I'll set date. Thank you. So good morning, everyone. Today is September 12. One day after we all honored the victims yesterday of 911. We'll get started. We are convening them. And GC's public meeting and we're doing so virtually so we'll need a roll call. Good morning, Commissioner O'Brien. Good morning. I'm here. Good morning, Commissioner Hill. Good morning. I am present. Great. Good morning. And Commissioner Skinner. Good morning, Madam Chair. Good morning, everyone. I'm here. Good morning. And good morning, Commissioner Maynard. Good morning, Madam Chair. I'm here. Okay. Excellent. We'll get started and come to public meeting number 391 of the Massachusetts Game Commission. And before we get started on our racing matters, we do have an exciting update from Director Vandal Linden from, I believe, on Corbuston Harbor. Yes. I met on Corbuston Harbor this morning. Good morning, Madam Chair. Good morning, commissioners. I'm at on Corbuston Harbor for the launch of Play My Way. So for those that are not aware of what Play My Way is, it's a budget setting tool that's available on every slot machine now live at on Corbuston Harbor. Play My Way allows patrons who are enrolled in the player reward card to set a budget, set a budget for a day, set a budget for a week and or monthly budget. And as they approach or as they meet or in some cases exceed that budget, they're provided with reminders about about what budget they had set. Play My Way is really intended to be provide informed player choice. It's our job to make sure that individuals have the information they need so they can make that informed choice about how much they want to spend and provide them with information so that they know where they stand. They can make that decision whether to continue to gamble or when it's time to stop in and walk away. What's unique about Play My Way is, well, there's a lot, but it's a partnership. It's a partnership with our Game Sense program now at each casino as they help roll out Play My Way. It's a Game Sense tool in many ways to help people gamble responsibly. It's also a partnership with each of our licensees and today it's celebrating that partnership with Encore Boston Harbor through a long journey of the development and launch of this system. It also represents sort of the final chapter that started back in 2016 with the launch of Play My Way at Plain Ridge Park casino. So it launched there in 2016. It launched on March 30th of this year at MGM and launches here today at Encore. I'm happy to report that to date we have roughly 27,500 individuals enrolled and actively enrolled in Play My Way. That does not include individuals who have enrolled and then unenrolled. So 27,500 over 3,000 now, 3100 and 13 to be precise at MGM are actively enrolled since March 31st. And also I think it is important to note that this is the final chapter in enrolling out Play My Way. Now, every slot machine in the state of Massachusetts is enabled with this tool and provides a valuable resource to help people gamble within the budget that they set if they choose to use this tool. In fact, that's something that I should probably highlight. This is a voluntary tool. You can use it or you don't have to use it. It's voluntary to enroll. It's voluntary to unenroll. So just in terms of a technical update, we are live and have been live here at Encore Boston Harbor since around 4 a.m. It's been tested on random slot machines and is working as it's intended so far. We're still in the process of getting, there's a kiosk right outside the Game Sense Information Center, we're in the process of still getting that up and running. That really is a great tool to allow the game sense advisors to assist people in enrolling. We expect, the report is that we expect that to be up and running by noon today. So that would be the only outstanding piece that I'm aware of. So it's good. I'm happy to report this. It is good news for the commission and it's good news for individuals who wish to use this tool. Once again, just as in the case with March, we would have loved to have been there with you. March, we had an important meeting that conflicted. Today we have a meeting that conflicted, but this is how we have to roll right now. We have lots on our plate, but we are all celebrating this important rollout. Questions from Mark, commissioners or comments? I don't have a question. I just want to say congratulations to Mark and his team. I know this has been a long haul, getting this up and running. I know it's been very successful at the other two. So I'm happy that it's finally up and running at Encore. Thank you. Any other comments? Commissioner Skinner? Just echoing Commissioner O'Brien's comments. I had the opportunity to sit through the Game Sense Strategy meeting last week and, you know, heard first hand how well prepared and well poised. Mark and his team and Encore were to launch today. So another congrats to Encore and to Mark and team. I want to thank Encore Boston Harbor because it truly has been collaborating with Mark and team to take care of being the third part of this important rollout and really giving its patrons important responsible gaming tools so that they can make healthy informed choices. All three licensees, as Mark emphasized, have been two partners in this in this collaboration, and they are unique partners. This is not happening in other jurisdictions. So that's a credit to your leadership mark, your vision, the work of that long does to support you. And of course, all of the support that comes from IT and Katrina's team and the licensees themselves. So congratulations. And we just hope it's going to be a very successful day. We're looking forward to the number count at the end. Commissioner Maynard, did I skip over you? I'm not sure. Thank you so much. Yeah, you're here. You're here. That's all I have to say. Congrats Mark, Mark, and Amy. Excellent. Commissioner Hill, I'll set. Okay. Accept a big congratulations. And I know you're not able to make it today, but it's the commission standing behind this since really 2015 to say to prioritize responsible gaming in the state and seeing it through to this point and where we go in the future. We're certainly, there's certainly a lot of directions that we can go as we continue this journey to promote safe levels of play and reduce, reduce gambling related harms. Thank you. Good luck today, Mark. We're thinking of you. And thanks for taking the time this morning. All right, good luck. Thank you. We'll move on to item number three, and we're going to begin with Dr. Lightman. You have some business for us to take care of today. Good morning. Our first racing item is the request by the standard bed owners of Massachusetts for recognition as the group that represents the standard bed readers in Massachusetts. This isn't in accordance to Mass General Law 128, which is the agriculture section of the law. And they have been the representative group from 1992. Today I have Nancy Longabody, the Treasurer Secretary on if and she can give a few statistics for us. And I'll turn it over to Nancy now. Thank you, Dr. Lightman. Good morning. Just a couple of things looking back at 2021. Our organization has a publicist. His name is Tim Brojarski. He writes daily stories every day after the races. And he also will highlight mass bread performances. He'll do some more in-depth stories as we approach Siro State season. And he also does keeps the membership informed payment dates, things of that sort. He's been with us for, I believe, four to five years. So I think it's a it's a it's worked out well and some of the things Tim highlighted was last year we gave away 2.25 million in passes. And we have three divisional stake records also, which is very exciting. We had 83 individual starters in 36 races last year. We had 137 group mares. That was up a little bit. Our numbers had dropped a little from COVID, but we see it getting back up. So that's encouraging. We like that. We're excited for a competitive stake season in the upcoming year. We have 169 eligible horses for the two and three year old races this year. We anticipate to be matching the 21 purses. Possibly could be a slightly a little bit more than that, but we're at least anticipating to be the same. So we're happy about that. Our races begin on Sunday, September 25, and our finals will all take place on October 24. We have all eight finals on that day on a Monday. And we would love if any or all of the commissioners could, could attend that would be great. We always love having them out there for that. And if anyone has any questions, I'd be happy to answer them at this time. Thank you. Thank you Nancy and welcome. Could you just so that the sire stakes, did I get that right? It starts on September 25. Yes, Sunday, September 25. And goes through October 24. Yes. Yes. And then the finals are all, all eight finals take place on Monday, October 24. Because we have four races, each, each of the other days for the, for the three legs, we do them on four races on the Sunday and four races on Monday, staggered, staggered through and then all of our finals are on the last, on that last day of the 24th of October. Right. Okay, so questions for both on the sire stakes and also for the breeding program for Nancy, Commissioner. Anyone turning up their volume or turning. Right now, Commissioner Skinner. Good morning, Chair. Good morning, Dr. Lightbound. Good morning, Nancy. Please to meet you. I think my, my question is directed to you, Dr. Lightbound, and I apologize that we couldn't connect last week. As one of the newer commissioners, just is, is this process an annual one and a more general question would be what makes this group uniquely qualified to hold this recognition. I did read the statute, but I wasn't able to find any other information that really details and discusses what's required to hold this recognition. And really what it, what it means, generally, so if you could shed some light on that for me again as one of the newer commissioners, I'd appreciate it. So it is an annual vote by the commission for the statute and this is the only group that has come forward to be the group and like we said I don't remember exactly what the original qualifications in 1992 were for them to be to receive the Go ahead from the State Racing Commission at the time but again they have been doing it since that time period and you know they're the program has always been handled well and they've worked closely with the track and with the resource development funds that the program has only developed even better. Thank you. Mr. Hill are you leaning in, or else that okay. Any further questions, just on the breeding so you said that there are 169 horses this year. Yes, eligible for it for the two and three year old races yes. And, and for next year, how are you feeling about the breeding program Nancy overall. I haven't, I have a good feeling about it. Obviously because of the, you know, the money, the funds for the resource development fund. Of course that's helped helped it, you know so much and we've had a lot, there's been a lot of interest that used to be more of kind of the same people that were involved but it's, it's branched out. You know, with a lot of, you know, new interests, new people, you know, new breeders so and some bigger farms from out of, you know, from New York, New Jersey, things like that that have wanted to get involved in our program which is which is obviously good because they come into our farms in this state and, and helps helps with this economy this agricultural