Russian Army to be replenished with 400,000 new contract service personnel. The Russian Defence Ministry will start new recruitment of professional soldiers to the Russian Army from the 1st of April, their aim being to add 400,000 new recruits to the Army. As Radio Savoboda reported, the Russian Defence Ministry has sent documents to the regions indicating the number of people with whom contracts should be signed. It is noticed that several Russian regional media outlets immediately published the total number of contract service personnel needed to replenish the Russian Army. It was noted that Russia planned to recruit 400,000 such soldiers. It is indicated that the main part of the work will be carried out by military enlistment offices and governors will be responsible for the implementation of the plan. It was also reported that 10,000 people should be recruited for professional service in Chelyabinsk and Severlovsk oblasts of the Russian Federation and 9,000 more in the Perm cry. Before this, it was reported that the number of Russians mobilised for the war against Ukraine may be much higher than the 300,000 declared by the Kremlin exceeding half a million people. Russian media and non-governmental organisations say Russian authorities have sought to bolster the number of troops involved in the military action in Ukraine by attracting more volunteers, engaging private military contractors and even offering amnesty to some prisoners in exchange for a tour of military duty. Regional authorities have also tried to beef up the ranks, forming volunteer battalions to be deployed to Ukraine.


Minority business enterprises have at times struggled to secure financing and grow. Today it ends. This $50 million new initiative, the New York City Minority Business Enterprise Guarantee Facility, will get money to minority-owned affordable housing developers to build more housing across the city. As part of our efforts to ensure no New Yorker gets left behind, I'm proud to announce that we are on track to clear the cash, assistance, and snap application backlogs that totaled more than $50,000 last summer. Labs at the Brooklyn Navy Art, it's going to bring contract manufacturing to one of the biggest industries in the world, beauty and health and wellness. This is a $25 million state-of-the-art facility coming to the heart of Brooklyn. The labs will help small businesses, including many that are black, indigenous, and people of color, launch and grow in the city of New York. I didn't take 110 mares before the Bengaldashi flag was raised down at Bowling Green. Why did it take so long for you to have a Bengaldashi day here in Gracie Mansion? You're Gracie Mansion. Why? And so I thank you, and I am going to continue to call on you to be proud Bengaldashi Americans.


on i wasn't like specific on kernel stuff so when i bumped into john at uh fummer's last year in vancouver uh he said hey i want to give a talk and i was like that's awesome that's fantastic what do you want to talk about and he gave me a list he goes i don't know i'll give you a list gave me a list like four or five things and the first one was oe and kernel i said yep that's it so without much further ado thanks john take it away thank you so i appreciate everyone staying to the very uh bloody end here of uh last session of the last day so thanks for bunny um john mason i'm presenting kernel development work flows using open embedded it's a little bit gonna be a little bit more generic than that but uh i think i think everyone will enjoy it so hopefully everyone here knows what open embedded is so i'm gonna go through this a little quickly um we can get out here a little earlier um so everyone knows what a distro is raise your hand if you don't know what a distro is okay without trolling okay um so what's open embedded so open embedded it's a build auto so this is straight from probably wikipedia build automation framework and cross-compile environment used to create linux distributions for me this is mine not just embedded devices you actually can use it for other things and i think that open embedded actually needs to get a lot more credit for being things that are not embedded um but that's kind of outside the scope of this talk but i wanted to point that out um runs on every major linux distro i mean maybe not some of the the smaller ones but um all the ones you want to use it it'll run on um all major cpu architectures including risk five which uh surprised me a little bit but uh congratulations um but it also works on arm and works on arm very well my employer obligates me to say that um and has packages for pretty much everything you can think of and if it's not there it's pretty much trivial to add so how they fit together it's uh recipes contained in layers um you can fetch and build and you make an image out of that so here's a very simple recipe it's it's for east tool i believe yes east tool which you're going to see too much of in the rest of this um so um of note you can see the um the the source that it's pulling it down from the internet it does some md5 sums to make sure that it's actually what you want it to be and then some basic build instructions and layers are essentially how these recipes are organized into logical blocking groups if you will and this enables you to only add the pieces that you need which while maybe not significant if you're looking at a traditional distro for embedded or something that you that you actually care about being tiny that's actually pretty significant but this also enables you to replace layers which i think every customer out there really needs to be pushing for um using open embedded just solely for this like if you're making a set top box for example and you're some vendor i don't want to name name plus uh you they give be litigious but um you can be you can have an x86 board and you're like oh this x86 they want to charge me price a and this arm vendor wants to charge me price b and it might be better your entire stack you can just replace one layer for the other and and you're done everything in theory should be working the same and you saved your company millions of dollars why not um or you can replace one GUI for another or one toolchain for another which is also popular changing gcc for llvm and things like that um and then here's the layer index and and disregard all the no you can't see it how can i show this okay well sorry i'm trying to show the layer index let's just say that there are thousands of of layers there are at least hundreds of layers that you can you can show sorry it's not showing up um these are the two files you you really can mentally modify to add layers and um specify the packages you want in there again if i'm going fast feel free to raise your hand but i have a feeling that most everyone has a pretty good grasp of this um so output so this is the the big difference between a normal distro and uh using open embedded is a normal distro you're going to have an installer you're going to pop it in you're going to go through the steps to configure it you when you use open embedded you're going to have a system image because you know what already is going to go in there um you can also precompile rpms or devs and if you're really crazy you can cherry pick binaries out of the um the build so like if you were doing an entire build and you only care about the kernel you could just copy the kernel binary and it's probably not a great idea but it's but it's possible and how to deploy well it depends on your use case so now here's uh what everyone hopefully came came for so excuse me one second so what are you developing so a lot of kernel developers also have their fingers and pies like boot loaders user space packages that are very closely tied to the kernel and you might even be doing pulling it all together making a distro so why would you use open embedded over just using a simple distro so that you can just hack on the kernel like thousands of other kernel developers do well like trevor was saying dev tool dev tool really is the the hammer that you can beat every nail with um it gives you the ability to replace or upgrade packages quite easily which alice was saying in its previous talk it's it's almost trivial to update a version or downgrade a version um so you could have customers that want a certain version of gcc and you can just bump gcc recompile everything and make your life you see that way um similar to what i was saying before you only have to install what you need and it's um easier to debug out of the box because you're compiling everything locally so what's the downside here's my gratuitous xkcd it takes a long time to compile and you're going to in the demos i'm going to show a little bit later there is no compiling because we would be here until this evening it's because i'll be compiling on a vmmi laptop and it'll be forever you don't want that but i mean if you have more idle time to do other things like answer emails from your manager maybe that's a good thing i mean managers like being conversed with frequently so how do you modify the source of an existing recipe so there's really two ways that i've i've used there might be other esoteric ways but i think these are the a good way and a and a stupid way using dev tool where you can fetch source or you can link to an existing get tree or you know source tree that you have that's not in version control or you can modify an existing recipe to point to some some tar balls so dev tool so you can hook in using an existing get tree which i think is probably the the way that everyone's going to want to do it but you can just use random source that you've downloaded off the internet which can bite you in the butt and um or you can use it to simply just fetch what's currently there and i'll i'll show you how to do that in a little bit and the benefit of linking to the existing code is you can develop and debug what you have locally and you can also like i said earlier use a older or newer version or you can modify an existing recipe and this is the the stupid way i was referring to earlier um you can hard code pass in in a recipe to point to a local tar ball or a local get tree um why would you want to do that you can actually make it more permanent you can modify and instead of pointing to um let's say using e-tool again using e-tool on kernel.org you could use your own modified version that's internal to your organization so you can modify the path that way um or if you don't like get or any other version control system and you just want it to work because you needed it done yesterday and you don't want to learn because learning is hard then you can hard code hard code it this way okay and time for the demo okay so it is showing um all right close that table already okay so this is the the avert your eyes you're seeing under the uh okay so in this uh example here i have an existing linux get tree right it's 5.0 it's it's exciting it's the latest and greatest um so i did a few changes here just to show that i am not just like tricking you in some way so um i added scale to the to the version because can everyone see that by the way is it too tiny blow it up okay uh that didn't help very much at all um and then okay i'll try is that any better is it okay sorry nothing's about it's gonna get um so i modified um the make file to show it um i added a kind of bogus um entry into the vertio device driver to say that we're at scale so it's just a a bogus entry and i also modified the um the header file so it all you're gonna believe everyone believes that this is a modified kernel right and similarly oh dang it there and then