We're good. Good morning, everyone. Thank you. Today is October 20th. Thursday and we are convening a Massachusetts gaming commission meeting and we're doing so virtually. So I'll take a little call. Good morning. Commissioner. Good morning. I'm here. Good morning. Commissioner Hill. Good morning. Present. Good morning. Good morning. Commissioner Skinner. Morning. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. And good morning. Good morning. Good morning, commissioner Maynard. Good morning, madam chair. I am here. Excellent. And we're calling today. Public meeting a number 398. So a bit of a countdown going on. We'll keep track of that. And I understand that we are going to have. attendees today. So I'm checking to see who is on. Thank you. I know that we're going to have an announcement of introduction of a new member, but before, so I just want to provide a few comments to set today's stage. Allow me. I want to start off this public meeting with the recognition of our team here at the MGC. Since the governor signed this bill into law, and even before, the team at the MGC has rolled up their sleeves and got to work on implementing this new charge, all while continuing to do their day-to-day work at an acceptable level. We've acknowledged that at our recent meetings that there is continuing work as we continue to regulate the casino game industry. Every day, they are making personal sacrifices as true public servants. On October 7th, we issued a scoping survey. And I want to get this right for applicants and ask that those intending to apply for an operating license return these surveys by this past Monday. Nearly 30 operator surveys came into the commission, and I know we will be discussing this a bit later in the meeting. This level of interest in sports wagering licenses demonstrates what I've been saying in past meetings, that the Commonwealth sports market is an exciting one. It also means that there is a great deal of work to accomplish, from reviewing the suitability of the operations and financials of these prospective operators, continuing the regulatory process necessary to stand up sports wagering. Unconfident, and I know my fellow commissioners join me in saying this, that this team will complete this work without compromise to the integrity of the process that the public has come to expect of gaming in Massachusetts. Furthermore, the MGC will complete its work upholding firmly our commitment as a commission and agency to delivering the strongest consumer protections to the benefit of the residents of the Commonwealth. Throughout the course of this process, we will continuously update the public on this work during these meetings and through other means to maintain transparency, and we will need the cooperation of all of our applicants to be able to bring the level of transparency the commission and public expect and demand. I'd also like to thank all the companies that submitted their scoping surveys by deadline. We appreciate your interest in operating in Massachusetts. The Massachusetts Gaming Commission looks forward to learning more about each perspective, excuse me, each perspective, it's a throwing issue and I want to get it right, my apologies. Massachusetts Gaming Commission looks forward to learning more about each perspective applicant and this is the part I wanted to get right as we begin to review the applications which are due by November 21st. So I wanted to make sure that I get the application date right November 21st. So again, we look forward to to those submissions as that application date approaches. Okay, so now before we get started on the minutes, I want to turn it over to Director Lilios who has an introduction. Good morning Chair, good morning commissioners, and I actually want to make sure that Caroline has joined the meeting. I was looking, that's who I was looking for. I don't see her, could I come back because I think it's important that she be on. Yeah, that's exactly why I was stalling a little bit, Director Lilios, so I didn't see her. So we'll wait and when she joins, if she joins, we'll make sure to have that introduction. She will and thank you so much. Thank you. My apologies, we're just navigating a few last minute things. All right, not that Kara is the last minute thing at all. She's her new chief of licensure and we are very excited to bring her on board. But now I'll turn it over to Connection Health. Madam Chair, I would move that the commission approve the minutes from the March 31st, 2022 public meeting that are included in the commissioner's packet subject, tending necessary corrections for typographical errors or other non-material matters. Second. Everyone had a chance to read them. Okay, Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Commissioner Skinner. Aye. Commissioner Maynard. I abstain. Okay, and I vote yes. So forward, yes. One abstention. Thank you. Then moving on to Executive Director Wells and the sports wagering process updates, and we're excited about our first guest. Thank you. And good morning. I think we were going to do the casino update with the Assistant Director Band first. Oh, my apologies. Yeah, no, that's fine. So I'll start with Bruce and then we'll go over to Kevin. Okay. Morning, Madam Chair, commissioners. Update today will be quick. I'll start with MGM. They're nearing completion of the new coffee shop called Roasted Bean, which be completed in the near future. On October 8th, they hosted a classic car show. Every Saturday, MGM hosts a poker tournament in their poker room. PPC offers entertainment in the Revolution Lounge on Fridays and Saturdays. They've been having horse racing four days a week throughout October, and that will change to having a line racing three days a week in November with the final day, the day after Thanksgiving. Remaining in October, they still have one big promotion. It's called the Spooky Sweep Steaks, which all you have to do is insert your player's card in the machine. You don't have to play to be eligible for it. That is on October 28th. Encore now is operating their poker room daily from 10 a.m. to 4 a.m., and they're adding the nine tables, which should be in the room by the end of this month, and that will bring them up to 24 tables. I have one other announcement. This fiscal year, the gaming agents helped the Department of Revenue retrieve $3,601,569 in unpaid taxes and child support payments. That's over $3.6 million for this year. Last year, as you recall, it was $3.4 million, so it was an increase of $200,000 this year. Any questions? Questions for Bruce. I'm sorry, Madam Chair, thank you. Bruce, is that fiscal year or calendar year? Fiscal year. That's Y-22. Thank you. You want to just go over that number one more time, Bruce? I know that the public is interested in that. Yeah, so it was over $3.6 million, but the exact number was $3,601,569.28, to be exact, and those are through the jackpots where we would check to see if they owe unpaid child support or back taxes. And our team works on incorporation with DLR on that, Bruce. Great. Any questions on that issue for fishers familiar with it? No questions, Madam Chair. Just a big congratulations and great job. Thank you. This is a great job. Thank you. Thank you. Go right ahead, Director. So the next item under the sports wagering process updates, it's really just an introduction of Kevin Mullally from GLI and just an opportunity to welcome him to our team as we launch sports wagering. Introduce him to the commission and just give you an opportunity to have any questions. Kevin is the Senior Vice President of Governor Relations and General Counsel at GLI, and he is the Chief Legal Officer and responsible for all risk management policies for the company, as well as supervision of all outside attorneys and consultants. He was the Executive Director at the Missouri Gaming Commission, so he has extensive experience in gaming and regulation. And also of note, because the Massachusetts Gaming Commission has such an interest in responsible gaming, he was the Board of Directors of the National Center for Responsible Gaming from 2001 to 2015. In addition, he was also on the Board of Trustees of the International Association of Gaming Advisors. He's currently on the Board of Trustees of the International Association of Gaming Advisors. He's also chaired the National Council of Problem Gambling's responsible gaming committee from 2001 to 2019. So GLI, I'll let Kevin tell you a little bit more about GLI. But as you know, GLI is an independent testing laboratory, but they do more than just the testing and equipment. They do provide services to not only operators, vendors, but also regulators across the country. For us, this experience in assisting regulators stand up sports wagering is going to be invaluable. They're going to be assisting us with writing rules and regulations, review of internal controls, and testing platforms. So it's going to be very helpful to us as we go forward. So I just wanted to introduce Kevin, let Kevin tell you just a little bit about the company and what they can provide to the Massachusetts Gaming Commission and just give you an opportunity to say hello and also just ask you many questions that you may have. I'll turn it over to Kevin just to say hello. Thank you, Karen. I appreciate the opportunity to be here. Good morning, Chair Judd Stein and commissioners. Chair, I think you weren't on yet when I was explaining this is the last day of my annual think week. So I ran a farmhouse every year. This one's on 200 acres, I think, near Marceline, Missouri, the boyhood home of Walt Disney. And just go out there by myself and try to reset and focus on strategic and other issues. So no disrespect, but I am wearing my Harvard hoodie. In other appearances, I'll have a proper business attire. I have a long history with the commission. I always enjoy working with you. It goes back to the formative days when the commission had just been appointed. We partnered with them to help stand up the original staff and some of the initial policies and procedures. We periodically checked in again on issues relating to responsible gaming, fantasy sports, and whenever you've called upon us, we've enjoyed the work. And particularly, we love working with your staff. We work with gaming regulators all over the world and you should be very proud of