economy so we feel good about it there's a few changes we'd like to make and some things we'd like to do and I think we have a few projects that we'd like to do going forward. As with everything COVID kind of we had some ideas of different things and it kind of slowed everything down, unfortunately, but I think as I said the numbers are picking back up. So, we do have some, you know, some ideas about, you know, promotion things and hopefully we like to do a video that we like to present from our group so I think we'd like to possibly do that. Next year because that's ideally what we'd like to do is then we present the video at this time. Usually that's what we've done, but we are looking to do a new one so that's kind of something we'd like to do as well but we feel we feel good about I mean the numbers are really good. As I said they had gone down a little bit that came up last year so I'm anticipating that the numbers will be should be good. They didn't drop off exceptionally but just a little but that was kind of to be expected because of COVID so I'm excited to see this year's numbers I think I think they will be good. I had wondered if there was a way to gauge it but what it sounds as though Dr. lightbound is that the first racing development fund is is effective here. Very, very. Yes. Yes. Okay. All right well I appreciate your coming today Nancy and giving us a thank you for your time. Thank you very much. Thank you for having us. Dr. lightbound do you want to add anything you know in terms of the reading in the numbers any any further insight on that that you want to add. As Nancy mentioned the competitiveness of the races is really increased over the years recently and it's been exciting to see. And also the field sizes have grown and some of the divisions actually needs to be split into two races because they've had enough forces to fill two races for it so that's been really exciting to watch the program benefit that way. And my recommendation is that the Commission approved this request. I don't need a motion, because I know that you need a vote. Commissioner O'Brien. Certainly madam chair. I moved that the Commission approved the request of the standard bread owners of Massachusetts Inc to be recognized as the group of representative standard bread readers to mince the Massachusetts standard bread breeding program and the Sire State races for 2022. Second. Any further discussion. Thank you to Nancy and thank you Dr. lightbound. I'll take our roll call vote. Mr. O'Brien. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Mr. Skinner. Hi. Mr. Maynard. Hi. And I vote yes. Thank you by zero congratulations to your association Nancy. Thank you very much for your work. You're very welcome. Thank you for your time. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay, now we're going to move on to the second part of our racing update. This is work that reflects earlier public meetings and ongoing discussions, none of which are uncomplicated. So I'm going to turn it right to both executive director wells and general counsel Grossman to lead the discussion. In our packets we received what I understand to be the our draft application, which is a clean version. But I understand the red line document to be as strictly as possible. So I'm going to turn it back to the the edits that we discussed at the last meeting when I led us through all the public commentary. If you recall that meeting. So the red lines would be reflective of just those edits. Yes, thank you manager. Good morning, everybody. I'm going to turn it back to the executive director for the new license to conduct force racing that was previously reviewed by the commission at the August 17 public meeting. You will of course recall that there were a number of comments offered by commissioners at the time as well as a series of public comments that were received. So I'm going to turn it back to the executive director for the new license to conduct force racing that was previously addressed in the updated draft that you have before you, and that we will review this morning. Momentarily I'll turn the presentation over to deputy general counsel Katelyn Monahan who will walk through the application and review those amendments at the conclusion of the review. I will be promptly posted to the commission's website in advance of the October 1 statutory filing deadline. By way of brief refresher, you'll recall that the contents of the application itself are generally addressed in the racing statute which is chapter 128 a section to. Okay, there are parts of the application that are specifically authorized by way of a number of court cases. Both of those authorities are referenced in the application itself so that all involved are aware of the source of the commission's authority in navigating this process. Certainly we can discuss these authorities as we move through the draft. So with that, without further ado. If you want to interrupt briefly. Commissioners. You also received an NK privileged memorandum that went through the legal issues that course we have received briefing on in the public, as well as in somewhat in the silent briefing. Thank you, Paul commoners. Thank you, Paul for joining us at the last minute. I had noticed that you weren't on the agenda but I did want to make attorney commoners from a K Anderson Krieger available to us in the event you have any questions based on the memorandum that supports today's discussion as well. If in fact, we are not going to have any questions for Paul, or any point in time, just let you we can figure it out and excuse him. Paul, do you have some parameters on today's in terms of when you're available ability would be good morning commissioners I'm available to you for however long you need me. Okay, thank you. Thanks so much. Good morning. All right. So go right ahead then Caitlin we appreciate the presentation. Good morning everyone. Unless anyone disagrees what I would like to do is I'll walk through the red line and just briefly point out some of the changes that were made based on our last conversations I'm going to share that. Would you mind also maybe reminding the commissioners or some of the issues to as we go through this application it's been a very disjointed discussion and I think I know the other commissioners maybe really comfortable with where they are I need that additional assistance. Absolutely happy to do that. All right, so we started at the beginning just the introductory information of course, you know what who the applicant is, where they plan to hold a reading meeting and when they're when they submit the application. Then this section here relates to the two different monetary requirements the fee that must be enclosed it's $300 fee that must be enclosed the application, and then the requirement of a surety bond. That must be issued and included with the application. Section one is just the background information for the applicant so again you know pretty standard information about who the applicant is what kind of entity they are their mailing address etc. And a lot of these are these pieces are required by statute. Section two is the project summary and financing for the project. So this the section requires the applicant to you know included description of the proposed premises and facilities.  And then it's on whether to grant a license. And down here this red line is just that we had combined two questions that were basically asking for studies that have been performed about the, about the project. Okay, I'm going to just interrupt briefly commissioners do you want to ask questions along the way, are you more comfortable holding it's a money application. How should we proceed. The way it makes the most sense I don't have any at the moment, but I think it makes sense. I apologize if I didn't pause but please just jump in. If you have anything. Michelle any agreed. Okay, so of course I can't see everyone's faces because we're, you know, have a document in front of us so just Caitlin you'll forgive us if we interrupt okay. Yeah, just shout out. Great section three is a schedule of proposed races. Excuse me. And so this is again, you know some statutorily required information about when the races will be held the days on which will be held the times on which will be held. This all needs to be included in the application. I just added this question here and 3.1 that is directed at applicants that may be seeking license for future years so in it, for instance an applicant this year seeking license for 2024 2025. And it basically gets to that what it's what it's asking is for additional information about how they're going to meet the timeline they're proposing and and why they think that they'll be able to be able to run races in 2024 2025, etc. So I think that that's a good, a good question to maybe us to tease out again for the public's purpose. This would allow for us to address those races fall into the future. And all you've addressed this in your memorandum, and it might be helpful to for us to just go through why that's okay. Certainly. It's really based on a straightforward reading of the statute, the statute provides that a license request must be received on or before the first day of October of the calendar year of. We've got the language in front of you because I know that you were just invited so I know I'm putting you on the spot but I also know if there's somebody who can be put on the spot it's Paul so thank you and be able to help us out. So, thank you. For the first day of October of the calendar year preceding the calendar year for which the application for which the applicant request a license to be issued. The putting in an application on or before October 1 of any calendar given calendar year not only precedes the following calendar year it precedes any subsequent calendar year after that. So if I were to submit an application for a racing license today. It could not it could be, you know, on or before. It could proceed 2023 it can also proceed 2024 2025 and so forth. We are not aware of historical practice. There's nothing like this being a historical practice of the commission, but circumstances have also changed dramatically. Since racing, since racing was first provided for in the Commonwealth there are at least two major ways one is in the past they were operating a life track race tracks that could use a license for the next calendar year immediately without having to go through a construction the others that construction and permitting take much longer now than they used to when Suffolk Downs was famously built in a matter of months. Given those changed circumstances the statutory language and commissions broad authority as the the administrative body charged with interpreting and applying and and implementing the racing statute we think that this is an interpretation as well within the commission's powers. Thank you thank you any questions for Michelle Brian I see you. I do so I follow along my my hesitation comes from the fact that the choice of language in the statute says the calendar year preceding the calendar year for which application request the license. And so with the theory being a statutory interpretation every word of course choices significant can you speak to why the fact that it says the instead of a calendar year is not troubling to you or is not just positive. I think that creates ambiguity but I don't think it's dispositive. I'm not sure that the use of an article there would bear that dispositive weight. I guess I'm not quite there with you I see I see where