i modified each tool as well similarly um i'm modifying the user space application so that you can actually see that the flag is now being set so i think that's one of one of the cool things that you can do with open embedded quite easily is you can modify multiple sources that are hooked together so i've modified both the kernel and the user space app that's talking to the kernel and again it takes a while to compile but you can you can use qmu in this example or you could use a live board um which is probably much faster to to show that i have a modified kernel i've modified each tool and they're both tightly coupled now and you can do the same thing if you're modifying a boot loader in the kernel all these things that are very tightly um coupled together and this is unfortunately going to take a minute because it's inside of vm running qmu and they don't disregard that uh that x error and the other errors that are are coming because this was uh i needed to debug something this week and um yeah that's a little tiny but um so hopefully maybe not in the back but most people hopefully can see that uh the the version is scale and in the kernel config i added oe just to make it even more um proof that i've changed it and let's do a little e-tool here normal e-tool and then dash i scale yes so i was able to do that the changes this morning took one or two minutes the compiling took you know along for me to take a shower and get breakfast again it's inside of vm um okay and um what you'll also want to see is what i changed locally to make these changes um happen as soon as it shuts down and this is within pocky because i didn't want to roll my own distro so you know no use reinventing the wheel okay you don't care about the first one or the second one so what you'll see here is the the e-tool source that um that i was referencing earlier i was able to um essentially modify the source put the tarball locally and instead of having it you can't see the red is that now readable sort of maybe better sorry so i changed it from pointing to the real world to a local file you could point it to a local file system you could point it to your local um however you host things internal your local web server or whatever and to point the kernel there i did a dev tool i did this so essentially what this is doing is um you're choosing to modify an existing recipe because unless you're doing something super unique you're always going to be modifying an existing recipe kernel in this case um and the end is saying that you already have an existing in um get tree and this is the path to it so it's pretty trivial to add and um sorry and to reset and as soon as this command's done it is no longer pointing to it so you could simply let's say your get tree is just not happy and you've screwed it up beyond all repair and you want to get back to a sane state you can say okay i'm not i don't want you to point to this anymore or let me just go back to the last working state and so that this is now pointing to nothing and it still leaves your tree around if you wanted to try to fix it later or whatever yes there's a one second i think for people so i think this was a dev tool is in fixed work with kernel recently so in older releases it didn't work well is that right um i've been using it this way for a few years so um so it's possible that in in the versions prior to that i've used that i've used that it was broken um glibc was broken okay i i haven't modified glibc but but that is one of the the cool things is um glibc you know if you're trying to modify an app that uses glibc you can modify them both together in the exact same way so you know kernel and kernel things are cool and they get they get lots of attention but you can use it the exact same way i mean much the way the alpha was referring to earlier i mean you can modify lots of pieces very very easily and when you're doing board bring up or even um trying to do an entire stack it's it's quite quite beneficial and and then just um to relink it it'll it'll take a few seconds but it's done and it now points back to the the exact same place and conversely if you liked your changes and wanted to keep it a depth tool finish would create patches for you that are then fed back into the build system so those patches are waiting and then you can send those patches upstream if they're you know legit and ready to go exactly it's quite the tool yes yes it it is a tool that needs to get a lot more love and attention because it's extremely useful um okay and then um does that tool finish actually work though in this case where you're using an out of build get check out yeah i was wondering about that use yeah i was wondering about that too usually when one uses depth tool depth tool will create a workspace for you and then you do all your stuff in the workspace you know and that's what i was just about to show so okay yeah it certainly works if you're using depth tools workspace uh out of tree and um kind of globbing on to the point that trevor just made um you can actually just modify it locally you don't have to point to an existing tree you can just check out what's currently up there into your um into your build environment it'll you'll see it here in a second as soon as it finishes it will give you the path that it checks out into you can modify it locally there and then you know have fun that way it's a long 98 percent well how much money you got um no i'm not worried about the error but it's because this is a dirty tree if this is not a dirty tree you wouldn't see that error but because it because i've made some modifications for linking the um and building the previous get tree i had to um i was on a different version of the kernel that it didn't so by i turned off the kernel version checking so that i could build a newer version than what it wanted because i was building 5.0 wow this is taking a very long time um okay so how about in the meantime even because this shouldn't take nearly this long um another vm which hopefully is it still very difficult to read um i'm gonna show here one thing you can do if you're trying to change kernel config so changing a config um you know it can be a little bit of a pain in the butt um well it's not a pain in the butt it's a little less obvious um you simply pass the command hopefully i did that correctly okay well apparently that's the one thing i didn't do because i assumed it just is going to work out of out of the box okay um okay and both of them are well we've had an entire day of open embedded and this is the first time we're seeing open embedded actually you know running so well so i guess while we're waiting and infinitely for these things how about an infinite amount of questions any questions in general because we're getting towards the end of the uh of the show here so what about the deployment workflow when you're when you're doing something like this i know when you're doing user space apps you can use dev tool to actually push the binary without rebooting and stuff but is there anything that can bypass the need to to flash a new nd card well so um you can actually have um oe output as a as a dev or an rpm so that if you're doing some user space thing or even just the kernel you can spit out a new version as a package and then update your package yes the other way of doing it is actually if you do a tfgp kernel and then an nfs root file system it then it doesn't matter and i do that all the time from my actual project build so yeah and also there's um what dev tool there's dev tools deploy and uh touch as well and undeploy so there's many many ways of doing it uh fd card should never be part of your development workflow basically what it comes down to if you're using it an fd card in your workflow you're doing it wrong so well i mean you you need to deploy your final image and theoretically it's on an aspect of the deployment team okay so this one's finally finished um so it's putting it inside workspace sources and in this case one xiocto and just to prove that it's there it's the kernel that you would expect and you can modify it and it'll all be here your build objects are not going to be here just the source the question was how is the other vm doing it's still running oh there you go and uh just a normal menu config it opens a new tab or a new window depending on what your distro chooses to do and i haven't found a rhyme or reason to it but uh it's usually a new tab but for some reason uh is it a local comp that okay yes exactly you can save the config and it will save it just like you normally would um sorry not much more exciting than that i mean you can um i think the only caveat here with this with these commands is they're not all universal so you could be trying to use menu config on on u-boot and it'll work but not everything has a menu config and similarly um not all the commands are there so i'm not sure mr proper work i don't think it does i think it'll blow up yes so you can use the tasks we'll show you all the tasks that are available so it doesn't have a do mr proper or anything like that so not to be confused with the fact you're using minus p for command and you're looking at tasks but you know not what i'm poking fun at oe people in the room or anything other questions sorry no get back to it actually working but this is more or less the end have you used a depth tool for the Linux source and then change configs as well at the same time how does it handle that how does it handle changing the config in an external tree yes yes the this that's not this one the other one um so if you do a cross compiling is fun it helps us make sure you back to where i thought i was my display is too small now no no it should be i'm specifying the architecture for arm so it should be working um menu config needs a bigger window yeah yeah the control should control shift minus is no there he goes okay yeah which makes it into my chart but then you can go start there you go and then maybe i can just do that okay well but yeah so this is the this is the non-stock for some reason it's not loading do it in a slightly harder way then um isn't that team up pre pre-records all of the demos um so it should work it was working earlier today i mean so uh yes i was using menu config through bitbake to just set it so that way it fetched the board config from um the kernel cache and then i was modifying it locally to add it brings up under dev shelving so if for some reason it's not showing the changes well so i mean you can see this is modified but this should still have the config from earlier which doesn't have yako standard should have oe which i put there earlier from the from the u name so sorry okay so just to finish there i'll show my last slide no no no like it's it's a call to arms okay cool you're maybe go through all of them okay i just wanted to kind of do a call to arms here oe is a community um we always need more people more developers more features more testers more everything so if you have idle time or don't have idle time but have interest um please join the mailing list contribute all that fun stuff and then thank you well thanks john and uh i guess that concludes our inaugural oe summit so thanks to everyone for joining thanks for everyone who's been here all day and uh we'll see you next year


Sometimes you're in a rush. The people around you aren't always on the same page. A sudden stop when you're too close can result in a mess. But what is a soggy mistake here is a dangerous choice on the road. When changing lanes around trucks, always leave plenty of room. And don't follow too close. Remember, road safety starts with me.


