lines up they can't start operating still because we are going to have a universe thanks to Paul but I see you're not I think it is going to be universal do we need to clarify that Commissioner Skinner kind of asked the same question do we need to just to say that or is it somewhere more clearly stated and I just am missing it. We could certainly and Paul and Mina feel free to jump in I we could certainly add a cross-reference in somewhere just to recognize that there is an operation certificate process that has to be satisfied prior to commencement of operations. Mina correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the regulation on license conditions which is 220 contains a requirement that every license and temporary license be issued subject to a condition that they not operate without an operation certificate. Excellent so maybe we could just cross-reference that. Yeah it actually is cross-referenced okay Madam Chair in in 07B but it can also be cross-referenced in A if that makes sense because of the temporary license so we can clarify that. Excellent thank you. Any questions on the on that process or the denial process commissioners? No questions but the conversation that the question that I asked earlier that you just referred to Chair was directed at paragraph 2. Yeah it's 2807 and not the prior paragraph I got it a little a little ahead of myself back then so just a clarification. And now I understand why Todd was confused that's my question. That's okay but are you satisfied with the cross-references now because I have the same concern. Okay excellent all right so I'll set commissioners on the the rest of that provision I see nine pets I'll start. All right then moving on to tweet I guess actually is it the 2 of 217? So this gets to I think what she's talking about which is that this says that for the untethered category 3 application review process that the commission can't make a determination until the deadline for submission of the applications has passed because in all likelihood there will need to be a competitive process so you don't want to make rolling decisions on any particular application until you've had an opportunity to review them all uniformly and ensure that they're all part of the same process. And further that there's been an opportunity for the public feedback and comments at any meetings that you may convene as we talked about previously under a subsection or section O5. Okay so O8 talks about what the process is after the commission has made its decisions and we say here in one that upon granting an application essentially the commission will write a file a decision including a statement of the reasons why specific findings of fact and of course set out any conditions of licensure that have been imposed. Two gets into those applications that have been denied says that the commission will prepare and file its decision if requested by the applicant and prepare a statement of the reasons for the denial including the specific findings of fact. So those are basically the written decisions to be prepared at certain junctures of the process depending upon what happens. In paragraph three gets into when the license is deemed to have been considered awarded and it says that it's deemed to have occurred immediately upon the majority vote by the commission to issue the license unless otherwise determined by the commission. So that's when you know the ability to apply for a temporary license would trigger obligation to pay the fee and things of that nature. Anything else meaner Paul on that? No just a real quick that unless the commission otherwise that discretion there is intentional because there may be situations with different categories where you might want to have to where you might want to wait do you want the application fee and now or do you want to wait for a later time for the license in particular for so everybody starts on the same day in addition to the operation certificate so that's a little bit more flexibility in there. And so that takes us through the entirety of the draft certainly there's some work that needs to be done here but that's that's the general process that we've proposed for your consideration. So for me and Paul I think the work that needs to be done is really pretty limited to the idea that we extracted the general application that is the commissioner's general application form with the criteria that we've established for evaluating the untethered quote unquote seven and then allowing IEB to do what they need to do in the ordinary course of their business to determine administrative completeness or otherwise with respect to the other forms that are part of the application and so that will allow us to proceed with respect to our work and they can actually proceed perhaps even earlier on a rolling basis Scott was going to look to see if if we could start to look at the applications as they come in the general application on a rolling basis without putting us at terrible risk but I think those were generally the two areas and then you just need to do some cleanup work with respect to the regs that followed that provision that we spent a good deal of time on to reflect that that sort of not a fabrication but just an extraction if that makes sense because I think Nina and Paul you missed that but we during a little food goes a long ways gentlemen and we recognize that IEB really doesn't have any familiarity with that form so it didn't make sense to have a licensing department review that for completeness that so we could extract that their responsibilities. Is that there Todd? Absolutely absolutely so we will the legal team will certainly circle up and update the draft and get it back over to you as soon as possible and I think we can anticipate putting this on the agenda for next week if that works for everyone. I think Crystal is taking notes of that now. Crystal do you have any questions? I want to put you on the spot but you'll work illegal. She may be multitasking so she'll put it on on for because we don't have an agenda-setting meeting next week. Okay commissioners how are you feeling? Any questions or comments? Commissioner Wells? Director Wells? Any questions for this team? Crystal you're all set we were just asking because Todd said that he could add the revisions that will come from today's discussion to next week's session. I heard I sorry I had to run out really quick but on my way and I heard that we were adding something and that there was no agenda-setting meeting but I can just touch base with you on exact for end Todd on what exactly we would be adding. Okay excellent language there. Thank you Crystal. Any questions from A&K for us anything that you need clarification from the commissioners on? No thank you Madam Chair just to remind everybody because it was before that conversation we'll also make the updates to the ability to have deadlines for portions of the application not just the application but that was the other one that I heard early on as a policy choice. Yeah thank you. Commissioner O'Brien are you all set? Commissioner Hill are you all set? Okay Commissioner Skinner are you all set? Thank you Commissioner Maynard. I'm good. All right so I think that brings us to our last item and thank you excellent work. It was last week's early review Todd was outstanding and it really helped us frame today's discussion. Thank you so much and Director Lillios thank you for all the expertise you provided and Director Wells. So we're looking at now just if there's any other business commissioners. I know we've got some children to worry about so Pat's already expressed his interest on Director I mean Commissioner O'Brien so. Alrighty so do I have a motion to adjourn today's meeting? So moved. Okay. Thank you everyone really appreciate everyone's attention to the details of this critical matter. Commissioner O'Brien. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. Hi. Yes thank you everyone 5-0. Thank you. Thanks everybody. Have a good rest of the day.