you're coming from. I didn't know if there was any other force of law to back that up but thank you thank you for your answer. Other other questions for Paul on this. So Paul Suffolk count the Suffolk downs when it opened was it operating under the same legislative language. I don't know I would I would need to confirm whether that session for language change I'm not sure. Okay, thanks. In terms of I know I think I'm all right on that that issue. Different than our casinos because this is really not about just construction it's about the horse racing itself. All right, any further questions this is, we need to really get there is of course a deadline looming. And so we want to get comfortable with all of our questions this morning commissioners. Okay. If you want to continue and if you want to shed any light on that matter please do. Absolutely. I think Paul, I think Paul covered that nicely and we agree with that interpretation regarding future years. That is not to say that the applicant wouldn't have to provide sufficient information that they could actually operate in that future year and the applicant wouldn't have to be comfortable with that. But we do believe they could submit an application for future years. So moving along down down to section non commission approvals. So this gets into the statutory requirement for approval in the local community in which the racetrack is to be located. And the board of select man or the mayor has to approve approve their being a racetrack in that community before the application can move forward. And that's under section 13a of 128 a we added some additional language in here just getting to questions of you know if the approval hasn't been received yet. Is there a vote scheduled what is the anticipated plan there because again this is required to the commission cannot issue a license even a conditional one without these approvals in place. Then there's sort of a mirror section for section 14 a of the statue, which is county approval there has to be a vote in the county in which the racetrack is to be located approving horse racing. And again that has to be in place before. Before any of any license can be granted. So that section for any, any questions that's, and that's 4.5 commissioners, just several red red line changes have you all had a chance to look at them, not just take a moment. I think we wanted to be very. Commissioner Hill. I was just going to say I think we were all very concerned that we wanted to make sure the applicant knew exactly what we were trying to get at and I think the new language does that. You're happy with 4.4 that's what I'm looking at. Have there been any votes taken concerning the proposed project by any governmental entity or the voters of any governmental entity, including but not limited to the host and surrounding nearby areas in which the proposed project is to be located. Yeah, I don't think I'm okay with that. Yeah, that is chair that's intentionally broad. Yeah, so yeah, we want that. Yeah, yeah, yeah, we want that. In case any other entity had voted that was the board of people or on the mayor or not. I think Commissioner Hill was commenting at our last meeting, how important it was for us to make sure that that the local regional communities were were heard. So I think that language is is is more than broad enough right so anything else and then 4.5 is that county. And I think we learned this even from our last year's experience for those I think it just would have been that. Commissioner Hill, Commissioner O'Brien and me, but most county votes stayed valid. Correct, Paul. That's correct. I'll move on. And now I just want to turn back to Director Wells. You're going to offer something Karen. Oh, I just was, I was actually just going to ask if we could make it a little bit bigger. I did grab my glasses so I'm okay. I apologize Karen I'll make that bigger. It would be very helpful. Yeah, thank you. I've got my paper. There we go. There we go. Is that better. There we go. Thank you. Okay. Okay then. Thank you. Thank you. I'll move on to section five, which is qualifiers and suitability. And again, as Todd mentioned, the ability to, or the requirement in fact to look at the suitability of an applicant for a race track license comes from some case law from the SJC and it's cited here. And so what we had a conversation at the last meeting about how the IEB decided that because there is now a connection between horse racing and potentially sports wagering, that connection being that the, someone who has a license for racing may apply for a sports wagering license. We wanted to try to marry up the definitions of qualifier. And so I spoke with the IEB with Loretta and with Heather. And they have put together this, this definition of qualifier for the purposes of, of racing that we also anticipate will be used for sports wagering. Again, while the definition for the purposes of sports wagering is not finalized at this point, we could find, we could update this application next year if it changes at all. So at this point in time, this is there, this is our best estimate of what that definition will look like. Does that make sense? Any questions on that? Is there any way we can add language that would reflect. That's a kind of an escape language or a catch-all that would, or this year, if we, our deadline on these applications are, we will be looking for October 1 submission. If there are any applications that come in, I believe our deadline is November 15th. For responding. So, if there's any way that we could say some kind of a, I don't have the language in my head, Kate, don't forgive me. But would, would, in other words, it would, it would reflect what we decide for sports wagering this year. And so that there's somehow, isn't any inconsistency between our decision, or if we have to make a decision by November 15. We, I suppose we could, the difficulty would just be in the timing if the, if the definition changed dramatically. That, you know, the application has to be in by October 1st and then has to be decided on by November 15th. So, you know, we're only a couple of weeks away at this point, but, but we could put that language in and then update the applicant that we would need some updated information. And isn't that covered in five. Of that section. I'm sorry, commissioner. Can you just charge me to what you're. Okay. What the chair is suggesting is, is that not covered in paragraph five there? Well, there is the ability to add people to a list of qualifiers certainly. So yeah, I think that, that could be, I think that's, that's exactly spot on the commission has the ability to add qualifiers. And I suppose could also remove some. Yeah. To that effect, like, or as otherwise. And also to include. Such qualifiers determined by IEB. I'm just, it's not, it shouldn't, shouldn't be a problem. I think that if you look here where my cursor is section, subsection six, that's pretty much it. The division of licensing after consultation with the bureau may at its discretion, require other persons that have a business. Association of any kind with the applicant to be subject to the qualification requirements as a qualifier. So then in fact, you don't have to worry about any inconsistencies between now and next year. I think that's right. And again, we can always modify this. I'm looking for with that. Yeah, that's really Karen. You've got a lot of experience with this. Yeah, I was just going to say that is consistent with how we've done that in the gaming side of the house. I would expect we'd have the same thing in sports wagering. But I think that these would all match up as I read it. Good. And if, yeah, if there's for any reason that we have to add some kind of other language because of something that we can't predict them, let's do that. Just because I don't, I'd rather not have any inconsistency, but this does, you know, as I look at the language, it seems to really plan for. Any expansion. Okay, you're all right. So moving through this. Yeah. And again, just to turn to Paul, you gave us some advice and consistent with what Todd led with. Is there anything you want to add on our ability to, to perform suitability with respect to these qualifiers? I'm having to answer any questions that the commission has. But the simple answers that the commission has. It's a long recognized statutory authority. On the face of the statute to ensure the suitability of qualifiers, and it's consistent with the reasons that the, with the reasons repeatedly recognized by the courts that the legislature enacted the race, entire racing regulatory scheme. Thank you. Okay. All right. So you'll see a lot of red lines here. Okay. So this was actually one question before, and we got a helpful comment that it might be nice if we separated it out. So it's the same question you've seen before, separated out into several additional questions. Again, these are all questions that get to the suitability of the applicant. Any, any questions commissioners on those. Karen, anything that you see. No, that's consistent. Great. So then we move into section six. Sorry. Okay. Okay. Just before you move on. Are we. The entirety of five nine, like are we on to. Can I ask you about 5.9? Oh, please. Yes. Anything. Anything. Okay. So, um, It's limited to revoked or suspended banner governing authority. Is there any chance any other. Endorsing authority. Like, is there any way we're hamming ourselves in with. Governing authority. As the verbiage there. Um, I think the, The word governing authority being used was whoever has the authority to issue the license or allow the entity to. You know, Um, Engage in horse racing. But if we think that language is potentially to be interpreted in a more restrictive way, we can, we can change it. Well, I'm wondering is if you say hasn't, has applicant or any of its qualifiers ever had a gaming license revoked or suspended? Question mark. Okay. Um, Does that take out any chance that someone could be cute on? It wasn't an order. It was a. Recommendation, you know, like. Yeah, I think that would get to it. And again, would it let to your point would avoid the cuteness. So yeah, I think we can do that. All right. Any other questions on section five. And I think I could do the same thing down here commissioner. So, you know, that was denied period. Not necessarily by a licensing authority. I'll go through and make those changes. So, um, and I, and again, I apologize if I've missed this elsewhere. Are you mainly concerned about revocation or suspension? Are you also concerned about withdrawal at the time of application? You mean in terms of the word choice I just talked about, or I'm just wondering, you know, it might be a separate, it might be a separate section. I know that we of course are concerned about revocation or suspension. I wondered if you were at all concerned about.  