Thanks everybody. All right, I'll set. Okay. So good afternoon, everyone. And, and thank you. We had a chance to just get settled down as we, we now turn to another public meeting. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. I am here. Good afternoon, commissioner Hill. Good afternoon. I'm here. Good afternoon. Commissioner Skinner. Good afternoon. I'm here. And good afternoon, commissioner Maynard. Good afternoon, madam chair. I am here. Excellent. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. I'm here with the call of the order. And we have minutes to turn to, did everybody have a chance to review them? And I'm going to turn to Christian. Thank you, madam chair. I moved that the commission approved the minutes from the September 15, 2022 public meeting that are included in the commissioner's packet subject to any necessary corrections. But typographical areas are other non material matters. Any questions or comments or comments? Are any edits or questions? Okay. With that motion and second, commissioner o'Brien. Hi, commissioner hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. Just a minute. Yes, five, zero. Excellent work. Thank you. then Commissioner Hill? Okay. Yes we are. Thank you. I was looking at my notes rather than looking at my apologies. So then we have on next on our agenda the administrative update. I don't believe it's second director Wells is available today. So but I know that the director band is so we're going to move right to you, Bruce. Good afternoon, Bruce. You're on mute. There we go. Sorry. I'm having problems with that evidently, aren't I? Two days in a row. You know what? You're on mute. We're not living in these days, right? That seems it exactly. It's a shorter update today. We'll start with MGM. Their popular game pontoon 21 continues to move on and they're considering adding more tables on to their casino floor with it. PPC has begun construction on their temporary sports wagering booth on the casino floor in slot zone D8. Encore has actually redone level B1 with a new paint job and some other updates and an update on some pending inspections. We've arranged with GLI and IB and IT and we'll be completing pending the sports wagering approval for the licensing. All the inspections on the three gaming establishments the first week of January pending completion of all the licenses. That's my report if anybody has any questions. Thank you, Bruce. Any questions for Bruce? Bruce, just a quick one. Sure. The pontoon 21 game at MGM. Yes. They are considering increasing the number of tables. How many do they have now? Six. It's pretty popular then. Sorry. Sorry, Commissioner Skinner. They completed their test period of the progressive game. It's still kind of ongoing for the one part but they're just looking to see if it's worth them adding additional tables at this point. Thank you. That was my question, Bruce. If I remember correctly they were just, that new game was actually just, it wasn't expanding the number of table games. It was a replacement but now you're saying it's going over so well that they are considering expanding that number. Excellent. Thank you. Any further questions for Bruce? Okay. Then we're going to turn to our people and diversity officer, David Mildrew. Good afternoon. And David, you're going to present us with an update on the vacation time policy. And I think that you're going to be looking for some formal action for the commission. That is correct, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and commissioners. HRD as a prior practice for vacation rollover was two years. HRD as of right now and we're going forward up to year 2024 will be allowing four years rollover. So there isn't anyone in danger regarding that because it's a four-year rollover. And I am requesting that the Madam Chair and the commissioners vote to continue following the HRD because that is the, from coming from Executive Officer, HRD, that is their practice right now to allow a four-year. So if we continue and vote for that, then probably going into 2023 we'll get notification as to when that may change back to two years. So that's the finding on our end. Questions for David on this? So the clarification is rather than two years HRD has adopted at this moment in time four years. That is correct. Questions? And the concept is otherwise folks would, there's nobody in danger of losing their vacation time at this time. That is correct. Commissioners, any questions? Otherwise, David is looking for formal action from us. Are we able to do that today? Madam Chair, I would be more than willing to make a motion at this time. I move that the commission adopt the same adjustment to the vacation carryover policy that the Commonwealth's Human Resource Division has implemented as discussed here today. Second. Thank you. Any edits or questions? Okay. Chief Muldrow, we're going to go ahead and vote. Commissioner O'Brien? Aye. Commissioner Hill? Aye. Commissioner Skinner? Aye. Commissioner Maynard? Aye. And I vote yes. Thank you very much. That should add clarity and consistency for you. Thank you so much. Thank you, Commissioner. Okay. Have a good weekend if we don't see you. Now moving on to item number four in our racing division. Good afternoon, Dr. Lighto. Good afternoon. So we have a number of items today. The first one we'll start with Plainridge. And we have Steve O'Toole, their director of racing as well, if you have any questions. Our first item is the Plainridge request for the 2023 premium-free period. It's in accordance with Mass General Law 128c, Section 24. They've requested Sunday, June 18, 2023 through Saturday, September 9, 2023. And my recommendation is to approve this request. Are there any questions? You know what, I'm having, I have a printout today because of my computer challenges. I'm having a little bit of wondering if I'm out of order here, Dr. Lighto. So if my fellow commissioners can just be patient with me, I want to make sure I have the memo that Alec you prepared. Commissioners, are you all set in terms of where we are? So it's, oh, I think I see it now. Alec, thank you. Items for Plainridge were, for this section, were submitted as part of their license to race 2023. So there's not a separate letter for each one, like there is for Rainham and Suffolk. And I included the exhibits that they were submitted as in the package. But I'm looking at, and that's all I have that and nothing else, right? Okay, so on the exhibits, I've got it. I'm going to have everything, okay. Sorry that I didn't clarify that. So if you could just go over your recommendation again. Okay, my recommendation is to approve their request for that premium-free period. It does comply with the statute. Yeah, on all circumstances. Thank you. I just felt like I might be missing something. Okay, excellent. Do we have a motion on this because Dr. Leitham is looking for action? Thank you. Okay, I have a question. Are these the signals? No, in the statute, there's this segment where a certain period during the year, the tracks don't have to pay this extra premium to each other for their signals. That was written into the original simulcast legislation that kind of gave extra value, that if you're getting my signal in state from one track to the other, you need to pay me extra. So they pay these premiums, except for in the statute, they're allowed this 12-week period where they don't have to pay those premiums to each other. So that's what this 12-week period is. Each track gets to request their own period that would make the most sense for them. Yeah, and isn't there an outstanding legal issue with respect to approval of the signals? That has been resolved. Okay, just turning to Todd. I thought that there was some... That was a slightly different... Okay, so there you go, Todd. Sorry. Sorry. Yeah, thank you, Commissioner Skinner. That was a slightly different issue that we can get to as we move forward here, but this premium-free issue, as Dr. Leipmann mentioned, is described in the statute. It's 128C section 2. It expressly allows for the licensee to select a premium, what we call a premium-free period. It's discussed at the end of the paragraph. And it just applies to PPC in their premium-free period, because I guess I'm wondering whether we can approve the premium-free period without having approved the signals. Because I know approval of the signals is still an outstanding issue, right? Yeah, it's a fair point. I mean, I don't think there's going to be any hurdle in the way, if you will, of approving the signals. So yeah, I guess technically we might be going slightly out of order, but... In fact, that's probably why I was struggling a little bit, because I was thinking we're going to go first to the signals. But Dr. Leipmann, I'll defer to you. Commissioner Skinner, your question was what I was struggling with, because I thought I prepared it out of order. But the premium-free period is on our agenda at first? Why don't we take it out of order then, if you feel more comfortable taking it in the other order? Then we would go to the simulcast exploiting at our step-point in our materials. And it's all starting on page 13, Dr. Leipmann. Again, I don't have my typical squirrel up, but I'm going to work on that right now, because I'm much better if I can do it on my computer back. Would the commission like to take the simulcast approvals for all three tracks first, or just the one for plain-rich? Yeah, I think we can do it plain-rich first, right, commissioners? Sure. Yeah. Okay, so the second item is the request that, again, was as part of their application exhibit 28 for their export simulcast signals. And again, these are the routine signals that they've asked for for years. And what they do for the year is they request whatever signals they think they may take. Some of these signals they may not end up taking, and they do, or basically for each day, they do what they call a betting menu that will list what tracks they're taking and basically at what times. It's basically the same as a restaurant menu. It may vary from day to day. Some tracks only race, you know, a couple of times a week, others race more often. Some signals have more, there's more betting interest on them, so they may choose to show those when they're available and not show some of the others. So what the commission is being asked to approve is just the list of these providers. And I have talked to the legal department, and we're comfortable that they're in compliance with 128C section two. Right, and this all begins now that I have my computer back making it a little bit more helpful perhaps. Your memo is on page 12, and then the exhibit with all this, and it starts on page 13 as exhibit 27. Right. Exhibit 27 is the simulcast imports. And right now we're doing simulcast exports for fine rich. Okay, sorry. Okay, and that begins on page 19. I think it's 19. 