the special team you've attracted there. They're smart, they're engaged, they work hard, they're easy to get along with. And so we're really looking forward to and already loving this engagement. We've spent the initial time where we were already pretty familiar with your regulations, but went through another review of those to make sure that we can pose the appropriate questions of how to incorporate the technical standards, how the technical standards might need to be tailored or modified slightly to fit the needs of Massachusetts. We're also working to review the timeline the staff has prepared and offer any additional steps that we may have seen from other markets and that will be forthcoming. And then we've also begun initial work on the internal control standards. In addition, we were fortunate to have Commissioner Skinner attend G2E. She was able to do a lab tour. She's been very engaged and asked great questions. Something that we haven't done in the past that we were doing in the process of doing is adding some explanatory notes to the technical standards so that you have a complete understanding of not only what risks that the technical standards are designed to either mitigate or what technology requirements they're designed to verify, but how that will be done. And so when we get around to the point where you'll be offered those to adopt, it'll be a very informed discussion. Beyond that, we're working with staff to figure out a process. I'm a big process person. I think you work on process before you actually start writing. And so we're working on forming a steering committee so that we make sure we have clear communication with every segment of your staff and that nothing gets missed in the translation or that all involved stakeholders are getting the information in a timely manner. And so I have a great team. I won't list them all today. You'll meet them in due time. We do plan to arrange for a few days in the office with the staff and commissioners as appropriate. I think that you can do a lot remotely, but I don't think there's anything. There are some things that are best done in person. And I think we're up to nine or 10 former regulators in the company. Not all of those will be working on this project, but a good handful of them have actual government regulatory experience. And the others have extensive industry, technical or legal experience that we think is relevant and brings a lot to the project. So I'm proud to be proud of our team as you should be of yours. I think together it'll be a great collaboration and we're looking forward to it. Thank you, Kevin. Can the commissioners ask questions, Karen? Yes, absolutely. Commissioners? Kevin, you stole my thunder. I wanted the opportunity to brag to my colleagues about my tour. No questions, but just wanted to thank you and your fantastic team for the hospitality. The tour was fantastic and I'm really excited about our engagement with you and your folks. I'm happy to report the team was excited to meet you and commented on the excellent questions you asked. I said, you know, a lot of people go on a tour and they just recede only, but they said it was very interactive and they really enjoyed the time they spent with you. Yeah, I had the benefit of having our in-house experts, Nathan Saylor and Christian Tavares with me. So we made a great team. That's great. And commissioners Skinner, I've had the benefit of also that tour earlier when I was able to come in between. Other commissioners, unfortunately, Kevin, just because of the nature of our work right now in front of us, weren't able to get to G2E this year and they were disappointed in that. It was not a lack of interest in getting to the tour. So I'm really hoping that Commissioner Hill, Commissioner Maynard, I know Commissioner O'Brien, you are interested in that lab visit because you were supposed to be with me when I didn't have a family in person. So again, commissioners Skinner, I'm glad that you were able to make it, but the other commissioners are certainly interested as well. Commissioner O'Brien. Yeah, I did. It's nice to meet you, Kevin. Your ears should be burning. I mean, people talk about you around here all the time and how great you are. Commissioner Skinner just confirming that I'm very excited that you're on board with our team.  And so I was, I was happy to hear you talk about bringing in your experience in terms of other steps from what you've learned in other jurisdictions and looking forward to hearing your input on that. So welcome to the team. It's nice to meet you virtually and hopefully on me too in person sometime soon. Thank you, Commissioner. And, you know, another side note on local connections. This is actually version two of my Harvard hoody. The first one was two years ago when I attended Malcolm Sparrow's week long seminar on strategic management of regulatory agency and risk control agencies. And that really formed the foundation for what I think about regulation and risk control and has guided me throughout my career. So I was very lucky. It came at an opportune time for me because I had been the deputy director in the Missouri Gaming Commission for the previous six years and had just been named director. And so I had enough experience to be able to ask some good questions. And Professor Sparrow is a brilliant man and I have every one of his books on risk control and grateful for the opportunity I was able to spend at Harvard. But the first version of this hoody didn't last 22 years. I'm glad you got another one. Yeah. So questions for Kevin as he begins the consultation that we're so eager to receive. Those services are going to be, as Karen said, invaluable. Commissioner Maynard. I just also wanted to take the time to express my gratitude to Kevin. And I did have the opportunity to use the greatest education tool we have today, Google, to look up your resume and background. And so it's going to be very, very useful as we go forward. So we appreciate you being here and just offering up any collaboration we can. I know that a lot of the interfacing will be with the staff, but I think I probably speak for all the commissioners when I say, you know, I'm happy to interface with you too and happy to engage with you during this process. So thank you for doing what you're doing and look forward to it. I appreciate that very much. And I do think the commissioners experience and guidance, you're there for a reason. You're all very talented and we're chosen for those reasons. And I think we will rely on that. You know, we know a lot about technology. We know a lot about risk control and policy. But what we've learned from these projects is there is no cookie cutter way to do this. There is no gold standard. I often get asked that question, well, who does it the best? We'll just do it like that. Well, they may do it very well, but they may have a very different environment and what they do may not work well for you. So and in order for us to fully understand that, we need to rely on local knowledge. So Kevin, in terms of when you come personally, certainly the commissioners will love to meet you. I know your time will be precious and you're going to want to, you know, really roll up your sleeves and get to work here. But certainly the commissioners will look forward to that interaction. And we also hope that you will be able to appear in front of other public meetings and give us the guidance publicly. But certainly meet and greets we are very, very, we're always looking forward to meet and meet and greets. So when you're on campus, you let us know, Karen. Excellent. Any other substantive questions? Okay, thanks for your time. And I have to say this whole one week of thinking. Pretty highly, highly good idea. Pretty good idea. I recommend it. No TV, no anything, just long walks and books and writing. What's the weather right now in Missouri? It's been chilly. I always say the weather will be what it needs to be for me during that week. And we've had incredible weather, but it's been in the high 40s, low 50s this week, which has been fine. It's kind of four speed and not to pay attention to what I needed to pay attention to. So it's been great. Congratulations. It's a well deserved week. Okay, thank you. And Kevin, I don't know if you're staying on, but you certainly are welcome to, but you may need to be doing some serious thinking. So I'm going to monitor it for a bit, but I'll go off camera. And I know our team will be is watching. So we've got a lot of eyes on it. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you, Kevin. All right. All right. So Madam Chair, the next item is the sports wadring bender regulation. They've been taken off the agenda. Karen, I didn't realize that yesterday that was a determination to move that to a future date. It's been put under review. Oh, okay. So we'll go right to the divisional updates. No problem. Thanks. Okay. So just with the divisional updates, Derek is doing the best procurement and then Katrina's out today. So really just talk a little bit about what the legal department's doing. I'll turn it over to Todd. But first I wanted to just talk a little bit about the IEB and Loretta Lillios, the director of the IEB's here. One of the first things we wanted to talk about was the scoping survey. So we did get, I believe, 29 scoping surveys in. So I'll turn it over to Loretta with what we're doing on that. And then we wanted to check in to confirm on the what the deliverables will be from the IEB at the different points in the expected process. So I want to turn it over to Loretta just the plan for the scoping right now. Thanks, Karen. And this will be very helpful because we had a bureau meeting yesterday and realized that we, the team is ready to go. The team is excited to be working on things. But we really need to confirm what the what the deliverables are. So as Karen mentioned, and as you all know, we have these scoping surveys that have been received. And by my count, in terms of that group of the untethered category threes, it's numbering in the 18. I think it's an 18 number. And I'd like to confirm what the IEB could be prepared to do and make sure that that's the deliverable that you that you want from us. So we've got these scoping surveys. We could be prepared to scope initially the entities on those scoping on those 18 