No, I think it's a valid question in that same vein. So whether it's rolled in there or whether it's separate, that's a good idea. And it may be a very legitimate explanation for withdrawal. Right. Yep. I can add that in there. In that same section. Great. So. Down to the public interest now. And again, the, the statute itself says that the commission will consider the interest of members of the public and racing competition honestly managed and of good quality. So that's why we have a series of questions here that get to, you know, the public interest in, in the race track. And I'll point out some of the changes that we made pursuant to the last set of the last conversation. So here's section 6.6 is the labor harmony question. And we took this from the RFA to language. And so this, you know, the applicant will have to sort of explain how they're going to be working with labor in their processes. And then section 6.7 is the result of some comments we received from the public and it asks the applicant to explain any promises they've made with regard to, you know, putting the race track together promises, mitigation agreements, whether formal or informal, so that they're held accountable for that. Okay. I guess this is my prosecution early is coming back to me with the wording I was always subjected to. And put out was promises, rewards or inducements. I like it. I recall that. Yeah. I was subject to that. Yeah. Great. I can make that change. So those two just as a. Yeah. So I think that our procedure, both 6.6 and 6.7 came directly from important public input. So again, we appreciate public's participation as we work on this. Thanks so much. Okay. We get a question section. Sorry. Section seven deals with facilities and equipment. And again, this is, this relates to sort of keeping people safe while they're at the race track and maintaining proper facilities for the race track and maintaining proper facilities for the race track. And then we have a couple of other meetings. These are largely similar to what you've seen previously. I did add one question here about whether the premises is held or owned by the Commonwealth or any political subdivision there of. That comes straight from the statute. If the land is held by the Commonwealth or political subdivision there of there can't be a race track on it. So it's an important question. Again, not a ton of changes in here. And then we did add an important question here at 7.8. About the applicant's plans to ensure the welfare of horses on site and their aftercare as well. Any questions? Dr. Lightdown, are you all set with this so far? We haven't. I'm assuming that she's right there. I just don't see her face. Thank you. Okay. Excellent. Thank you. Any questions, commissioners? Okay. Moving on to section eight, wagering and simulcasting. So again, this is very similar to what you've seen previously with regard to questions about wagering and simulcasting. We did add language in section 8.2 here. That reflects the language in 20 in. Actually, it's not in 23 N. It's just an amendment to 128 C. It's just an amendment. It's just an amendment. It's just an amendment. It's just an amendment. It's just an amendment. It's just an amendment. It's just an amendment. And that does not take effect for a year. And we note that, but we wanted to make sure it's in the application at this point in time. Any questions on that? I'm just looking. Right now as to. Whether. All you provided any advice on this particular. I believe we covered that in the second footnote. In the updated. Yeah. A second footnote. You mean a second. The second. The second. Section. That's no, that's a boarding recent meeting. I have it at the bottom of page six of my copy of the memorandum. No, let me see. Thank you. You're with me, everyone. Yeah, that's not what I'm seeing in the memo I have. It's not a footnote. I think it's more just in that body. Yeah. Okay. Let's continue. Thank you for giving me a time to think. I'm going to share again here. Okay. And then we move on to the last section, which is general conditions attestation and signature. So these are some of the conditions under which licenses to be issued. The applicant must make certain attestations and certain signatures. And again, a bunch, a lot of that is prescribed by statute. So really weren't any changes to this section. At all from our last meeting. So that is. I'll stop sharing to take questions on the application as a whole. Questions commissioners. Questions for Paul as we have gone through some of them, the bigger issues. Maybe I should ask general counsel. When we operate in a public forum. The only way we can get legal advice. And be able to chew on it. And be able to do it together. It's in a public forum. So I, I guess I am asking, should every commissioner feel comfortable. Referencing Paul's. Memorandum. Well, it's a privilege document to each of us. In order for us to. Really think about the advice. Can you give us some suggestions? If you have any questions, please feel free to leave them in the comments section below. It's available to us to discuss the advice. Hit the nail right on the head, Madam chair. There, there is really no great way for us to share. Or to discuss legal issues. Outside of the public meeting. Other than doing so in writing. As we have done. Of course, that doesn't lend itself to any question and answer. Which leaves us here in this public forum to discuss. Certain issues that may be front of mind. So last week we had one of Paul's colleagues go over. Legal advice comfortably. I, I guess I would say that. To the extent you have any questions, commissioners. It's most important for you to ask. If you have questions that. Benefit all of us. I would welcome them. I don't have any further questions. Other than to say, I guess. Procedurally where I am today moving forward on finalizing the application. Is I think acceptable, notwithstanding my reservations on the. Question that I had in terms of the A versus the, I don't think it forecloses us from moving forward on this today. If I may, I. I believe I can also offer a slightly crisper. Answer that question that may address your concerns. The point. The critical point is that the date of receipt of the application beyond or before October 1st of the first of the calendar year is the date of the meeting, the date for the year in which the applicant intends to, to hold races. An application received today is on or before October 1st, 2022. Also October 1st, 2023. Also October 1st, 2024. And accordingly is received on or before October 1st. Of any calendar year, at least one year out. And that's why I don't believe the use of the, or the preceding calendar year is definitively states that the application must be for the following calendar year, because the date of receipt is always. In line with what the statute calls for. No, I hear, I hear that I'm still. Processing on it, but. And I see Karen. Okay. I'm sure to follow. I was thinking along the same lines as commissioner. Oh, Brian. And I guess I just want to make sure the commissioners are, are receiving the correct information. My understanding is that the, the way the application is drafted, there's a couple of issues. One. Here's the question 1.8. There seems to be an opening to apply, even if you're not in Suffolk County. So I guess my question, which I think is what commissioner Brian may be getting at. Is by accepting the application. Now. Does that lock in the commissioners to making decisions on those two issues or just opens it up that, that that's open for discussion. And when they make the decision on the 15th, is that the date. That they would decide that. Does that make sense? Yeah. I think, I think I understand the, the genesis of your question. And I would say that. Absolutely. It does not. Putting out the application doesn't lock. The commission. But, but. We don't want to send mixed messages. Right. So if, if there's real concern about that. Then we should try to resolve it as soon as possible. And not. Put the application out and then turn around and say that. We are uncomfortable with that. So that's a, it's a great question and one worth. Contemplating. Before moving forward, but yes. Or I should say, no, it, we're not locked in. Can I, I would just add one thing to what Paul described. And I think Paul did a really nice job. Walking through the statutory. The actual language of the statute and constructing it. There's a couple of legal principles that may be useful here that at least I find useful when trying to navigate this specific issue. And the first rule of statutory construction. Is that we are directed to read statutes and harmony with one another. To the best of our ability, even if it's not the best of our ability. And I think that's a great question. I think that there's a lot of things that you can do. With one another. To the best of our ability, even if there are some that may be considered in conflict with one another on their face. When it comes to the racing statutes, there are a couple of principles that emerge. I believe. The first is that the licensing of a new race track. believe that the law was designed solely to be able to renew existing licenses, a read of the statute. And we can point to different provisions of helpful, but we can go through that. But it does seem to clearly contemplate that a new license may be issued. The flip side of that is that there is no clear mechanism to be able to take in an application that will likely contain a lot more information and require a lot more thought than the renewals that the October 1st and November 15th deadline section contemplates. And it's because of that that we land on a point where we say that, well, in order to be able to license a new track, we need to understand that it's likely to take more than from November 15th to March to build a new facility. So how can you possibly do that? And that requires the commission to exercise some discretion and to read all of these statutes in harmony with one another. And so Commissioner O'Brien, your point about the word, the, when referring to the calendar year is certainly right on point. It's one that I think we wrestled with quite a bit. But I think when exercising the commission's discretion in conjunction with the idea that there are no, there are not a lot of great alternatives to reading the statutes and awarding a new license, that that's where this interpretation emerges from. And I think stands on solid ground. So the other factor, of course, to bear in mind is that the governing agency, at least in the first instance, is generally afforded discretion to interpret the law based on its own expertise and understanding of the landscape. So I think we are applying all of those principles as we try to navigate this situation. Otherwise it would be difficult to award a license to any new operator for a track that will not be operational for a couple of years. And I think it goes without saying the difficulty a developer and operator would have constructing such a facility without any indication as to whether they would be able to make use of it in the future. So all of these things together led to this proposal before you, which we do believe is on sound illegal footing. So, Commissioner O'Brien, you've indicated that your willingness to move forward. I guess I would, I think it's important to just that for our purposes and the public's purposes, the implications of the application, we did look at a new applicant last year, right, Todd? We had an applicant that applied on our current application for a new license to, and we heard it. We recognized the weakness of our application. So a lot of these threshold legal issues we wrestled with then, but we did get comfortable moving ahead using the old application. We're lucky that we had the opportunity to address that and that's been this process that we've gone through. It's really, what happened in the past was that the applicant ended up withdrawing so we didn't have to make a decision. So we took the advantage of the time to revise our application to appropriately address a new applicant. In the meantime, there has been a new development and that is the passage of the sports wagering law. And so I think it would be really helpful