19. It's with the letters anyway. And that's exhibit 28. Okay, no, I'm also sure. Thanks for your patience, everyone. Happening in real time today, but very thankful. Okay. Any questions as to the export signals? Could we just have a quick recap of what the legal issues are or were just I could use a refresher, please, if you don't mind. Sure, I think there were just two things. One was just making sure that the signals were in conformance with the individual sections of chapter 128 C section two. You'll recall that that section of the law prescribes some parameters for which each licensee can simulcast. And we just wanted to check to make sure that what they were requesting was in line with that. And we do believe that that is the case. Okay. There was a second issue you may recall that involved the piece of federal law and the right to approve certain signals. That one is a very difficult issue, but the long and short of it is that the entity with the right to approve, which is the NEHBPA in this case, it's my understanding is satisfied that everything is that they have the right to approve what they need to approve. And that's not an issue at the moment. So that was the other matter that was discussed. And I think that that's set for now. Thank you. Okay, so what are the questions about the actual export signals for Dr. Lightdown first? And if not, then I know that we have director Charles here. So I don't know if he has any, any, it wants to add anything with respect to the export signals, the import signals, and then of course, the premium period, premium period, all these. So, Steve, I don't know if you wanted to add in before we may make a formal, take formal action. No, Commissioner, I think it's self-explanatory, but for just for clarification, export would be our live races going out to outlets, and import would be the other tracks when we decode them and bring them down through the, through our system to show the public it and wager on here at Plain Ridge. Any questions? Okay, I'll take a motion. Anybody wants to? Okay. Sure. Madam Chair, I move the commission approved Plain Ridge Park's request for approval of the simulcast export locations listed as exhibit 28 in their application for license to hold or conduct our racing meeting in 2023 as included in the commissioners packet and discussed here today. Second. Thank you. Any edits? Okay. Commissioner O'Brien? Hi. Commissioner Hill? Hi. Commissioner Skinner? Hi. Commissioner Maynard? Hi. And I vote yes. Okay, so then we're going to go a little bit backwards in our packet and turn to the import. So, in your packet, you should have exhibit 27 from Plain Ridge's application, and that is their request of their simulcast import sites. As Steve mentioned, these are the signals that they're bringing in. So, these do include Greyhound signals, and with the special acts of 2022, there's no Greyhound racing as of August 1st or the end of July 31st, however you want to say it. So, in my recommendation, I have said that recommended that the commission approve their simulcast import signals for horse racing and then for the Greyhound racing approve that only until August 1st, consistent with the statute. And Steve has indicated that they're well aware of the statute. And do you have, Commissioner, do you have, again, I just was a little bit compromised in terms of starting with a paper packet. Do you have Alex's memo in the page numbers of the packet? I think, is it page 38? Alex, is that where they import? I don't have that pulled up on my screen. I believe, if I'm looking at it correctly, it's page 38 in the packet. Is Alex's memo? Okay. Bear with me. Alex, I knew that there would be a memo. It did get very confusing with so many different items on today. And buried in paper, and it printed out backside too, so it's not easy to find so much better now. I did include the acts of 2022, Chapter 128, that extended the horse racing and simulcasting this year and specified in my memo where it talks about that there won't be any Greyhound racing after, as of August 1st. Yeah, I see it right here. Page 37 of our packet. Thank you. So, and yeah, the memo is on page 37, I believe. Yeah, I found it now, and I have noted it. So, everybody understands that Dr. Light founds recommendation here. I think that probably we will want to make sure we note in emotion, Dr. Light founds recognition around the Greyhound dog racing. Anyone comfortable with that? I can do combined or we can separate them out if anyone has a preference. Mine is fine. I moved the commission approved Plain Ridge Park's request for the approval of simulcast import locations for horse racing listed in their application for license to hold their conductor racing meet in 2023 for calendar year 2023. And that the commission also approved Plain Ridge Park's request for approval of simulcast import locations for Greyhound dog racing listed in their application for a license to hold their conductor racing meet in 2023, only until August 1st of 2023, consistent with chapter 128 of the acts of 2022, as included in the commissioners packet and discussed here today. Good. Second, and that works for you, Dr. Lightdown, correct? Yes, thank you. Okay. Commissioner O'Brien? Hi. Commissioner Hill? Hi. Commissioner Skinner? Hi. Commissioner Mayard? Hi. And I vote yes. Okay, five, zero. All right. And to the extent that anybody can help on navigating the packet, I'll take that assistance, but now we're moving, it makes sense to go back to the freak period before we move on to the waiting provider. Does that make sense? Yes, I believe so. Yep. Okay. And that's on page 12. Yeah, where I started. Yeah. And 13. Okay. I'll give you a little pages today on these issues. All right. Any questions? Oh, go ahead. If there's any questions from what I said earlier, be happy to hear. Okay. Dr. Lightdown's looking for formal action. Commissioner Hill? I just want to make sure Commissioner Skinner, your concerns have been addressed and we can move forward with a motion. Yes, thank you, Commissioner Hill. I just, the last time we heard about the signals, it was presented as, you know, a legal issue. And it was significant enough that we didn't vote on that portion of the PPC application. And so I guess I was a little confused because I was expecting sort of a more affirmative, I guess, closeout of that legal issue from our legal team. But I'm good now. I'm clear. I hear that whatever the legal issue was has been resolved. So I'm satisfied and ready to move forward. Thank you. Then Madam Chair, I'd be willing to offer an emotion at this time. I would move about the commission approved Plain Ridge Park Casino's request for 2023 premium free period as included in the commissioner's packet and discussed here today. Second. Thank you. Any further questions? Okay. Commissioner O'Brien? Hi. Commissioner Hill? Hi. Commissioner Skinner? Hi. Commissioner Maynard? Hi. And I vote yes, five, zero. Just so I think we can pin the issue, Councillor Grosman, that probably we need to circle back to see if we have to take in, if we should be taking further action on that component. Because I don't think today's action addresses that outstanding issue, at least in perhaps substantively it helps. That's what we still have procedure. We need to return to that, I believe, right? I think that's fair, just so everyone knows what we're talking about. There's a couple of references in different parts of the law to the Interstate Horse Racing Act of 1978, which is a federal law, discussing certain signals and the like. And we're just attempting to wrap our arms around that issue. So I would agree that that would certainly benefit from future discussion. But I think for today's purposes, we're okay. Good. And so I'm just noting for our schedules, we do need to return to that and finalize that work. And today's a good reminder. And thank you, Commissioner Stiner, for that. Okay, so I know that Crystal's hearing this and, and Todd, you'll circle back with Crystal more fine time to do that piece of business. All right. So now moving to the Plain Ridge Park request concerning of the account wagering. Again, as part of their racing license application, they included Exhibit 29, which stated their account wagering company. It's Hollywood Races. And this was approved on the, in October of 2016. Originally Plain Ridge had their own in-house account wagering company. And when Penn came in, they eventually moved over to Penn's account wagering company. And they've been doing this since, well, I think it started in 2017. It was approved in 2016. By the time it got up and running was, so this is just to approve this account wagering. And again, I've included the wording about the Greyhound Racing in there. Yes, this memo is on page 45. I'm catching up here. So, and again, if you, as you noted, Alex has included the proper chapter. Thank you for that. So any questions for this unique action from us today on this? Yeah, so I do need to vote on that. Yep, I move that the commission approved Plain Ridge Park's request for approval of their account wagering through Penn ADW, LLC, DBA, Hollywood Races, using the eBeck Technologies platform listed as Exhibit 29 in their application for a license to hold or conduct a racing meet in 2023. And specifically further that Penn ADW, LLC, DBA, Hollywood Races, not accept wagering in Massachusetts on Greyhound Dog Racing after July 31, 2023, consistent with Chapter 128A, 128 of the Acts of 2022. Thank you for that, commissioners. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you. Any questions? Okay. Commissioner O'Bronnan. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. Commissioner Maynard, I didn't quite hear. Hi. Okay. Thank you. And I, sorry. Yeah, 5-0. Thank you. That was me, my end. Thank you. Okay. Then Director O'Toole, are you all set for today's business? Yes. Yes, Madam Chair. Thank you very much for the positive votes. Okay. Happy holidays. If I don't see you again, but I wouldn't be surprised that somehow we still have some more business to tend to before the year end. Something always seems to come up, doesn't it? In a good way. Congratulations for today. And thank you for a great season. All right. Thank you, Steve. Dr. Leitham, I'll move on to Suffolk, because I see that we have some parties of interest, if you want. Yes. Thank you so much. We have Michael Buckley, the new COO of Suffolk Downs is on and Bruce Barnett, as you all know, Bruce for many years, representing Suffolk. And we can go out of order again on this, and we can start on page 49 of the packet with the simulcast import signal approval. Okay, we'll do the imports, right? So with no live racing, Suffolk isn't doing an export. Exactly. So they're looking for their simulcast import locations. Any questions for our guests or for Dr. Leitham on this big request regarding the import simulcast? And again, on this one on my recommendation, I did split the signals out between the horse signals and the greyhound signals consistent with the acts of 2022. Thank you. And again, that's on page 49. We have anyone who wants to move formally. So the only question I have is we did one of them as we did one through July 31. And this one says until August 1. Is there a difference there? No, I think that wouldn't be deemed to include August 1, right? Right. Now, I think when I did the first memo, I hadn't looked at the actual wording. And then in the second one, I use the actual wording. Okay. So the actual wording is until August 1. What about the statutes? The the statute imposes a new section into good morning, Madam Chair and Commissioner action. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. I'm sorry. I'm so used to it being the morning. The statute inserts a new section into chapter 128c. And has us provision that says the section of the special act that does the insertion takes effect on August 1st, 2013. We would read an approval until August 1st, 2013, 2023 to end on July 31st, as with the other one, if that helps. That's on page 54 in the packet. The very last sentence of the act is the part that indicates the date that goes into effect. The beginning of that is right in the beginning of the acts of 2022, where, as Bruce mentioned, it makes an insertion. Right. So whether it's through July 34 or until August 1st, in either event, once you get August 1st, it's no longer authorized. Right. And I'll use the wording in the statute and my letters going out to the tracks saying that they've been approved for simulcasting. And I'll put, I'll use the actual wording of the statute on the greenhouse. Yeah, I just wanted to make sure because we had through 31 and then until one, but they're meaning the same thing. So consistent with the statute. Do you want to take a stab at a motion? Madam Chair, I have it. I don't know. Commissioner Hill was leaning in ready to go. Leaning in with a question and not knowing if this is the forum to have this discussion. But I think we need to be educated on exactly where these signals are going to be happening, as there was a couple of newscasts this morning, actually, showing that the development of the property where you currently are is no longer going to be an existent in the very near future. So I think at least as one commissioner, I'd like to know what's going to happen once the development starts and where it is that people are going to be able to go and place wages on your signal. Thank you, Commissioner. I haven't seen those reports this morning. But as the commission might recall, the licensee that's before you sold the real estate of the property in 2017 to a development company. They have been developing the property in phases since then. They began, as I understand it, in the sort of the reviewer side of the property and are doing piece by piece. We have a, we're a least tenant there. Our lease is recently extended for at least through 2023. And it is, as you say, at some point, we will have a situation where the building where anything is going to come down. And we're going to need to find a new home. And we will certainly be in touch with the commission before we move anywhere. But right now we don't have anywhere to go besides our current location.  We, we, we have a lease that's at least through 2023. And not knowing what the future holds, we would be, before we go anywhere else, we'll be back before you certainly. But I just don't want you to think I'm saying there's no way that a move might happen before the end of 2023. Understood. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I saw the same report this morning on the news. And what I learned was that there's some historic context. The reports were true. Commissioner Hill, who played first at something else? Which concert was it? Did you hear? No, I didn't. The Beatles. I bet Dr. Leitham knew that one fact. Okay. So thank you for the clarification on that. And I, Executive Director Wells were here. I think she would be able to report that Mr. Barnett has been communicating with her pretty regularly. So the question was fair, particularly that news report this morning, Commissioner. So thank you for the clarification. Anything else? I'm sorry, Madam Chair. I just, just to add to that, just so we're clear. And I'm not sure Commissioner Hill, if this is why you're asking the questions specifically, but there is legal significance attached to where Suffolk Downs is authorized to simulcast under the Sports Ways Ring Law. So that's a really important question you did ask. Right. And honestly, we want to be, today's, that's a topic of a conversation that's probably not marked up for the agenda. That's why I question if this was the forum to ask the question. But thank you, Mr. Barnett, for answering it. Thank you very much. We've got the clarification we need for today's purposes. Okay. Excellent. So Dr. Lightman, you're looking for emotion with respect to simulcast imports. And you've noted very carefully the notation around the greyhound in our, in our packet on page 49. Commissioner Bryan, do you want to help out? Sure. If all questions have been addressed. Okay. I moved that the Commission approved Suffolk Downs request for approval of their simulcast import locations for horse racing listed in the November 30th, 2022 letter pertaining to calendar year 2023. And that the Commission approved Suffolk Downs request for approval of simulcast import locations for greyhound dog racing also listed in the November 30th, 2022 letter, only until August 1st, 2023 consistent with Chapter 128 of the Acts of 2022, as included in the Commissioner's packet and discussed here today. Thank you. Okay. Any questions or edits? All right, Commissioner Bryan. Hi. Commissioner Dill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. Hi. And I go, yes, 5-0. Okay. If we can now turn to the premium free period, probably makes sense, right? That's on page 47 of the packets. Thank you. And this is very similar to what you just did for Plain Ridge, just different dates. They've designated from October 9th, 2023 through December 31st of 2023. And it does require a vote. And there's a letter from Mr. Buckley. Thank you, dated November 30th on page 48 to support this. Any questions for Mr. Buckley or Mr. Burnett on this? Okay. You need a formal action from us on this free period. Yes. Can I have a motion? Madam Chair, I move that the Commission approve Suffolk Down's request for a 2023 premium free period as included in the Commissioner's packet and discussed here today. Second. Thank you, Commissioner Skinner. No point. Any further questions on this? Okay, Commissioner Bryan. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. Hi. And I vote, yes, 5-0. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Buckley, for your letter of support. Then returning to the three, the approval of the account-leadering providers that I just want to point out that we also have chat board here. So thank you again for your work on these matters. Alex? So on page 55 of the packet, you'll see the memo regarding Suffolk's ADW request and the letter from COO Michael Buckley requesting it. And all of these are ones that have been approved by the Commission in the past, except for Caesar's race book. This is very similar to what the Commission approved last year with BED-MGM. Both are using the Naira Betz backend, so to speak. And so Naira Betz was approved several years ago. We haven't had any incidents with those. And again, it's similar to what even before that TVG and FanDuel did. It's going to be interesting. There's a lot of interest now with sports wagering. The sports wagering companies are looking for content, which is including horse racing. So there'll probably be many more of these different companies joining up together to provide content. And it benefits the racing because they get exposed to a whole other fan base, basically. If you have any questions as to how it works, there is a brief packet in our packet that describes it. And either Bruce or Mike could probably answer questions for you as well. I think the only thing I'm looking for clarity on, because I remember the BED-MGM discussion last year, we initially voted everyone through on ADW, came back on the BED-MGM. And just for sort of pointed distinction, because we're going to be discussing BED-MGM and Caesar's and the Not Too Distant Future, that the level of review that we have in this context is very different than the level of review that we have in either the gaming context or the sports wagering context. So I think maybe that bears stating as we're being asked to sort of vote on authorizing them to come in in this context. Yes. And part of my recommendation does include the fact that these companies are only being approved for horse wagering.  Right. But then even that has a different level of review than our other levels of review in terms of gaming. And sure, exactly. Commissioner O'Brien, I was struggling with how to raise this issue, but well, again, last year we recognized that there is a different level of review. And at least legal standards has been our statutory regulatory scheme. But I do think, and I've mentioned it earlier, and I know other commission mentioned it, Dr. Leipzig, there's an opportunity not only for the review of the statute, but the review of the policies of delegation that you rely on as well as regulations. And Dr. Leipzig has indicated there is going to be more interest. So I've asked, you know, after our period over the next couple of months of looking at and evaluating the applications of the force that restrict sports wagering and online sports wagering, that perhaps Commissioner Maynard joined Commissioner Hill in supporting Dr. Leipzig on this work. I know Commissioner Maynard expressed interest in looking at the regulations on horse racing. So ensemble casting, so there's an opportunity. And I know we've discussed how the statutory scheme is challenging. So there's a lot of work to the extent the commission can be helpful. With respect to the statute, that's great. But we also need to look internally at our regulatory scheme here. So right now, the level of review meets all of our standards, correct? Councilor Grossman. Based on the standards that are established, yes, it does appear that way. So thank you for that distinction, Commissioner Ryan. It's a work that needs to be done. I believe it will be a good time for us to reflect on it. So Dr. Leipzig, for today, you are looking for this approval of the account. Yes, I'm recommending the approval. And there is language in the packet as to if I can find it. Yeah, the recommendation that this does include mentioning about the Greyhound Racing vetting ending, and it does also talk about the vendors being prepared mutually during purposes only. And the expansion of Caesar's Facebook. So that's on page 56, if that's helpful. No, yes. It is on page 56. And we do need a vote of the commission on this. Do I have a motion? The only suggestion I would make, your recommendation, does the after July 31st, is it, it's the until August 1st is the language, the statutory language, right? And in my letters to the tracks regarding this, I'll use the language in the statute. You can use, the motion can include, can use that language if you'd prefer. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's, that's just to be consistent with the statute. I move the commission approved Suffolk Downs request for approval of Express Vet LLC. And is it First Vet? Yes. TVG, Twin Spires, Fan Dual Racing, Niver Betts, Bet MGM and Caesar's Racebook, is there advanced deposit wagering vendors for paramutual wagering purposes only? And that the above vendors not accept wagering in Massachusetts on Greyhound Dog Racing, or that they may accept wagering in Massachusetts on Greyhound Dog Racing only until August 1st, 2023 consistent with Chapter 128 of the Acts of 2022. As included in the commissioner's packet and as discussed here today. Friendly amendment. If, if we're going to be consistent with the statute, that language is until July 31st, 2022. But that's the statutory language. Okay. We're talking about 128, right? You're looking at, you know, I'm looking at page 53 of the packet. Thank you. Right. So it's toggled between the two. So whatever the statutory languages open to the amendment to make sure that it's that date, it's either the shall not accept after July 31st or shall accept only until August 1st, whichever is the statutory language. The Section 18 says that Section A1 shall take effect on August 1, 2023. Yes. But, but Eric talks about the authorization to conduct that language is until July 31, 2023. Can I make a suggestion? Yeah. Councilor Grossman, can you help us here? Because our, I mean, some of us are lawyers, but none of us are lawyers for the purposes of today. Yeah. I think if you read the two together, I think where you would land is that it includes July 31st. So you can, they can go on, they can do this on July 31st. And that's the last day. So what language should our motions all reflect? We could say through July 31st and ending on August 1st. And that's, and if you could just point us out to the language in our packet. Sure. It's on, as Commissioner Skinner mentioned, it's on page 53 and then the bottom of 54. And could you tell me what section please? Oh, sure. So the, the whole thing, if you want to kind of work backwards, if you look at on page 54 at the, the next to last line is Section 18. The actual effective date of the act. Right. That's the effective date of the whole thing. So that coincides with the idea that throughout they amended the dates of different statutes to run until July 31st. So I think clearly the intent is that it include the entirety of the month of July 2023 and end on August 1st. And just to clarify the language until July 31st, 2023 is in Section 17. So I think it's, it's fine to use either. But when I said, you know, when Commissioner O'Brien said be consistent with the statute, I understood her to mean the language in Section 17. Right. Because that's, that's pertaining to Suffolk in particular. The 17 pertains to Suffolk. Yes. Madam Chair, may I, with Mr. Rosberg's permission, maybe add something or hope to add something helpful. The Section 18 at the bottom of the second page of the statute is not an effective date for the whole act. It's an effective date for Section A1 of this particular session law. And Section A1 at the very beginning of the act is the section that inserts a new section into Chapter 128c that without mentioning any date just says effectively there shall be no wagering on dog races. And so there's no, across the licensees, there's no provision of the special act that says either as of August 1st or until July 31st. The until July 31st language in Section 17 relates to the perennial reauthorization of Suffolk Bounces authorization to be a racing meeting licensee and to conduct simulcast wagering. Yeah, I think that's a fair clarification. That's, that's right. It's not the entire act. It's just that one section up above. But I think the dates were intended to be read kind of together. They all are set to take effect at the same time, essentially. More or less. But that's a good clarification. Thank you. So the original language then is fine that I read in, right? Because until 8.123 or they shall not do it after 8.123. From my perspective, it's fine. But that's the least important one here. No, it was more of a question out to the other commissioners. But I appreciate, I appreciate your feedback. I'm imagining Mr. Buckley's thinking it's one day of business that we're talking about though. Let's make sure we're clear. And I guess what I'm saying is that always there can be clarity in a statutory scheme. But I, if I'm not hearing any objection, I think what we're hearing is until August 1 works. And so I withdraw my friendly amendment request. Right now, the August 1 is my birthday. I will have one year anniversary. And that's right. And we'll celebrate and we'll remember this discussion in the one day. But I think I really am going to, I am deferring to our legal counsel on this completely. I am not letting you know the interpretation. So I'm hearing that you are comfortable with until August 1. I second the motion, Commissioner O'Brien made. And on the record, I've got Councillor Grossman saying until August 1. Yeah, I think everyone understands, right? It's like, you know, beginning on August 1st at the, you know, 12 o'clock 1 a.m., they cannot accept Greyhound waiters. At midnight at 12 o'clock 1. At the stroke of midnight. At the stroke of midnight. Commissioner O'Brien. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. Hi. And I felt yes. Thank you. And Dr. Leitham, thank you for your good work on bringing this section into play. All right. So that's all of our business for Suffolk Downs today, correct? Yes, that's correct. Thank you very much, Commissioner. Thank you, Mr. Buckley and Mr. Burnett, and happy holidays if we don't see you. And again, I wouldn't be surprised that I just mentioned to Director O'Toole to see you, but just to thank you. Thanks again. Thanks. Okay, then we're going to turn to Rainham Park. And they have just the import as well. And I see, Mr. Rodriguez, good. So we have Sue Rodriguez, the assistant general manager, and I believe Joe Capucci, their controller is also on. And again, as you said, they just have the simulcast import signals. And they have their list of sites. And again, similar to what we've done with the other two tracks, my recommendation is to approve the horse signals for the year and the Greyham signals until August 1st of 2023. And it does require a vote. Are there any questions? I'm just looking at the page of your memo on the import of cases, page 60. 63, correct? Yeah, 63. Do I have a motion? No. I move that the commission approve the Massasoit. Rainham's request for approval of their simulcast import locations for horse racing. Listed in the December 1st, 2022 letter for calendar year 2023. And further that the commission approved Massasoit Rainham's request for approval of simulcast import locations for Greyham dog racing. Also listed in the December 1st, 2022 letter. But in that sense, only until August 1st, 2023 consistent with the December 1st, 2022, all as included in the commissioners packet and discussed here today. Any questions? Okay. Commissioner O'Brien. Hi. Hi. There's the mayor. Hi. And I vote yes. So now our last piece of business for Rainham. It's the account wagering provider. Yes. Rainham's been using their own in-house account wagering. It's called dial to bet. And they use us off track. As basically they're wagering phone service when a. Patron. That's, they call an 800 number, which goes to us off track. And they input it into the Rainham system. They've been doing this since basically account wagering came into the state. I think it was back in around 2001. So this is on page 69. Again, Dr. Lightdown does acknowledge the, the piece around the Greyham dog racing. Do I have a motion? Yes. For any questions on this. And it's nice to see you. Coming in at the end of the discussion. Makes it a little bit. A little bit simpler, but. There are no questions. We'll take a question. I move that the commission approved massive. Rainham's request. For approval of dial to bet and us off track LLC. For account wagering. As listed in their December 1st, 2022 letter. And further that dial to bet facilitated by us off track LLC. Be directed not to accept wagering in Massachusetts on Greyhound dog racing after July 31st, 2023. Consistent with chapter 128 of the acts of 2022. All is referenced in the commissioner's packet and further discussed here today. Thank you. Thank you. And questions. Hey. Mr. O'Brien. Hi. Richard Hill. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. That's five zero. Thank you. Dr. Like that is. That's through a lot of business today. Important business. So thank you. Thank you. Ms. Rodriguez and then happy holidays to you. In case we don't see you. Thank you so much. Yeah. Thank you. All right. So now we're moving on. To item number five on today's agenda. And we have both. Director Vandal in it and. Dr. Andrews Bonnie. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Madam chair and commissioners. Happy Friday. Yes, I'm joined by. Dr. Andrews who I believe Bonnie or wrapping up week. Three of your time with the commissioners or weekly. Four at this point. I remember. Okay. She's muted, but that's. I think it might be weak for her. Good afternoon. It's wonderful to be here. Thank you. So we bring to you today. Two research plans. That are included in the. 2022 act. Regulate sports wagering. And chapter. 