plus a number of tethered that have been received. And that would be to identify first the entities that would be required to submit applications. There is the application deadline for that general application that is set at November 21st. And we would be able to look to have those BEDs for the entity qualifiers set the 21st is the accompanying deadline for those BEDs. In terms of your evaluation process, as you narrow down from the large group of the untethered to the up to seven untethered, we could at that point have the scoping for the individuals prepared it and direct a very quick turnaround for the multi jurisdictionals. That would require us to be in contact with these companies in advance, because they would, you know, likely need to be preparing those multi jurisdictionals in advance. That is a big lift, especially if there are people who have not gone through this process before, but where can be prepared to be having those ongoing conversations with them, set a short turnaround time for the multi jurisdictionals. And that would be in the event that you want something on the individuals like a criminal history check before you were to award a temporary license. At the BED level, to summarize what the IB would be prepared to do for the large group. It would be to summarize the self reported compliance litigation and license history, as well as provide a financial metric for comparative purposes for you. So it would be very helpful to me and to the team if we could get confirmation that that is in fact what you want. Karen, I'm going to turn to you first to just Lorena outline the process, which I believe you outlined for us when we were talking a couple of weeks ago about timeline. Just wonder if that's just with what you understand. Yes, it does. The initial phase where you are doing an evaluation of the untethered, you will get that information about the company. Then once we narrow it down or the commission narrows it down to up to seven, that's when we would look at the individuals that's just so we are not doing, so say there's 15 individuals doing 15 times 18, that's a lot of work that may not have to happen. As Lorena pointed out, the trick here is going to be to identify for the scoping for those companies and have a quick turnaround time for those multi-jurisdictional personal history disclosure forms because the time period where the IEB is doing that background on the individual of the untethered operators is the same time period where we are also doing that certificate of operations process. We have this 30-day-ish window for that to happen. In order for us to do that work, there has to be a quick turnaround time. My expectation is we get closer to that. We identify exactly what the commission's processes and where we can get that done. The ask is going to be that we have a quick deadline for that multi-jurisdictional form to be filled out. So we'll be in communication with those operators in advance to prepare them. One thing that we've mentioned before in public that has been done at least in New Jersey and probably in other jurisdictions as well as they will accept a multi-jurisdictional personal history disclosure form that's been submitted within the last year to another jurisdiction so they don't necessarily have to re-update it. That may save us some time and get that information to us more quickly. I'd recommend that we go ahead with that policy as well. But yes, this approach of the initial suitability on the corporate level and then once it's narrowed down, initial suitability on the individual level is what we discussed under the parameters that Loretta outlined. Just to be clear, the multi-jurisdictional forms that you're speaking about, they have to fill out the multi-jurisdictional forms for part of the application but not with respect to the system, the difference. So the suitability forms for gaming for background checks are the BEDs for the entity. So that gives you information about the company and the corporate information. So their litigation history that complies all that information that Loretta is going to compile for you. And then the individual multi-jurisdictional is for your corporate officers, members of board of directors, et cetera. So that's about their personal history, so their finances, their background.  So that's what we would rely on in that second phase. So my understanding is that the BED is absolutely due on the 21st at the same time as that general application form. If we are not necessarily going to have to scope all the applicants for the untethered operators, Loretta doesn't have to do that for the individuals right away because those forms aren't due till later. So that's where we're getting into a little bifurcation here. And Karen, if I can, I like the, I think the policy of accepting the multi-jurisdictional if it's been recently filed is, will be, will help us with our efficiency. With that said, we may need new fingerprint submissions from these individuals. You know, Heather just reminded me of that. Questions for Karen and Ra. So yeah, I, so I had voiced my hesitation in not doing any sort of open search on any sort of clearly identifiable individual qualifiers in that case. And we had talked about the fact that whether it was GLI or some other contractor might be able to pride some level of assistance in that. And I just want to know what the status that is in this process that it's been outlined. Eileen, I think we would be able to incorporate that especially given the anticipated scoping of the individuals, the way the statute's written, it's at a 10 percent in control. And I think the proposal from legal is for inside directors on this list as well. So that is a little bit narrower than we do on the gaming side. So I think we can fit that in between our existing GEU team and our contractor. Okay, and then where does that fit on that timeline? Is that before narrow to seven or are you anticipating that after we narrow to seven? After I anticipate that. So I do have to say that's that's an area that I am a little concerned about. I was hoping to get open source feedback on some of those before we narrow to seven. So that's just a concern that I raise. And another question I have is when you say short turn around time, what do you mean by short turn around time? Just so we're talking, you know, you have the BEDs do on the 21st with the application submission. And when you say short turn around, what are you envisioning for that? A week. A week. Okay. Brian's point on the first point because she did mention the open source. We used to have somebody on staff that did that. And we didn't fill that position. Would we have the information to do that open source work if we got attempt, that kind of work could probably be something that we could have if we needed additional hands, eyes, and ears have attempt in there? Or would we not have the individual scope out? That's what it is. That's what it is, Chair. You know, we can do our best to accelerate the scoping, but we need to scope to identify the individual. So the scope and survey that we did doesn't give us that. It gives us the universe and then we make the designations. And the plan that we discussed was a focus first on the entities and then the individuals. I can go back in and rework that. I don't want to open the promise. And I do think that that, you know, again, we don't know how many applications we'll ultimately get, but I do think that that may make sense from a resources point of view including for the companies themselves. I just wonder if there's some kind of a way to get to Commissioner O'Brien's concern. And then Commissioner O'Brien. Yeah, yeah, no. So when I raised it, there was a solution of some of the vendors we were bringing in via GLI or some of the others were going to be in a position to help with some of that open source. And so my question is, is there a way for them to be more involved so we get even a high brow open source review as we're trying to narrow down the seven? Yeah, and I think the actual open source review is something that we can easily do. I would need to rework my timeline on the scoping. And I just asked to report back to you even later this morning if on that, I don't want to over promise that without looking at it on the time. So Karen, the limitation on the scoping had to do with that November 21 deadline for the application and in particular the EVs. What we could do is give Lareva some breathing room because if you look at our timeline and what we're looking at, particularly for the tether, if you're evaluating, though, say in January or February, I forget what the exact date the window was, we can probably get that information to you before you make that final decision on the untethered without creating that compression for that November 21 deadline for Lareva. So that's the issue. It's the deadline for the application. Not having the individuals be part of the application allows us to have that earlier deadline. So if we can work through the schedule and figure out how to get you that information before you make the decision without extending the deadline. Right, that's my question. Is it doable? Yeah. So it'd be part of our evaluation process. It would be available then, but not before. Right, right. Right. Mr. Skinner, Krishna Garner, are you all set for right now? Yeah, I'm all set for right now. Okay. Krishna Skinner? Commissioner O'Brien asked a question. I heard Lareva's answer around the turnaround time a week, but what was the question? Along with the individuals have to submit their MJPHDs and mass supplements before or after they are designated by the licensing division. Okay. Just in my prior role, I'm very familiar with the scoping process under normal circumstances, but can you walk us through what the scoping process looks like under the expedited timeline? So we've prepared to have two teams working on this, and we would divide up the survey responses between the teams. Typically, there are internal meetings, external meetings, and then another internal meeting. We would expedite by relying on the submission with a telephone conference as needed. And in other circumstances, we've used the scoping process to really start to learn about the company, get to know about the company, establish relationships with the general counsel and