for all of the commissioners to understand Commissioner O'Brien, Commissioner Hill and I were part of that discussion last November, I believe, right? And now we welcome the input on the implications of that, and then of the, excuse me, of the sports wagering lobbying past. There's also issues around simulcasting and whether or not, you know, how that's tied into horse racing and simulcasting. These are issues that probably we should understand a little bit better before we put this discussion to rest on the application. Commissioner O'Brien, do you want to help me out? It was less than fluid, but- Well, I think it's an area that maybe Paul can help, not only our fellow commissioners, but anyone watching today in terms of discussing the topic you just raised. Yeah, that's right. These are big developments with fundamental questions that this application process could impact. So Paul, again, just so everyone understands, we literally called Paul at 926. So we appreciate your ability to come right in and be able to respond. I know that our own legal team is fully equipped to also answer these questions, but we do have some benefit of your analysis. So thanks, Paul. So simulcasting and sports wagering. Thirdly, simulcasting. I assume the main question is the effect of the provision that Caitlin referred to earlier that was passed in the same act that passed the Massachusetts Sports Wagering Act. So this added a new section nine to chapter 128c, which concerns simulcasting. And under that section nine provides that notwithstanding the rest of 128c or any other sorts of law, a running horse racing meeting licensee will conduct not less than 20 live racing days at the red horse racing track or to paraphrase fewer if the commission decides that that is necessary for the financial development of the track. Our best read of this statute is that it is meant to revise the number of races that an operator needs to conduct in order to be considered to have held either a racing season or enough live racing days during a year to be permitted to simulcast. It's not directly amend those provisions, but given the use of notwithstanding, given it that it says that it takes effect notwithstanding the rest of 128c and given that it was placed in 128c rather than 128a or anywhere else, we tend to think that that is what it is driving at. There are still restrictions on a licensee's ability. We believe there are still likely restrictions on a licensee's ability to simulcast because this new section nine did not directly amend the requirement contained in chapter 128c section two that simulcasting take place only on a calendar day during which an operator conducts a racing performance, dark days, which can only take place during a racing season or dark seasons, which can only take place between racing seasons. So the conclusion is? The conclusion is it is best read as changing what constitutes a racing season, but not changing the fundamental, but not changing the other requirements for a licensee's simulcast. I have a question, Madam Chair. Sure, thank you, Mr. Major. So I'm reading 8.2 in the draft application. How are we practically supposed to take 8.2 if an applicant comes in, say, in October? Are we supposed to look at the laws that currently stands? Are we supposed to expect any applicant to say, well, we're not going to be operational until after August 10th, 2023? I mean, how are we supposed to read this in light of this? I can take that. I think you have to look at the year for which the application is being sought. So the provision that Paul was just talking about, I think the shortest possible way of explaining what it does is changing the requirement that racing licensee race 100 days in order to simulcast to allowing a thoroughbred race track to race for 20 days and possibly fewer in simulcast. So if, because this doesn't go into effect until middle of the year next year, if an applicant was looking for a license for 2023, I think they would likely still have to operate under the old rule with possibly some change based on the change in the year. But going forward after that 2024, 2025, they would be operating under the new statute, which will allow for fewer race days in order to simulcast. Does that help them? Well, I'm just thinking to myself and what I'm teasing out my fellow commissioners is we have two applicants, one that says we are going to hit X amount of races and then the other one that says, oh, we're going to try to get 20 or less. I mean, I think we would have to weigh that, going into it. But yes, Katelyn, you answered my question. I'm being a little pithy. That'll good. Okay. One fundamental question is, can you just get a simulcast license from us? No. No, the answer to that is clearly no. No. Okay, now, the implications of sports for your dream. So the critical point for, I think your purposes right now is understanding when a horse racing licensee is enabled to conduct sports wagering on their premises. And for that, we can go into the statute and see that the definition of a category two license is one that permits sports wagering in person on the premises where live horse racing is conducted. And I think the use of the present tense is critical there. And it does not say that you can post sports wagering where a live horse racing was conducted or where it will be conducted. It has to be premises that are being used as race tracks pursuant to a license for the commission. They could seek, I believe they could seek a category two license earlier, but the category two license would not permit wagering until the track was in active use. So that would be a condition in condition. So we could award, even though they don't have the ability to conduct live horse racing because a track hasn't been built, they can't start engaging in sports wagering until there's actual horse racing. What about the online wagering, a mobile wagering that's connected to the category two? If an applicant says to the commission, yeah, I know we have to build our track, we won't do in-person vetting, but we'd like to go ahead with online wagering. What's the answer to that question? I would have to confirm this, but I believe that that online wagering would take place under the category three license associated with the category two license, not under the category two license alone. The category two license permits sports wagering on particular premises. Do I know they have to be licensed? Because it's tethered, you've got to have the category two license first, which requires live horse racing, and then your category three would be contingent. Is that, I think, under the definition of category? I forget where it is in the new statute. Yes, so a category two license, to operate sports wagering under category two license, you also must have the mobile application or digital platform that you plan to use, qualified for and issued a category three license. I don't think that there's a timing requirement there. You could probably seek category three licensing for your mobile application on a separate timeline where you could partner with an existing category three operator, but to answer the executive director's question, that category three licensing process is simply independent, can be treated as independent of the category two licensing. Actually, I think we want to back up on that. That's a big point. Yeah, I was going to say, Karen, I actually personally had not contemplated separating them in that way. So I would like to go back and take a look at the statute and think about that a little bit before we reach a final conclusion today, if that would be okay with folks. So just so I'm making sure that I understand what I think the topic is, because I'm weighing in, is a question is, right now we understand that an applicant, if there is an applicant that comes to us this year, that they would not be able to do in person, retail, a sports book in advance of live racing. Is that fair? So the second thing, the question that Karen asked, which is a good one, would that applicant, if a mortal license to, through our process, could they engage in through a, either on their own, depending on who the applicant is, or through an operator, conduct mobile sports wagering under the new statute. And what I'm hearing is there's some ambiguity who maybe are legal and Paul, but Paul, did I misspeak when I said, don't you have, isn't it? Help me out, I've been, I was in law school a long time ago. What is it? A precedent condition, condition precedent that you have to have a category two license first in order to be eligible for a category three license, condition precedent, right? I think it's a condition precedent. Of a contract, it's not my best one out of class. You know what though, your best is pretty top notch. The condition precedent, am I right? And what I'm saying is, do you have to have your category two license and can a condition one be sufficient? And maybe that's the issue, put a condition one, meaning conditioned on life racing be sufficient to trigger a category three license. Is that the question? Caitlin and I should look at the timing issue offline and follow up with the commission, I believe. The other piece of the answer, but the piece of the answer to the executive director's question that I think is reasonably clear is that a request to conduct offsite mobile wagering by the same operator would be under a category three license, not the category two license. Yeah, okay. Paul, you're losing me though, because the only way that they're not one of, I mean, are you saying one of the seven, ultimate seven under category three, or are you saying through their Tether category three license? If they were one of the seven under the category three. Well, that's... Or if they partnered with one of the seven. So that's conflating a few things, and can I just, I guess, is anyone could always be eligible for applying for, I mean, not anyone, but we're really looking at the, an applicant to the license in front of us this, this wall for first facing. So if we look at them, an individual, just what's gonna, what will they have access to if we were to award a license? And again, we don't know if we're gonna get an applicant so this may be a little bit of an academic exercise. We went through it last year, so not necessarily totally academic. If in fact we have an applicant or more in response to the deadline that's approaching, we understand that they will not be able to have a sports book until there's live racing. Do we not know right now whether they would have the ability for their right to a feathered license? If it's condition, if it's a condition license because they won't have live racing, we don't know right now whether or not they would be eligible to conduct, to operate a mobile. I don't believe there is upon issuance of our license. I don't believe there is a right to the tethered category three license, but Could you say that one more time, Paul? Because it was one word I couldn't hear. Looking at section six, the commission shall issue a category one license to any holder of a game license, shall issue a category two license to any holder of a license to conduct a live horse racing meeting and may issue a category three license to any entity that offers sports wagering through a mobile application or other digital platform. I would prefer to run this down offline in partnership with Todd and Caitlin, but I believe the category three license even if tethered is still discretionary. Yeah, I think that makes sense. I don't think we want to necessarily