23 in. The first is a research study examining the feasibility of allowing retail locations in the Commonwealth to operate sports, wagering kiosks. And the second is a research study on the participation by minority business enterprises, women business enterprises. And veteran enterprises in the sports, wagering industry in the Commonwealth. Following feedback and approval by the commission. The research and responsible gaming division is prepared to deliver these to the joint committee on economic development and emerging technologies. As required by. By December 31st. We welcome any discussion and feedback you have. You might be helpful for you to just walk through. The height. The height points of your. Certainly. So, well, let's start in chronological order. So the, the first is the research study. On the feasibility and impact of sports, wagering kiosks and retail locations. So. To highlight off the bat, this would be a prospective study. So we would be looking at the feasibility. Of offering. Kiosks at retail locations. And. So. Well, let's start in chronological order. So the, the first is the research plan for a prospective study on the feasibility and impact of sports, wagering kiosks and retail locations. So. We wanted to just get a general sense of where this is. Currently available in the US. And so. With the help of being from the legal division and Bonnie. We did some preliminary research on, on this issue. As it relates to, to other states. And we found. We also found out that there were nine states, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Montana, Ohio, and Washington DC that allow kiosks. And non gaming settings. So that would certainly be an inspiration for us to continue. To, to explore this. We include, and I won't read through these, just a number of. Research questions that we believe should be considered. Of note, I think is the. Impact on lottery. And so this actually came up back in the meeting. In August with treasurer Goldberg who had indicated that she was interested in the specific studies. So. Bonnie and I met a couple of weeks ago with. Lottery executive director Mark. Bracken. Emily. Not going to get her last name. Correct. I'm not sure. I don't know if it. How tonic. And Alberto. And Zola from the lottery to make sure that their questions, their, their interests in the study were addressed. And I believe this was actually also shared with ABCC to. To get it any feedback on that. We are in. There's a number of ways that this, this study can be explored. This study is a source of information about how, how we can help. In this study, there's a number of. Do sports, wagering kiosk. Much like. Any form of gambling. We have, we have concerns about how it impacts and what measures should be in place to protect vulnerable populations, including those who are currently under, under the legal gambling age. We're. Again, much like the rest of. impact the current black market, what will the cannibalization be on existing casinos and or sports wagering availability in the state? So as we unfolded this, we made sure that we were addressing each requirement that was outlined in section 20, but also we expanded upon that stuff. So that's a brief summary of section 20. Commissioner Hill. Mark, did this include veteran facilities or organizations or just restaurants and things of that sort? Bonnie, did you recall whether or not we're... It came out, I believe, but did we capture that in here? I don't think it was part of the legislation, but I was wondering if on our own we took a look at that, because that's a big issue or has been a big issue. Well, at one point it was going to be a statutory provision, Commissioner Hill, but I think it is separate from this. It doesn't appear that we captured that, but that's a really interesting point, and we would be happy to include, I assume, veterans organizations only or fraternal organizations, if wanted both. Well, I think both actually, but the more important subject is the veterans organizations, as that has been talked about a lot up in the legislature, and as the chair mentioned, it actually in one version of the bill would have included them in allowing them to have slot machines and things of that sort. So I think it's important if we can, even though it's not in the legislation, we should take a little bit of a look at it. Very good. We would be happy to include a specific point on that topic. And Madam Chair, if I can add one more thing? One thing we want to remember, too, Commissioner Bryant, can you remind me, did Jamie Christian send any correspondence to the legislature around that topic? Remember, I think we had one send a short letter to the legislature on that. I think we did. It's just something to check on there, and I know that probably, if we were to look at that, I.e., we would be interested as well. Okay. I'm sorry, Madam Chair, could you repeat that point? I want to make sure that we're following up on that. I'm not sure, but when the proposal that Commissioner Hill just referenced, so the commission may have made a decision to file a letter on that particular provision. That's my memory as well. Right. And did it pertain more than to kiosk for sports weight during Commissioner Hill? Was it just slot machines in general? I think it was slot machines is my memory of the letter we sent over. That's my thought. And I believe that was the discussion in the legislature. However, I've heard some of these fraternity and some of these organizations now would maybe like to be able to have a kiosk where you could place it. So, which leads me to my next question, which is, as you do these reports, are you going to be sitting down with restaurateurs themselves and people of these organizations? How are we going to move forward with it? Because I've gotten a couple of calls, not a lot, but a handful who really want to be part of the conversation because they're very interested in this possible ability to have a kiosk. But the lottery thing is something that really does concern me because it would absolutely take some business away from the lot of these for sure. So under study requirements, Commissioner Hill, we do state that the applicant or the research team should consider multiple sources of information, including key informant interviews, economic reports, and data. I would put that under key informant interviews, though we can be, you think we should be more specific, we could certainly be more specific. Well, maybe we could reach out to like the restaurant associations and things of that sort instead of maybe going into a restaurant or, but they have associations, I think that would give you great information on this. Another data point on that, too, Mark, based on our conversation yesterday with E.B.H. was, you know, they're planning on putting certain kiosks in where they have Kino and they say they can base by machine what the frequency is and whether they're decreasing play or not. They may move their sports kiosk if it's negatively impacting the Kino. So some of that statistical information that we might be getting from our category one licensees may be relevant also to impact on the lottery. Okay, great. Another question in terms of akin to what Commissioner Hill just said, which is I'm assuming also the input from, say, I.E.B. in terms of the ability to oversee the integrity of those kiosks and then also from a public safety's perspective. In number seven, you talk about crime related impacts and safety, but there's a sub point that focuses on consumer protection and age restrictions. But I'm also thinking about, you know, they can't use credit cards on these, so it's going to be a cash business. And so you're going to have other public safety concerns with people. I think we just got alerted to some people that got their they're deemed heavy hitters in other locations and people basically track them down and then jump them and try to get the cash on the way out. And so I have other sort of more traditional public safety concerns, too, about where these might be that I just want to make sure is being captured in number seven. So I think the first that you mentioned, Commissioner Bryan, is a big is an important one is is as we are the the experts. I think we you need to also be looking at I.E.B. for guidance is to have all the integrity piece is that right. It was called to us for oversight. So yeah, I'll spread around across the Commonwealth. There would be the ability to do a really good job on maintaining integrity, security, surveillance. Right. Now that's a very good point. And then, and then, of course, with that, you know, Executive Director Wells is not here, but the costs associated with that, right. So I see so many opportunities for economics just to be an economic driver for the businesses. And then there's a part of me as the regulator to say to remind everyone that that would come with challenges and with the right resources would rise to the occasion. Right. That's a good point. Okay. Thank you. This is really helpful. Others other thoughts, but this is going to be submitted to the legislature as kind of a placeholder to understanding if we knew we were an accelerated timetable, you have a great smoking document. And then the RFP will launch into the new year. Right. Correct. We anticipate that there will be a competitive procurement for this study that would be launched in January. Since this is a prospective study, so we're able to launch this in advance of sports wagering launching in the common law. And I want to just point out the last point. I appreciate that in terms of the diversity component, which I know I mentioned, and we want to make sure that we don't somehow otherwise inadvertently impact communities of color. So I appreciate the intentionality there. So thank you. I have a question. Mark, should there be a specific question around access to these kiosks by individuals who are on the VSC list? Or is that kind of just understood as part of the responsible gaming response, you know, just as part of, you know, the fact that the study is being conducted by you folks. I ask because we heard a lot about the sort of anonymous nature of these kiosks. So just wondering where that hit mental, the proposal. Perhaps it could come under seven if you expanded it a little bit better and a little bit more consumer protection around each. Yeah, I think that maybe that could be a sub bullet under there. You might need to just reframe a number. I'm sorry, but of all of the the things that we would fail to include in that, that one's the most embarrassing to me skinner kind of the overarching, you know, thing that you would look at anyway. But that's going to be added. Yeah, fair. So top of mind that it is skate. It's I don't think you should be embarrassed by that at all. But I saw that with the age earlier and Chris was there. Thank you for making sure that we include it. But it doesn't have to be in seven, but that might put anticipated security safety and potential crime related impacts. But it's more it's a billion RG. Anything else? Madam chair, I wouldn't change the draft any, but I am interested on the parameters of question three, because thinking about Commissioner Hill's point as so much that a veteran's organization is running a retail location.  