executives. This would be a more streamlined process with a team made up of licensing, our new chief, our supervisor, and drawing on our financial investigations chief, our chief enforcement counsel, and myself. And will the team be communicating with potential applicants on a rolling basis, or are you conducting all of the scoping? No, we'll do it rolling. Okay. And should we be communicating specifically anything to prospective applicants around the expectation that the BED needs to be submitted for any of the entities that IEP designates? Is there something we can be doing to get on top of that? So these entities know what's expected of them as soon as possible even prior to the official scoping notification that they might get from IEP. I ask that because I'm concerned that there might not be enough time. If this even this truncated or expedited scoping process is going to take, say, two weeks, that's two weeks that these applicants are losing when it comes to the November 21 application deadline. That's a lot of time. So what active communication could we be making to these prospective applicants to sort of get started? I know Karen, we already spoke this morning about a meeting as soon as tomorrow morning. So Karen, I'll let you jump in. We lost your first words. Sorry, I turned away. Yes. So I think part of this, as you point out, is communication. And the advantage we have with these notices of intent and now scoping services, we have points of contact. So we will be not only are the applicants basically watching our meetings and hearing our conversations. We know they're very engaged, but we'll also be having that one-on-one conversation. I was hoping to schedule that as soon as possible. We have one with the category ones and their tethered operators for tomorrow. And then we'll do one with the untethered operators, basically all the category three. So they know the expectation. These companies should expect and they should know that they would need to fill out the BED. It's been discussed publicly repeatedly over many, many meetings. And most of these companies are aware of their corporate structure and it's not unfamiliar that they have to fill out these forms and what the qualifiers are going to be. It's not something new within Massachusetts. So I think it's a matter of letting them know this is the turnaround time for Karen advanced and we'll be ready to go. Yeah. Okay. That sounds good. The deadline for submission of the BED being November 21st, I wonder if we could sort of advertise that a little bit more clearly. For instance, I was on the website this morning, our sports wagering website, and it only made note of the actual license application being due on the application. Let's be really clear. Okay. I want to make sure that everybody, every applicant understands the components of the application. The prereq was the scoping, the BED. Can we go through the parts of the application? Maybe Todd, because I want to make sure it's clear it's not a separate component. If you want to go through the parts of the application. That would be helpful, Madam Chair. Yeah. Thank you so much, Commissioner Skinner. If I don't hear you, Todd. Oh, sorry. Can you hear me now? I can. I don't have that reg up. I'd have to work out for November. Karen, do you know the... I know. So the part, it's the scoping survey. We'll call it the general application form. The general application form incorporates by reference the BED and the multi-jurisdictional. The only thing we're dealing with here is that the multi-jurisdictional may have a later due date. So everything else is due on the 21st. It's part of the application and it's in the application itself. And that was my confusion. I guess I didn't know that we were deciding that it might be a later application deadline. That's all. Yes. Having a one week extension in assets, not giving them one week to do it, they would just... If they want to go ahead and do it now with the hope that they might get chosen, that would be probably really smart, right? If they haven't got one, they haven't filed one within the last year. But those are the components. The good news is the prereq, the scoping is done. Then the application, which is now our document that we developed, and then the two forms that most operators are going to be very familiar with, although they are extensive documents, but they are all part of the application. And to Commissioner Skinner's point, Mills, if there's again a point of clarification, we can say that certainly our regulation, Todd, should be like that? Yes, I believe it does. Okay. I have a question, Madam Chair. Before we post to the application, of course, Commissioner Maynard. Director Wells, is it true that every form, every component form of this application is available today on October 20, 2022? So anyone could get going on the application. Now, scoping is part of the designation, but there are certain things. For example, your CEO, your CFO, your general... These companies know who's going to have to fill out the forms generally. There may be some discussion around the edges, but they have a general idea of who's going to fill out the form based on general practice. So the follow-up question I have to that is, what you're saying is there's a baseline that's pretty much standard across the industry. There may be a situation where Loretta would go in and maybe include more people than they would anticipate potentially, but there is a standard. Correct. And those people have availability to this information may have already filled it out for other jurisdictions, as we're speaking. Correct. All right. Thank you. And the form has been up now. The application's been up since October mils. I don't know what day he first posted while we were collecting public comments. It went up that Friday after the public meeting. So that was October 14th. I believe so. All right. So does that help clarify Commissioner Skinner? It does. It does. And I'm really just making... I want to make sure that we're communicating as clearly as possible as accurately as possible so that we're not fumbling here. That's why we wanted to clarify it is part of the application. It's not separate in a part. BPD, it's not separate in a part. It is part of the application. This is really helpful to me and to my team. Director Lilios, are there other things that we could help clarify? I know we don't have it marked up for a vote, but so far I'm not hearing anything but a consensus, right, Commissioner Skinner? Yeah. Anything else that we can help clarify? No, this is great. Okay. So Karen, would you like to clarify to the applicants? Anything? Just that the BED is due the 21st and work with Loretta Lilios, the director of the IEB, with respect to individual qualifiers in the case of that. So how can they do that? Can they just reach out to Director Lilios? They can and they think they do. When she does the scoping with all of them, she's going to be meeting with them and they'll have the discussion. So they're going to have the one-on-one discussions with this. So that's why I'm not super concerned about their notice because there'll be an individual contact with the IEB. So yeah, so I just wanted to make sure that anyone who isn't as familiar with Director Lilios's office, they can reach you directly. Now that you've filed your scoping survey, that's my permission to do so. Okay, excellent. Alrighty. And then, you know, for the divisional update, the only other thing would be to, you know, for Todd to let you know what's going on there. And I know they have been in communication with GLI and that's been very helpful. And Todd, if you wanted to give the commissioners a brief update on what's been going on with regulations. Sure. Well, certainly, the development of the regulatory framework has been our primary objective at the moment. And that includes our collaboration with GLI. They're at the moment going to be focused on developing the technical standards we've talked about in the past, working on the internal control series that Kevin mentioned earlier, as well as the development of the sportsway during a specific type of regulation. So that is or will be shortly underway. As you know, from our discussion at the agenda setting meeting yesterday, there's also a series of regulations that we anticipate having prepared for your review next week. And in the coming weeks, including subject matters like suitability review, temporary licensure, investigation and licensing fees, license conditions, and matters of that sort. Of course, we've already developed the application regulations. And just to confirm what was discussed minutes ago, all of those documents are included in section 211 of the regs, the scoping, the BEDs, the multi-jurisdictional, and then of course the application form itself. So they are all part of the application process by regulation. So that that is covered. We will momentarily, later on in the meeting here, be discussing the evaluation process as well. So the framework is certainly well underway and coming into clearer focus on a weekly basis. And that is where we are right now. Excellent. Questions for Director Lillios, Director Wells, Councillor Grossman. Madam Chair, I don't have a question, but this is, I don't think it's a question anyway, but it might culminate that way. I know we're going to review the evaluation criteria regulations later in the meeting. But I think the regulations that we voted on in the past couple of weeks, 211, that talks about an extension of time to submit the application. I wonder, you know, when would be a good time to discuss what the criteria would be in granting an application for an extension of time to file? When is the right time to have that conversation?  