decide. It's a complicated question. It's a big question. It's very important, obviously. So I think we want to maybe spend a little more time looking through that. Yeah, yeah, I think it's a pretty big question. So what we will want to do, Karen, is there is an application that needs to be available for any interested party. We always have the old one available. That's not as improved to be as helpful. I think this issue might be separate and apart from the application in and of itself anyway, but I do think that it's an important, it's important for the public to understand what the stakes are in this application process, right? And if it does in fact mean that a successful applicant would be able to stand up its operations, it's for a mobile operation at the same time as other mobile operators, then we want to make sure that it's clear before the deadline. So, Karen, I know that you and I spoke a little bit briefly about the process to address this kind of an issue. Yes, and I also spoke with General Counsel Grossman briefly this morning. Commissioner, I know there was some talk of this in the agenda setting meeting, but given the advice from Anderson and Krieger last week, or I guess it was last week, although we started worrying a little bit on the added protections of things being done by regulation, a suggestion for today is that you approve the, if you so choose, approve the application so that interested parties have the opportunity to get moving and work on submitting the application, but that we put between now and October 1st, we put on a regulation which would cover the application and defer to General Counsel Grossman on an exact time when we could get that done, but that may give the commission just some extra protection on the issue and given the advice of Anderson and Krieger that may be helpful. Thank you. Commissioner Skinner? I'm hoping you'd allow Executive Director Wells to repeat her question just so that I'm clear on what the issue is and so the request to A&K to come back to us with. So my question, and I have been looking at the statute while the commission has been speaking, my question was if you have an applicant, so XYZ Racing wants to build a thoroughbred track or actually it could be a hard harness track, but say for example, a thoroughbred track and the commission goes through the process and issues the license, but they're not actually going to be able to build the facility for another year and they wait. It seems pretty clear from what attorney commoners is saying that they can't have a sportsbook on their premises until they have live racing. And so my question was, I anticipate that we will get the question, all right, I know we can't do the sportsbook, but can we do the mobile app? So there's the issue of shall, the commission shall issue to a category two license under 23 and to any holder of a license to conduct live horse racing, but they can't operate it until live horse racing is conducted so that present tense is, but then the question is, is there a way? And I'm just looking at page five of the statute, we'll look at it further. Are they able to utilize the category three license, particularly if there's temporary license provision? And thank you for that again, and I think it's important for us to also hear, and I think we might've been conflating some things, but that category three license, if it can be exercised upon an award of a horse racing application, our process that we would have to complete by November 15th, if whether or not their choice of an operator or mobile operations would be part of the final, or is it in addition to the final map of seven under the category three? You know, it's my, I thought it was my understanding that it would be in addition. That's my understanding as well, yes. And Paul, is that right? You're still thinking about this? Let us run down this, the status, the acquisition and the use of these category three licenses in their entirety and get back to you shortly. Yeah. Thank you for everyone's patience as we go through this, but this is a big development on this process of our review of the application. The stakes have just shifted since the sports weight rating has been legalized. Commissioners, so do we understand, Commissioner Skinner did Karen answer your question? Is that helpful? Yes, and I do understand the question and the invocations. Yeah, that's what I'm catching up along with all of you. So the idea that Director Wells presented is that today we could approve the application and set forth with the red line and accept red lines unless we have some editing to do, move ahead so that that would signal to potential applicants that they could get started, but that we would have a couple of matters to address on what will be a busy Thursday and address any regulation that is needed for us to move on the application process as well as answer this fundamental question, not only for us, but truly for the public and any potential applicant. Commissioner Bryant.  No, I was thought we were moving in for a landing. What's talked about makes sense to me and in particular, given the time, Katelyn Paltine, to circle back on any nuances we may have missed in this conversation. Yeah, or a review that we've done so far on the new statute. It is not without complexity. So Madam Chair, would we potentially, should the vote go that way? Should we post this on the website with just a caveat that the commission would be adopting it formally after a reg has been established, but that the commission conditionally approved it? Commissioners and Todd, I see Commissioner Hill is nodding. Commissioner Bryant said, yes, do we have a consensus that with the right caveats that legal can provide, right? Commissioner Maynard, do you agree? Yeah. If we, again, I don't wanna get too far ahead of us because I wanna make sure every commissioner is really comfortable with moving ahead on the application, notwithstanding the two outstanding issues. Commissioner Maynard, do you have some concerns or questions you wanna raise? No, I mean, the application is to issue a new license to hold or conduct a racing meeting, a racing meeting. The idea here is that applicants should want to raise horses, that's my thought. Commissioner Maynard is getting to a critical policy question here. And Commissioner O'Brien, you're nodding, head, do you wanna weigh in on that point? No, I agree with what Commissioner Maynard just said. So Commissioner Maynard, do you wanna elaborate? Sorry. I think that it speaks for itself, right? We are going, the commission is undergoing a very serious process for standing up sports wagering. And an application for horse racing should be for horse racing. An application for sports wagering should be for sports wagering. That's my simple understanding. Yeah, and so I guess maybe from me, because I am appreciating what we're struggling with here. Councilor Grossman in the application or is there room for conditions that should, and a licensee be given the opportunity to conduct sports wagering in advance of live racing. And that we know that this is still under the other review. If horse racing doesn't happen and it's a condition of their license, there would be a loss of a license or some condition that we would act on, correct? Certainly, I think there will be a series of conditions attached to any future award of a racing license. And that would certainly be one of them. But absolutely getting horse racing up and running is objective number one. So yes, I do think that is probably the likely result. So I think commissioner's main point is when we review this application, it is going to be about the details relating to horse racing, whether it can be around the corner or whether it's in the future. And that's what the application stresses. Yeah. Commissioner Hill, do you have anything to add? I'm thinking the same way commissioner Maytern and commissioner O'Brien is in regards to this. This is a horse racing application. I'm not going to continue debating it at this point. It's like, let's get moving and grooving. I love what you said. I thought we were bringing this in for a landing. I don't know how, but I'm going to use that in the future. Okay, commissioner Skinner, do you have any future further questions? I don't have any questions just noting that I am in favor of moving forward on the application today. I think when you talk about conditions that can be attached to the license, those conditions are obviously going to fall in line with how we meet and interpret the language in the statute that speaks to the questions that are pending. So I think two separate discussions. So thank you for everyone. And I of course do appreciate that this is on horse racing. But again, I think it's really important for us to be transparent about the implications because some potential someone may not have understood the implications or, and again, we're going to get clarification of what this application can provide now the sports boydring has been legalized. So in order to be fully transparent, I think it's an important discussion to understand that there are implications under the new law for this particular, any anyone who would be awarded a license pursuant to our application that we're looking at today. If the application, if we hadn't had that complexity, probably I'd be a little bit less concerned and more willing to just immediately take flight. So thank you for indulging me. And I am ready to call the question if somebody wants to move with the understanding we have some work to do for Thursday. Madam chair, I'm happy to propose a motion just before I do. If I could just check, Karen, the language that you're talking about in terms of the reg, what language would you think needs to be inserted in a motion to move on the app? And I'll have Todd help me with this, but the thinking was that the condition, the commission move to accept the document as the application for horse racing and that it. And the process will be subject to further regulatory action by the commission. Right, so basically it's like an anticipatory warrant. You know, you're basically approving it now, but it technically goes into a, you would technically have it go into effect once the regulation is passed. And that, but that the, the public can rely on the actual document itself. Okay, all right. Is that right, Todd? I wanna make sure our general counsel agrees with me. Yeah, absolutely, no, I agree. Okay. Madam chair, I move that the commission approve the version of the new application for license to hold or conduct a racing meeting, which is included in the commissioner's packet, including the edits as discussed here today, which will be effective upon the execution of further regulation by this commission and further authorized staff to make any necessary typographical or other non-material edits and to post the application on the commission's website for immediate use. Second. Further questions? Discussion? Commissioner Skinner. Oh, no, I was just, you're just going to reach out. Okay, excellent. Commissioner O'Brien will start with you. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Commissioner Maynard. Aye. And I vote yes. So thank you. And thank you for the work. And Paul, thank you for today jumping in and thank you for the work you'll do over the next couple of days with Caitlin and team. It's always good to see you. Okay. Thank you. I'm just going back to our agenda. So it is 11 of five. I think it probably makes sense to take a break. But before I do so, we are anticipating executive sessions. And I understand that they would flow right into them, Todd. If the commission agrees to go into executive session. Okay. Then, by law I'm required to read the language that's in our agenda into the record. And so the commission, and it will take a fell anticipates that it will meet an executive session to review minutes from previous executive sessions convened in accordance with general laws, Chapter 30A, Section 21A3, in order for the commission to discuss strategy with respect to litigation where such discussions at an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the commission's legating position. In accordance with general laws, Chapter 30A, Section 21A7, comply with GL, Chapter 23K, Section 21A7 for the specific purpose of reviewing a proposed multi-year capital expenditure plan described in 205CMR 139.09 and any corresponding materials submitted relative to Encore Boston Harbor and Flemish Park Casino as discussion of this matter in public may frustrate the purpose of the statute and associated legal authorities. And in accordance with general laws, Chapter 30A and Section 21A6 to consider the lease of real property as its discussion at an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the negotiating position for commission. And we have the minutes set forth, one, 10, 22, two, 10, 22, and six, nine, 22. And we would, I think we would, do we need to vote on each separate or can we move on all three, Todd? I think it's okay to move on all three since you're articulating everything. Thank you. The commission also, and at this point in time, it would be okay if the public does feel a little bit sorry for us. We have a long meeting ahead. The commission anticipates that it will meet an executive session in accordance with general laws, Chapter 30A, Section 21A3 to discuss strategy with respect to Massachusetts Gaming Commission versus Landmark American Insurance Company as discussion at an open meeting law may have a detrimental effect on the litigating position of the commission. And we have another piece of business to attend to today as well. The commission also anticipates that it will meet an executive session in accordance with general laws, Chapter 30A, Section 21A3 to discuss strategy with respect to FBT effort reality LLC versus Massachusetts Gaming Commission as discussion of an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the litigating position of the commission. So we do need to vote if anyone is willing to make a motion on our moving into executive session on those, it's actually multiple pieces of business which we will tend to throughout the rest of the day. Madam Chair, I move that the commission go into executive session for the basis stated by the chair and for the reasons enunciated in the record. Second. Thank you. Any discussion on that? Okay, Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Commissioner Maynard. Aye. And I vote yes. So again, so we will move into executive session on these multiple matters. I think it's really important for us to take a nice break right now. We thank all the team. Madam Chair, did you want to point out that we won't be reconvening in public at the conclusion? Yeah, and I thank you and I was going to do that. I think it's important for us to take a break now and we won't be convening again in the public for the team. Thank you for being part of this important racing discussion. Executive session will be limited. So I just want to make sure to thank all the members of the MGC team who have been part of this morning's important discussion. We also thank our guests who helped us on the matter and also for the public's interest. We'll move into executive session and I do think that we should probably plan on, it will go beyond lunch today. Todd, do you think that's fair? That may be fair, yes. Yeah, but we'll start with, it's 11-12. How about reconvening? And I have to think about this. We will be exiting altogether this window and moving into our next virtual meeting, which you'll find on the calendar and let's say we convene at 11-30. Does that make sense? Yes. Okay. I see everyone at the executive session at 11-30 and thank you again for everyone's input.


Welcome back to The Breakfast, I'm PlansTV Africa. In the National Assembly, a senator representing Emo East is in what France has of course put forward the bill, you know, asking for a 15-year jail term for people who pay ransom to kidnappers, terrorists and abductors. And of course that's going to be our next major conversation this morning. We have of course said a little bit about it right from off the press with and trying to decide if this was a it's a good decision and if maybe this is the right way to go. We're speaking this morning with a former director at the DSS, Dennis Amakri. Good morning, thanks for joining us sir. Good morning. Good morning, good morning, how are you? Fantastic. A lot of people, you know, are angry at the whole idea really of jail term for paying ransom to kidnappers. Do you think that the federal government or the senator may have suggested this in good faith? I think they never thought through. Whoever is trying to present that bill never thought about it and just put it there because how can you ask, you know, put up a bill that is going to penalize people who are paying ransom. I am totally against ransom, you know that. And I believe that you pay more ransom and then the people go and buy more arms to attack you. But to bring out a bill now that those who pay ransom are going to go for 15 years, I think it's just seriously misplaced. So what do you think really should the bill have been about? Penalizing kidnapping itself and kidnappers? Yes, in the bill, such a bill at this time should have, you know, go ahead and penalize kidnappers.  And some have said a very long jail term and stuff like that. If the National Assembly wants to put it in the Constitution, that is fine with me. But to say that those who pay ransom should be penalized, I think it's out of place. There are people who have argued that, you know, Nigeria as it stands needs to take some very tough decisions. And if we need to, you know, maybe go in this type of direction, you know, have some collateral damage if possible, you know, just because we need to take those tough decisions for a more secure and a safer country. Do you agree with that perspective? Do you think that maybe it is time that we put away sentiments and, you know, accept collateral damage here and there and take these tough decisions? No, I disagree that collateral damage, yes, let's go for zero tolerance, zero tolerance for ransom payment. But collateral damage in the sense of punishing some people who pay ransom, I think is wrong. You see, it is the responsibility of government to protect life and properties. If you are putting out a law like that, it means that you also have the measures in place to make sure that if anybody is kidnapped, you can get the person out. But you don't have any measure like that in place. And then you allow putting out a law that if you pay ransom, so what happens? Parents whose children have been taken should sit back and be watching while their children would be killed. That does not make any sense. So the best thing to do is yes, zero tolerance, I agree. But put in place measures, technology, tactics that will bring out anybody who is kidnapped at any time. Okay, so I want us to really highlight some of these tactics and measures you're talking about because this particular Imo Senator, Senator Isengwar Francis Onyo Uchi mentioned the United Kingdom Terrorism Act of 2000. And the United States, no concession policy for paying ransom to terrorists. But it seems that they have systems in place to ensure that people are rescued once they're kidnapped in the first place. So where do you think we're lacking? Where are we missing it here in Nigeria? That would not allow this law be really sit well with Nigerians. Even the United States that you just mentioned don't do things like that. In fact, I give you an example. Just yesterday, there is hackers, you know, hackers that hacked into colonial pipeline, which is the, which is a major pipeline supplying fuel to the east coast of the United States. And they are asking for five million before they can allow to encrypt that pipeline and so that people can get a fuel, because people have fuel, serious fuel scarcity in the United States last week. And the company went ahead and paid five million dollars. That five million dollars allow them now to encrypt so that people can start to have their basic that you know, in other words, it was a kidnapped situation. But this was happening in the cyber, cyber space. And then, of course, they asked the president of the United States, what do you have to say about it? He went ahead and said he's not saying anything about it, but he has put out an executive order for the FBI to strengthen their, to strengthen their anti cyber attacks. And the FBI themselves said that, yes, they are going to put things in place to make sure it doesn't happen again. The people who paid the ransom are private citizens, private companies, but working for the United States government. So if we juxtapose that one into Nigeria, you'll find out that is the same thing. The government has to go ahead and make sure that they are ready to deal with it, not to punish people. They didn't, they didn't give out their children or themselves to be kidnapped. So why are you punishing them? It's misplaced. I think they should cancel that or review that, review that bill to say that all kidnappers will be punished or all kidnappers will be dealt with, not the people that are giving ransom. I think our criminal justice, you know, system already says enough about kidnapping and punishment for it. But I want to ask for those who say, because we spoke this morning with Mr. Ezekiel Nyayatok and he had his own thoughts concerning this. And he believes that in the failure of the Nigerian government to protect lives and property, it might also work if we ban or criminalize payment of ransom. That might make the kidnappers realize that, well, no money is coming. And so it will reduce the eagerness to get into the crime of kidnapping. Do you think that makes some sense? No. Well, I don't think I agree with the criminalizing of ransom payment. I don't like ransom payment. I repeat myself. I don't like it. Don't do it. Zero tolerance. But put in place what should stop the kidnappers from asking for ransom. Don't go and start punishing people because their relatives or children were kidnapped. Government should wake up, wake up to it. Make sure that those who commit that crime are fully punished, but not the people giving ransom. If you don't want people, it's just like telling me that I should not get hungry. If I get hungry and I eat, I will be punished. All right? You don't do that. Because this is a natural thing. I'm here and they have not committed any problem. I've not committed any crime. I am just driving on the road. All my children went to school and they were kidnapped. And then you yourself, the government have not done anything to stop that kidnapping. And you're telling me that I should not do any means of retrieving my children from the kidnappers. So I think it is very clear. Stop, put measures to stop kidnapping and people will not be put in ransom. Your former director at DSS, can you paint a picture for us on these measures that you're speaking about? Now that will reduce kidnapping or will help security agencies in Nigeria to be able to investigate kidnapping properly and rescue more Nigerian citizens from captivity. The government has tried the NIN route. And I'm not sure if that is working well enough to reduce crime. So from a security perspective, paint a picture for us on what must be done, where we must invest in, in what directions we must walk in order to make it more difficult for kidnappers to thrive in Nigeria. Number one, where people are kidnapped? The kidnappers will call them and tell them, this is what we want. We have your man with us. They might even give you proof of life that the person is actually with them. Then they will tell you we want 100 million. Don't tell the police.  