Are we talking, you know, it's easy to go automatically to a sports bar or a, you know, something like that. But are we talking gas stations?  Yeah. Something that I'm thinking about. Right. And number one, we say existing sports wagering market on retail, retail establishments that serve alcoholic beverages on premise, such as restaurants and bars. I thought we included a piece in here about locations that don't serve alcohol. But we can, you know, it dons on me that maybe the term we, we move forward with kind of defining with without truly defining retail locations and the breadth of what that may include. Bonnie, does that make sense? You know, so and that certainly includes, you know, veterans organizations, maybe fraternal organizations, you know, convenience stores or for gas stations, retail locations that serve alcoholic beverages, then do not serve alcoholic beverages. Yes. Because I believe the legislation just referred broadly to retail locations. And it didn't give any definition. No, I don't believe it did. I think it was quite broad. So I guess in terms of next steps for this specifically, I think we built in a little bit of a buffer so that we can make these types of revisions before and bring it back to you at a commission meeting in the next couple of weeks, so that we can still have this delivered by December 31st. So. Okay. Then I'll set on that. I'm all set. Okay. And you're not taking, we don't need to have any final action on that. Just got some good input, right? Right. I guess we will take all of this input at a meeting in the not too distance future. When we bring it back, the commission is satisfied that you've met your questions and requests. Then it seems like there would be a vote to press it forward to the legislature. What's the deadline? December 31st. Excellent. Okay. So you'll coordinate with Crystal on that just to make sure we get retirement. Okay. Definitely. Thank you. Yes. Okay. Then we're moving on to it's section 25. And so similarly, we wanted to provide some context and do some background work. And so Bonnie pulled together a section looking at the global and national context of examining diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives across the gaming industry. Before I go too much further into this, this is a study that as it's worded, requires it to be launched after the sports wagering industry has been established in the Commonwealth. And so while the kiosk study can be a prospective study, this will require delay before we would procure this. And the exact timing of that, the desire would be that, you know, the industry would launch, there would be a time for it to settle and then a study like this would launch. So I think that if we were to include it in the research agenda for fiscal year 24 would be an appropriate timeframe. Fiscal year? Fiscal year. Fiscal year. So after July 1st. By the year? July 1st, 2023. So that would be fiscal year 24. Richard, how do you build up that? After just after not demonstrating any consistent trends or anything like that? Everybody comfortable with that interpretation? Okay. And so with that said, we similarly outlined a number of research questions that we would wish to examine, making sure that we met the statutory requirement for this specific study. And those are included for you beginning on page three of the proposal. I'm sorry, we didn't include page numbers on that, but the research questions began there. And this is the scoping document for this is a little bit less, but there are three broad categories of research questions. One is what is the participation by minority women and veteran owned businesses in the Commonwealth and activities related to the regulation, licensing and promotion of sports wagering? What is the level of participation for these groups for sports wagering licenses, licensees and employers? And what is the level of participation with businesses that contract or provide services to sports wagering licensees and employers? And Bonnie, I don't know if there was anything else that you wanted to add, perhaps through the literature review that you had done or the background that you had done? Really, that I just kind of did a scan of what kinds of research or current research I should say was out there in terms of looking at the industry more broadly. Although it was difficult to find things that spoke to sports wagering specifically is one thing that I noted in the literature review. And so the all in diversity project was something that relates to the industry generally speaking. I believe that Jill Griffin was involved with that project early on too. So I think the commission actually had some background in that crystal may have something to add on that. All right. I was training in here. I was in a hot one. We do we do work with all in and still and have for many years and we still do our all in index through them. We actually just received that and David Muldrew has actually had a meeting with them. So we have our own relationships ongoing several years now. So that's great. I heard that and queued in. Good. Yeah. They're looking at who's involved with that project and what they're focusing on I think could be really helpful in kind of scoping scoping this specific study. Yeah. Feel free to connect with me. If you I mean do you have you reached out to them or you're saying you already connected or you're intending to. Well we we did some background where we pulled reports that they had published and included findings from those and in this scoping document. Okay. Yeah. So we have direct relationships with Kelly and you can absolutely connect with them. She's great. So glad to hear that. We should definitely definitely coordinate with Crystal because Crystal has great history on that. So may I ask this might be a subtlety that I'm just not picking up on but is there a reason why the last couple of bullets don't reference veterans? Reference. The last couple bullets. Was it that the statute just not asked about veterans with respect to those particular points because above you do mention both veteran business enterprises as well as veteran employees but then the last two bullets. Oh, right. Yes. That was from the legislation. I wondered. Interesting, huh? And perhaps there's there's nothing stopping us from including that but that's what I wondered if it was right from the legislation. Keeping on Richard Hill's interest in mind there. All of us care about the veterans but you have raised that point and so which way dream would have been in place for six months? Yes. So by the time that we if this is part of the FY24 research agenda that was launched in the coming July there would be about well at the longest about six months but it's shorter than that if you're considering mobile. Right. Yeah. Any other questions or suggestions on that piece from Mark and Bonnie? Commissioner Hill, what are you thinking? All set? Looking forward to your work on this Mark and Bonnie. Yeah. Thank you Commissioner Hill. And I'm having a little trouble thinking about time frame being informative but the idea would be the research would be going on and to the extent you needed more time to assess than the study would extend out. Right. I'm sorry just to be clear. So if we if in July we begin the procurement process we would likely be able to have this study launched late summer late summer. You're going to get closer to at least three quarters of a year versus a year. Got it. Right. Okay. And then you know the study is is pretty expansive so you would want to give enough time for it to for the research team to do to do with do the analysis and write up the report. So it would be a study that I mean very rough ballpark figure of probably near the end of fiscal year 24. So June of 24 would be when we would be looking at a final report coming to commission. Thank you. Anything else commissioners? Mark and Bonnie on this early afternoon? Okay. So you don't need formal action. It's a and I think you're all set then on this piece of work. I know that when we first saw this mark it was a challenge to think about how we could report. I think the legislature will be pleased with with this and we'll look forward to the actual submission and we'll put that on our our calendar for so that we can make sure it's currently set up. Right. I actually think that we had we had another meeting identified where we can bring it back but we can we can certainly meet that I think we're still in very good shape to meet the deadline. Excellent. I feel that commissioners don't you feel that we've we've addressed that burden that statutory obligation. Okay. Well done. Well done. Thank you. Thank you all. Have a good weekend. You too. Thank you Bonnie. Have a good weekend. Thank you. You too. Thank you. Okay. Then we'll turn to any commissioner updates besides the one that's on our agenda. We'll turn first to Crystal. Crystal as if Crystal hasn't had enough on her plate and I can express that there's a lot of late night around the clockwork. My favorite was Crystal texting to say oh my goodness I am here and I exaggerate. Six a.m. and my aunt is locked. Yeah. I thought I was prepared on Monday but we got the door unlocked so we can come in for a specific week. Anyway I want to just say a big thank you to Crystal for and and and for those of you who haven't yet met Brianna she is here today which is nice and she is working right now in the temporary capacity to help Crystal.


The Education and Culture Committee have published a unanimous cross-party report saying that we want to see much more decentralisation of decision-making power, commissioning power and budgets as well from the BBC nationally to BBC Scotland, because we want to see a successful, sustainable, creative industry sector here in Scotland by having that decision-making power, money and commissioning. I think we will not only help BBC Scotland, but we will grow into a successful sector here in Scotland.