So the seven days in between, whatever that turns out to be, we didn't have enough time. We don't anticipate that it will be enough time. How will we consider such a request? I believe that the regulation does something like section seven. Is it section seven? Maybe I'm wrong. Would give us some flexibility, but it's a commission decision and my mom? No, that's absolutely right. It's extraordinary circumstances, I think, right, John? Yeah, that's exactly right. I was just going to point out what you both just referenced, which is that in section 211, it's actually paragraph 10, as I'm looking at, it talks about the extension of the time for filing. And it talks about whether an application was in on time, or whether it was in past the established deadline. And that's when the extraordinary circumstances provision kicks in. Otherwise, the paragraph here talks about the commission's discretion and granting more time. So to your point, Commissioner Skinner, there are not specific criteria per se. It really just talks about discretion and the extraordinary circumstances provision that you referenced. And I guess my comment would just be, you know, to my fellow commissioners is that we should be sure to take into consideration IEB's timeline, you know, the response time in terms of communicating scoping expectations to these entities. And, you know, I have good faith that IEB will work diligently to process these scoping surveys and issue their designations, but I want to make sure that, you know, I note for the record that that may be a concern. If an entity, you know, feels that they just didn't have enough time, just given the back and forth between them and IEB, I want to be sure that we are acknowledging that that is an extraordinary circumstances, extraordinary circumstance that might warrant granting of an extension of time to file the application. Any other questions? Commissioner Skinner, you know, you've noted it for the record. It's not a matter before us that regulation is pending now. My understanding is that the regulation does allow the applicant in the event that they can't make a deadline to come to us with extraordinary circumstances should. Yeah, I don't think, I'm not suggesting we make any amendment to the application, to the regulation. I'm just simply noticing when, excuse me, I am requesting that when we are reviewing the criteria for approval that we take that into consideration the timing. Could you put that in your parking place so that we find us just to come in front of us? That would be really helpful. Right now we don't have that, and let's let's hope that it all works out and that applicants are able to make that one. But then we could revisit that. Madam Chair? No, in these times we don't know what could be an extraordinary circumstance. Commissioner Hill? Thank you, Madam Chair. And I just a little request to the legal department if I could. As you all know, I am not very good technologically when it comes to finding our some of the links to things that you have put out for us. So with that said, I know there was a Excel sheet that was put together at the beginning of this process to update us where we were with all the regulations, what was done, what was going to be done, things of that sort. And I would just respectfully request if we could see more updates within that Excel format so we know where we are and what we have done, it would be very helpful at least for this member. Katelyn, you came on? Yes, I think we can absolutely do that. We can send around an updated chart for everyone to see. Thank you. Excellent. Good idea, Commissioner Hill. Okay. Other questions for Todd, Loretta, and Cara. Okay. Director Wells? Thank you, Loretta. I hope that was helpful. Absolutely. And Kathy, I can introduce Cara. This would be the right time. This would be great. Thank you. Hi, Cara. So if anybody questioned how important the licensing division is to this whole process, the conversation we just had explains that. So I'm very happy to introduce our new licensing chief who started with the office on October 11. Caroline or Cara O'Brien joins us with a wealth of relevant experience. Most recently, she was the Executive Director for Licensing at the Office of Public Safety and Inspections. So she has a deep knowledge of licensing, which is very useful to us. She managed a team of licensing specialists. She was the business owner for a licensing management system, as she will be here. And she is well versed in the importance of the customer service aspect of this work, as well as the significance of efficiency in the work. At her prior position, she also approved continuing education programs for the licensees. And as you know, the gaming schools is something that our licensing division has a role in here as well. Cara is also an attorney and reviewing, reading, following, understanding regulations is an important part of her job and anticipating legal matters. So her experience working as a prosecutor, a researcher, and in civil litigation and civil discovery matters are important to us. She joins the supervisor, Dave McKay, and the dedicated team of Lisa, Tara, Nate, Connor, and Vivian. I'm very happy to introduce her and welcome her to the team at this exciting time. Good morning, Cara. Good morning, Madam Chair. And thank you, Loretta, for that introduction. I'm very excited to be here and excited to help move this process along. Fishers, welcome Cara, who wants to say hello first. Fishner O'Brien. So yeah, I get dibs given the name. I just want to say, as I said about Lieutenant O'Brien the other night, you know, I know there's not a lot of O'Brien floating around, but we are not related in any way, even though we have an old professor right now. So happy to have you for the name and your background. So I'll try to pop in next week when I'm in there to see you in person. Wonderful. Thank you. Mr. Skinner. Welcome, Cara. I second Commissioner O'Brien's comments, very impressive background. Excited to have you. You have a great team to work with and I know you'll be great. Thank you. Commissioner Hill. I just, I want to say welcome, but I've already welcomed you. I think three times you've met each other in person already, especially yesterday. We were, we were connipsing a little bit at the baked good table that we had all set up and your smile is as big as this agency. So I think we're going to fit in beautifully with everybody on the 12th and the 13th floor. So welcome aboard as they say. We look forward to working with you. Thank you very much. Mr. Maynard. Cara, I have also had the opportunity to meet you and also know exactly where you're coming from. I worked at the division of professional licensure when the Article 87 came over that brought over DPS and created OPSI. And although you and I never had the opportunity to work together, as soon as you got this position and it was public, multiple people called and really spoke to your professionalism and the quality of your work. So it's something that we need during this time and we are so glad to have you on board and look forward to working with you. Thank you. And interestingly enough, I also have a chance to meet Cara in person around the starter donor. So that table is well placed at the base of the steps. So Cara, again, welcome. Mike Jordan, I also received calls from former colleagues who have just been so impressed by not only your professionalism and your credentials, but by your nature, your personality and how you will work with, I know, as an incredibly talented team and invested team who are really eager to be involved in this experience portfolio.  What I've said to so many of us, this is all new to all of us. So no one's new here. This is all new and we are very, very happy to welcome you. So good luck and on the 13th floor that the commissioner's doors are always open. Okay, thank you. Welcome and thank you Loretta for the opportunity today. Thank you. Okay. So anything else on, did you want to do any update on IT or no? No. And I'll coordinate with Katrina with something else. Okay, excellent. All right, Cara is back to work, everyone. All right. So with that item number four on our agenda is complete. We're going to turn now to community mitigation. And thank you, Joe, again, for yesterday allowing me to sort of listen in on your local and subcommittee. Commissioner Cal, thank you. Those volunteers really provide incredible contributions that allow us to make really informed decisions. So thank you. And again, to Mary and Lily, thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair and commissioners today for your consideration. We have our draft community mitigation fund guidelines. And just to by the way, a little bit of background, as you recall, you know, we develop sort of policy questions over the course of the year, and we put those into a memo to you back in September. And from the input that we got from the commission and the LCMACs and the subcommittee on community mitigation, we we took those recommendations on the on the policy questions and incorporated them into our draft guidelines that you see today. And again, before we get into it, just a few thanks here. Thanks to Commissioner Hill for he's been on many of these meetings. And he could probably recite this as well as I can because he's heard it so many times. And also, of course, Mary Thurlow and Lily Wallace, a lot of work went into this to put this package together. And also, I'd like to thank Mark van der Linden and his team, Marie Claire as well, who helped us crafting the gambling harm reduction section. So with that, I thought I would I would share the guidelines with you. And since we did have some good two by twos, I don't think I need to go through every item. I thought I would try to just hit on the high points. And of course, if the commission has any questions on anything else, please feel free to jump in. So the first big item that we want to talk about was the money that's available for calendar 2023. So in region A, we have $20 million available region B, 7 million. And we've set aside a million dollars for the category two facility down a plane plane bill. So just spending a little bit of time on this. In region A, which is on core Boston Harbor, they generate roughly $11 million per year that goes into the community mitigation fund. And in region B, the MGM facility, they generate roughly $4 million a year. So and the category two facility does not actually generate any money for the community mitigation fund, but those communities are still eligible to participate in the program. So what we have here in region A is $11 million of new money, but we did roll over $9 million from the previous year. And in region B, the $4 million in new money and rolling over $3 million from last year. So you see the split there, but the way that the split has been done historically from a policy that the commission established