That's the first conversation. If really you get off that phone as a citizen, report the thing to the police, report the situation to the police, report it even to the DSS, because these two agencies have a kidnapping group that they will use in either tracking that telephone or tracking where the location of where those two people are. When they do track them down, they will go out and try to rescue them. Or they will go ahead and get involved in the negotiation until they find it very, very possible to go and get them. Now, kidnapping is a low intensive, very, very crime that you can commit without much arms. The risk is not much. Then, of course, the money that they get from kidnapping is a lot. Low risk, high yield. So what do you do? You either try to increase the risk and then lower the reward that they will get. And then, of course, that will either affect the kidnapping situation. So what do we do? You make sure that they don't enjoy that money, because I know when I was in service, if they call, they might not even be comfortable where they are, because they will be tracked down immediately. That's why they keep on moving from one place to the other. And as they move from one place to the other, you follow them. Number two, if you cannot find them and they want to collect the money, because that is the hardest part of the whole kidnapped process, collecting the money. They have involvement situations where to collect simple money, they will go take you around Lagos or take you around Port Harcourt to ensure that nobody is following you before they also drop it here and they will collect the money. We know that. So why don't you make it so so difficult? You can use marked notes. The police have been doing that. I don't know why they stopped doing it. You can use marked notes and then wait for those notes to appear in any bank, because when you collect 10 million or 20 or 5 million, some of them will go out into the bucket, some of them will go back into the bank or whatever. We track them. All the banks will be looking out for those kind of monies that will come out and when you arrest one of them, it will lead you to the rest of them. You can use marked notes. You can also use notes that can explode. They can explode and pour paint into the face or hands of the person. Very distinct color. So the security people will be watching out for those people in the society where they are. These are all things that are available that can be used, but now they don't. People are not, people are eager to just go and paint the ransom and then they think the money will go away and then life continues. And this is the direction I'm asking is really, you know, with the security agencies that we have, not the citizens now. In which directions do you think our investment should be? In what direction do you think the training should be for security agencies in Nigeria? What more do we need to invest in? Do we need to have better CCTV cameras across Nigeria? Do we need to have better tracking of phone devices? What exactly do you think that the Nigerian government needs to start to invest in with regard to security that makes it more difficult for kidnappers to thrive? One simple technology that we can use is what is called the eye in the sky. The eye in the sky. There's a movie by that name. But if you watch it, you'll find out that it is just that kind of technology that we use. Many countries are using it. If you remember the Boston Marathon, when they went to bomb the people that were jogging or, you know, the marathon. Within 24 hours those people were arrested. How did they do it? It's not magic. This blink, it is not CCTV because we've discovered that CCTVs that are in the cities, they are useful. They are useful and you can use them in doing some other kinds of investigation. But the eye in the sky is right up there just below where planes are flying. And it looks over in a city like Lagos, it will look over Lagos. And if anything happens anywhere, they will zero down into that area because as it is looking it is also recording what is happening. So what do you do? When an incident happens, they just rewind it. They rewind it until they see before the incident. And then they will even see those people that came, which kind of clothes they are wearing. How do they get in there after the incident? How do they run away? Where are they now? And that's how they get them. It is not magic. It is not anything. But it's simple technology that could be used. And that technology is in the market. And Nigeria can buy it. So why are we not using it? So let's look at all those kind of things. You want to have drones? Yes. But don't buy the toy drones. Buy the military grade drones that can be in the air for three months before they come down. Okay. So that's how to go about it. And we cannot keep on talking about it and talking about it without using these things. All right, Mr. Makri, we know that many groups have been very vocal regarding kidnapping and security in Nigeria. One of them is the Christian Association of Nigeria. They immediately responded to this Senate bill talking about penalizing people who pay ransom to terrorists and giving them a 15-year sentence. So they're basically saying the federal government is chasing shadows. And that instead, there should be a bill that stipulates that for any state, any city, any government in whose territory kidnappings occur for at least three times a month, that person, that local government chairman, that governor, that president should be forced to resign. I don't know what your comments are regarding this suggestion by the Christian Association of Nigeria. I don't think it's a very good suggestion. It is not a security advice. It's maybe religious and inclined advice. But thank you for bringing up that story about the 15 years for people who pay ransom. I think that's also misplaced, totally misplaced. Because how can you, your fundamental job is to protect lives and property as a government? And many times they keep on forgetting that government is not just the executive. It also includes the legislators, those same legislators that are talking this, or the judiciary too. So if you are not able to protect lives and property and people are being kidnapped, they want their kidnapped. What do you do?  They're building the bush somewhere with unknown people. And then what do you do? Sleep and wait for a government that has not put in place some measures to bring them back? You know, so before you put a law like that, in fact, the law that you put number one, zero tolerance to, you know, ransom, we are not going to pay anybody ransom. Yes, fine. Then number two, strengthen the security agencies whereby they have the wherewithal. It will not take them 24 to 48 hours to retrieve people that are kidnapped. It is very, very possible with new technology that is in place, they can do that. Then you tell your, your audience to encourage people not to pay the ransom. Even in the United States, you remember what happened last week? There was a full scarcity in the United States. And that's what caused it. It was a cyber attack on the colonial pipeline that runs from the north to south, eastern part of the, of the United States. There was a cyber attack and the people who attacked it are asking for five million dollars. You know what happened? They paid yesterday. They went and paid the money. Now, when the president was asked, what does it take? He said, well, his only is to ask the FBI, the security agency, to strengthen their system so that cyber attack will not happen to infrastructures that are very important to the United States. So like just like our D.S.S. here now, who say make sure that you don't allow anybody to be kidnapped and if they are kidnapped, get them out immediately. Not to punish the company that paid the money or the individuals that are going to pay the ransom. That is misplaced. You don't do that because those are private people. They can spend their money the way they like. If we want to come about, you know, human rights and the use of money or I can spend the money, I can buy it or throw it away. It is important. Mr. Mac, would you say that we have a, or we're dealing with scarcity of funds towards our security agencies or just, you know, poor spending and not being able to utilize the funds that are budgeted for security every year in the right direction? It's both. Both of them, you know, that's positive of funds. We don't have, we don't have unlimited amount of money, but the security agencies, including the military, are not well funded. They are not well funded because if you look at the budgetary expenses that, you know, that is allocated to the security agencies in Nigeria with our budget and our population of 200 or more than 200 million and look at smaller countries like Egypt, South Africa, even Angola, Angola, Angola spends more money on defense than Nigeria.  So tell me, you know, the security agencies are not getting enough money and we should reorder our priorities because when it comes to payment of ransom, the money comes out one way or the other. So why don't we reorder our priorities and then of course fund the security agencies very properly and then they will be on top of their game and stop this menace to society where some, you know, lackadaisical guys will come around and, you know, go ahead and kidnap people and be asking for money that they never worked for, for the whole of their lives. All right. Okay. Lastly from me, Ms. Samakri, obviously this decision eventually, you know, stops at the table of the president. So would you say you'd be advising him to decline assent to this bill? That bill should not even get out of the National Assembly because it's, you know, it's not the right thing. I don't think they thought it through. They have to think very well before they start bringing, you know, we keep on bringing out bills that or maybe somebody's just trying to impress people that, oh, I also submitted it. I also submitted a bill, you know, it went to second reading and stuff like that. You know, otherwise I think that bill should be trashed. All right. Dennis Samakri. Go ahead. Oh, well, we just wanted to say thank you. I've enjoyed the conversation. Thanks for joining us this morning and always interesting speaking with you. Thank you for having me. Bye-bye. All right. And it's time to say goodbye on a Thursday morning, pretty early in the day. It's been a very interesting conversation this morning. Thank you very much for joining us and to our guests, Ibrahim Oshinowo and Dennis Samakri. Thanks for your time. We wish you a very interesting Thursday ahead. If you missed out on any of these conversations, remember where to find us at PLOS TV Africa on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and same with our YouTube channel. I am Osao Ghee, Ogboa. And I am Annette Felix. Bye-bye.