with input from the LCMACs was essentially that the money that's generated in region A would stay in region A and the money generated in region B would stay in region B. This last year we had in region B, we actually had quite a bit more in grants that went out to region B than went out to region A. We had about $6 million in region B and about $4.5 million in region A. So while we have been generating some surpluses over the last couple of years, region B has been spending down there as quicker than region A has. So that's why you see what might appear to be somewhat of a disparity, but that is really by design by our policy. So I thought next I would go on to our new categories. And again, we have some changes here, but these are not particularly significant. So the first new category is the projects of regional significance. And in this category, we're doing this as a pilot program for the first year, and just in region A and region B. And what this is looking at sort of larger scale regional projects that also address an impact of the casino. So we put an example in here, which I'll just sort of walk through to give you an idea. We said, for instance, if a large transportation construction project is designed to reduce congestion along a nearby stretch of highway that affects multiple communities, while also mitigating traffic-related impacts associated with the gaming establishment, that project would likely be eligible for funding. So what we're saying is we have these large projects that have a great regional benefit, but they also have a benefit to the casino or to a mitigated impact of the casino. And these are not only just transportation issues. It could also be economic development, housing, public health, or other infrastructure needs. These are things that are identified in the law that are eligible. So obviously a community would need to do a couple of things. One is they have to show that regionality of the project, that its impacts are regional, and also that it is addressing an impact of the casino, and they would have to link those things together. So we talk about the eligible communities, and these are all of the communities that are eligible for community mitigation funds in region A and B. We are also saying that state agencies can apply for these funds. For instance, MASDOT, if they had a project that was on a state highway that impacted multiple communities, they might be eligible for some of these funds. And through the development of this, we worked with the local planning agencies and MASDOT to try to identify a little bit of a universe of projects that might be out there. And those agencies are very excited about this. Some of the key considerations here, again, this is projects that are quite regional in nature, but also address a casino impact. Because of that, we felt that we can only cover really a relatively small percentage of the project cost, because again, these are more regional in nature. So we're proposing to cover up to 15% of the total project cost. And capping that at $5 million in region A and $3 million in region B. And I think this goes back to that discussion earlier about the split of the monies and how region B has been spending down their surpluses quicker. We didn't want to put too high a dollar value on this and then have region B exceed the allocation for the region by a significant amount. So we are allowing, we are giving folks two years to apply for this money. And then to get under construction, we realize that these are complex projects and probably are not ready to go today. But we do expect that projects that come in are probably already underway as far as design and things of that nature. Actually, why don't I stop at that point and see if there's any any particular questions about the new category? Okay. So we'll move on to the next new category, which is the gambling harm reduction category. And what we're proposing in here is a two-piece program. One is a small grant, we're calling a type one grant of $20,000 and a second type two grant of up to $200,000. So this first type of grant is for communities who are just starting to think about the issues of gambling harms that might be in their community. And this money would be available to a community really to help them kind of scope out a larger research study that they might look at. So this can be used to get the community engagement, vision, and planning. This will help them identify a particular topic or issue that they want to investigate further. So the hope is here is that folks will come in in this category and then we'll come up with a research project that could then fall under this type two category, maybe in a subsequent year. So for the type two, these are communities that already have a specific research topic in mind that they would like to study. So again, this was Mark and his team really helped us out in developing what we think is a really tight sort of scope that they need to submit to us to make sure that we're going to get really good projects out of this and not, you know, we want these to be quite focused. So Mark did a great job helping us out with that. We did give them some links to some of the research studies that have been done previously to get some ideas, but I do want to go just back to this paragraph here. Now there could be some communities out there that have already identified or have already done some research studies and have identified some concrete solutions to problems. And we certainly don't want to discourage people from coming in to try to address those. And what we're suggesting here is that if they really are ready to try to implement solutions that they should come into us under the specific impact category. You know, this category right now is just at a reserve for the research and for the studies. But we are also suggesting that if someone does come in under a specific impact that we would really like to have a discussion with them in advance of the submission just to make sure that, you know, everything seems to be going in the right direction on that or we could potentially give them some direction in what we'd be looking for with that. And this goes back to the last year where we, you know, received an application from the city of Boston and then ultimately got withdrawn. But it got us thinking about this and we want to make sure if someone thinks that they're really ready to go, we should probably have a conversation with them to make sure that the project is a good project. And then the last item that I just wanted to talk about, sort of large item that really affects our applicants is that we are no longer requiring that the communities submit their applications to us through combines. While we will still advertise through combines and all the information will be available, people will submit applications directly to us. This has been a problem for the last few years with a number of communities getting applications in and sometimes get the applications getting lost in the system and so on and so forth. We think that this will help mitigate that for the communities. We think this will be very well received by them. So with that, I guess I'll stop the sharing. So those are those are the key points. And I guess if you had any questions or comments, you willing to entertain those now? I want to bring the issue up. Just as a reminder, and I'm trying to remember who brought the issue up during some of the discussions we have. And I think it was you, Madam Chair. So I don't want to steal any thunder.  I have no thunder. Steal away. There was a question about the region and the amounts of money that were in each region and did the commission want to have the ability to be able to move some of those funds into other regions if we saw fit? That is not part of our regulations, nor is it part of what's being proposed today. So we wanted to bring it up as a discussion today to see what the commission thought about the idea of giving us the ability to be able to take those figures that Joe showed us early in his presentation if we saw fit to move them from one region to another.  I am okay with the way things have been moving forward, but I always would love the ability to be able to move something if we needed it for a bigger project in another region if we didn't have enough funds for what was being proposed. So Brad, let me just address that a little bit. So back when we initially put the policy in of how the money was split, we did have language to that effect in the guidelines which we could add back into these guidelines. I mean, that was the policy that was established, so it still really kind of exists, but it was interesting in our local community mitigation advisory committees. We raised that with them and in region A we didn't really hear any concern, but in region B the folks there I think almost unanimously said do not put that language in. We don't want it in there and I said, but this would be potentially to your benefit and they're like, we don't care. They said, we know that more likely in the long term if you use that it's going to be to give money to the east. So the language was removed, Joe? I think the language, we just didn't carry it forward from one year to another for some reason. I don't particularly know why and I did explain to them that the commission really does have this authority to do that. The intent is not to do it because we set up this policy, but in extraordinary circumstance the commission could do that and the thought was since it doesn't say it in the guidelines this year we could put it back in from a previous year. It just for whatever reason when we revamped things that I don't know the paragraph got left out. It was just interesting to hear region B's response to that. Yeah, I mean I'm not surprised when I was in the AG's office and you would go, basically you hit Worcester West, there's that concern that everything's going to be east heavy in terms of what's going to happen to money and if the monies are generated and supposed to be here we should keep it in that particular region. Wasn't there also something in there about it stays in there for x period of years and then if it's not there and there's sort of a FIFO system, right? So to your point I think you were saying well we never really get there because the theory we're kind of panning out and you never really get to that three years. So maybe there's a way to rewrite that. I felt like we were trying to address it that way without actually poaching from one region or another in a given year. Yeah, the way the policy is set up now does say that there's this is sort of three years if so if there's money that's left over from three years ago that would then become available statewide. It could go to either region or to category two and we've never reached that yet. We're only, I think we're in year three right now and the only money that's rolling over is one year old. So right now it doesn't look like well we haven't gotten there yet and there certainly is and look the commission could also do other things. The thought is let's say in region B you know last year we put out about six million dollars. If we did the same this year there'd only be a million left for a project of regional significance. So let's say we got a three million dollar project and it was a really good project. Would we want to try to transfer some money? The other options for the commission are you could essentially borrow money from the next year's allotment you know because we're we only put money into it through the end of 2022. So by the time we award these things we've generated six months worth of money that's sort of kind of sitting in the bank for next year. So there are there are other things that the commission could do short of taking money from one region and giving it to another. Like a short-term loan restoration of policy because I understand region B's concern. Interestingly enough the numbers right now prompted the question right that commissioner Hill because today it's got 20 million and region B has 7 million and if region B submits some pretty exciting applications we might want to be able to respond and the numbers might limit us. So I do I'm sorry I just was wondering if we could have some kind of a I wonder if right now we even have that flexibility now to do some kind of a lending with a restoration policy in place. I do have the language from 2020 that I could just read a piece of it if people wanted to hear what we had previously. It's pretty cut and dry and to the point I'm just trying to define it here so bear with me. Oh I just had it. Told you I'm not very good at technological. So as part of the guidelines it's the commission notes that it plans to target its funding decisions based on the regional allocation described earlier. However the commission reserves the right to make determinations that do not strictly adhere to it strictly adhere or adhere to such targets in the event the commission awards are not in such adherence the commission may make appropriate adjustments in future guidelines to bring regional allocations into more congruity with such targets. So it was there at one point it's not there here we wanted to bring it up for discussion. I always feel having language like that can only help us and again something great comes in from the west and we've been getting great applications from the west the last couple of years. This might help them but again it's up to the full board. And so I think it was this was sort of a you know region B was very loud and clear and region A was like oh that sounds fine to us you know so there really isn't unanimity in that. What we could do is we could we could draft up some language to put in the final guidelines that you could consider you know in a couple of weeks when you're voting the final guidelines and and and see how it looks and then you can either you know leave it in or or or exit out you know at at that time. I was just going to say that I really appreciate when we're all in open meeting because if you would have been an hour two by two with Commissioner Skinner and I we brought up the exact same issue with with Joe. To a T it actually sounds like I definitely agree Brad that we should respect the western region but I also would like to have some flexibility just in case there is a project that that would potentially benefit them and and have some flexibility so that's my two cents on. And if I can just add one last thing Madam Chair on this issue so process wise we gave our comments today this goes out for public review in the next two weeks so this added language is there and we hear you know a lot of negativity that would obviously help our decision in two weeks but the public will have an opportunity to let us know how they feel about this language should we put it in is that accurate. Well the the intent was to go out with the draft as the draft um you know and and get comments on the draft and can we as the commission ask that it get be included with this language so that we can get back on it. Sure we can add that in before we before we publish I think. What do you think commissioners we could vote on it I suppose um but we don't have marked up for a vote but do we have a consensus that um because I believe I've said I said to all of you that language that came from the 2020 guidelines. I think there's no Madam Chair. Do you think so Commissioner Skinner you think there is? I do. Let's check. Commissioner O'Brien what do you think? I remember Joe reading me the language I don't know that I have it in front of me though. If I think we'd want it we probably wouldn't be inclined to add it after public comment it particularly hearing you know local committees didn't love it um so probably should be included. Do you want to hear it again um Brad has a handy Commissioner Hill or you did have a hand. Let me make sure I'm still not muted. So it said the commission reserves the ability to determine a funding limit below what is detailed in these guidelines. The commission also reserves the ability to determine a funding limit above what is detailed in these guidelines. The commission notes that it plans to target its funding decisions based on the regional allocations described earlier. However, the commission reserves the right to make determinations that do not strictly adhere forward here to such targets. In the event the commission awards are not in such adherence the commission may make appropriate adjustments and future guidelines to bring regional allocations into more congruity with such targets. And Commissioner O'Brien I just forwarded you. Yeah I saw that um of course my computer's decided not to let me in right away but that's typical. Today is the day where this challenges you know. My iPad was yesterday my regular computer is today. Um you know I maybe because I've been I heard it my entire time in the Aduce Office too about sort of Western Mass wanting to be heard and know that there's monies there for them etc. I'm still in that that's why we did the the longer view of this of the three years etc. I don't mind so much the you know we might have to go under or over depending upon what projects we get. But the latter part of it I may be in the minority but I'm not inclined to actually put that back in right now but that's just that's me remembering some of the vociferous nature of of Region B wanting to make sure they were protected. Which part um do you would you like re-praying? It doesn't specifically mention the regions but the language that he just read sort of saying we reserve the right to sort of move it around depending on projects um it's the latter part of the statement. Could we use the language? No but what page is it on? Could we use the language where we um allow for some flexibility provided there's restoration um no for the goal of immediate restoration so then we would have we'd have to think about that. Can we immediately um restore it and so maybe there'd be a cap on what we could do for an overage. Or is it also are we doing it where we don't get sufficient applications in that region for the money? So it's one thing to say to Region B also you know look you haven't asked for these monies and A happens to have in this year you know these these projects one of which we could fund by moving this money over. That's different from a scenario from us saying we're going to prioritize this extra project in A and even though there's a B project we're not going to do that so you know that I think is what they want to avoid. And Commissioner the language is on page four. I'm sorry you would just ask the language is on page four about halfway down. Okay thanks. And Commissioner Hill, are you going to chime in? I think that is different. I think we weren't thinking of of the one that you're concerned about. I think we're thinking about almost short term bridge loan. I got nothing else to come out but anybody else have ideas you know just that flexibility or is it where we don't want to go? Commissioner? I think we do not have a consensus here Madam Chair on this particular issue so we probably in my my view now we would just move forward with what has been put before us and we can discuss this again as we have guidelines come before us in the future. But it is an issue that we are concerned about and recognize. I guess my question is Joe when you guys were meeting with the regional groups did you revisit this again that language? Yeah yeah because you know that had come up you know with in the two by twosie it makes sense to talk to our to our groups about it as well and get their input on on that on this particular issue because this seemed to be the only issue that kind of came up. Right and then you got the same responses historically you've gotten which says fine and because we really don't want you to do it. And look I think the reality is is that when the policy was established the commission reserved the right to move money around you know the intent was to follow the policy unless there's sort of some extraordinary circumstance that would that would necessitate doing that you know again if you had a really great project that was going to die on the vine without the money you might want to consider doing that but you know the intent was to follow the the the distribution of the money but still reserving the right to to do more than that you know if it really came down to that. Yeah I mean I'm all for the reserving the commission's right to move it I'm just trying to think if there's a way that we address region B's concerns in terms of saying this is something that would be done you know actively keeping in mind that we are priorities to try to keep the B money and B in the A&A which to Commissioner Hill's point I'm not so sure that language is here today for us to vote on to put out for public comment. Right well what we could do is if we want to we could put that language into the document for public comment and then you know we can sort of wordsmith it between now and the and the 10th uh if you know the commissioners could take a look at it and and if there's some language you think that that provides some better protection I guess if for lack of a better word we could do that and then incorporate that into the final document. Are you comfortable with that Commissioner O'Brien? To be blunt I'd rather have the language go out for public comment in advance but I can also you know we can do about what I'm fine with that too. The language of choice you mean um yeah well maybe what we could do is we do have some work ahead of us perhaps Joe if you're available you'd be able to circle back a little bit later in the meeting with some language do you how do you feel about that commissioners if we really if we want it otherwise we can do exactly what Commissioner Hill suggested just not include it and I think there's also waiver provisions you thought Chief Delaney that maybe that would also work should be come into an extraordinary circumstance of some sort where we want to be able to gain some flexibility. Yeah and I think with the waiver provision if there's um and again I think this comes down if there was money available from the next calendar year at that time I think the commission could you know move that money up as there's this wave basically the guidelines say that commission you pretty much wave anything that they want to wave in this thing and that's we've given the commission broad latitude to do that obviously we haven't done that routinely because that's not really the intent but I just think we do want to have some flexibility and I think the waiver process probably does give us enough of that you know should we run into that kind of issue and also you know look this is I guess a good problem to have yes you know if we think that they're going to be oversubscribed I think that's a that's a good problem to have but you know and obviously we won't know until we get applications in either so I'll tell you my one fear is that this year if there is something of regional significance out in that west they may see that seven million dollars and and think about all the other projects that they also want to and they say we're cap this year and they may be fine with that but you know we're just looking for the very best applications we can from both regions and you know I I hope that both regions know that we will be fair and transparent um about those allocations it's just that right now they're they're quite upside it yes they're quite upside it um and and would I be saying the same thing if it were region a versus region b probably because it's just so obvious right that's why it came up in our two by twos right um no thunder commissioner helps so the consensus that to just go out as we are right now and you know we'll deal with this next year if if it really results in a problem or so I think that all great points have been raised I would like to make a decision based on current feedback from the region as opposed to discussions you might have had joe in 2020 or individual commissioner recollection so you know if we don't include that language uh in the version that's going out for public comment what other opportunity do we have to hear from the region well we heard from region b yeah we're going to be reiterated to this in this year yeah and then as far as recount committee yesterday yeah that was yesterday yeah yesterday it should be reiterated yeah that well okay okay I missed that somehow okay yeah so they met yesterday the local advisory committee it's not yesterday and joe pointed out region a was fine region b did affect the language so okay joe I have a question did they did they see that the money disparity yep they're aware of that in region b they were saying we just want what's ours and we don't want you to be able to take it away even if it's less and the commission has the discretion to move the funding the funds around even even if that language doesn't make it into the final guidelines correct I think that probably is the case I'd probably have to sit down with Todd and go through our policies and stuff but and and make sure but I'm pretty sure that we would be able to do that if if we really needed to and no disrespect to region b I think someone said this earlier that is not you know my position here it's just I think you know to the points that have already been raised if there is a really you know stellar proposal out there you know we don't want to shut it down simply because you know of the unavailability of funds that had been allocated to a particular region right right and you know we don't we don't want to lose a good project if we have that's that's really what it comes down to and yeah and just and just to be clear I'm sorry madam chair I keep interrupting you and I don't know I was turning to you thank you just to be clear it's through the waiver process that would allow us to be able to move the money yeah if if that came before us yeah okay we would be waiting at the allocations of some so in the subway right yeah yeah the theory okay so can we actually bring we could actually bring and engage the region at that point too right so we're kind of talking about something that hasn't happened yet but if it does happen we can engage them okay that matters to me yeah we do that a lot there's a lot of engagement Jordan that's what makes it so good it is very inclusive process all right so we'll just we'll leave the language as is the travel go out for public comment and we're going to return in a couple of weeks and we'll be voting on the guidelines yep thank you Lily thank you Mary thank you Joe okay we do have the one more item for your consideration madam chair and that's the reappointment of one of our subcommittee our local community mitigation advisory committee members Rick Sullivan so his so you have a memo in your packet Rick has been he's the appointment for the regional economic development representative on the region b local community mitigation advisory committee he's been on the committee for a number of years and you know Rick has been around everywhere forever you know he was Governor Patrick's chief of staff he was the secretary of the executive office of energy and environmental affairs and he is now president and chief executive officer of the economic development council of western mass he's been our chair for the last year we voted him in as chair for another year pending this appointment so we fully highly recommend him to continue questions for John on this issue no we thank both chairs for their service we do need a vote on this do i have a motion oh thank you Mary Mary do you have any you want to chime in at all Mary or Lily i'll set okay i move that the commission reappoint Richard Sullivan as the region b regional economic development representative to the local community mitigation advisory committee for an additional one year term second thank you any questions edits all right commissioner o'brien hi mr hill hi mr skinner hi mr maynard hi i vote yes five zero thank you very much thank you it is um 11 45 if um if i could i would like a a quick break before we move into the next matter uh commissioners do you welcome that opportunity as well okay so it's 11.5 if we could return at noon and we're going to be then turning to the evaluation process and to those folks paying kb thank you for your your patience who they've been on since the beginning of the meeting thank you so much nothing like having a rabid in the backyard when your dog goes out to do his business chasing him down into the woods lovely i think we're we're all set thank you mr you know it's late we are reconvening um public meeting 398 of the denny commission and just to be safe because we're holding this virtually i'll do a roll call commissioner o'brien i am here thank you commissioner hill i'm here mr skinner i'm here thank you and commissioner maynard there you are i am here great we're all set to proceed and we're going to now turn to item number six um and i'll turn to uh council grossman thank you yes thank you madam chair good afternoon everybody so we are here to talk about section 218 to the commission's regulations again uh this section talks about essentially the application and evaluation process for the award of sports wagering licenses it's designed to chronologically set out the process to make those decisions in all categories it is also designed to offer the commission the maximum discretion and flexibility it may need so that it can ensure the best possible processes in place depending upon the circumstances it also affords prospective applicants fair notice as to how the application they will be submitting shortly will be reviewed so that they know what to expect the modifications uh that you see in the draft here before you are based upon the review and discussion performed by the commission last week as you'll see in the packet there is a red line version and a clean version the red line version was included just so you could see what changes were made if that was of interest but that is somewhat difficult to navigate so i anticipate just walking through the clean version here today if that is okay with everybody the section's design i should just note to work in conjunction with a series of regulations that will be coming before you shortly i mentioned some of them earlier they pertain specifically to those relating to suitability which is the reference to 215 that you'll see there's i believe a reference to 219 which is the draft temporary licensing regs and then of course we just talked about section 211 which talks about the form of the application itself so there are a series of cross references in this draft that you'll notice as we walk through it so with that if there are no the comments before we start i again intend to just walk through the clean version which is found at page 43 of the commission's packet if everyone has it before you we can just kind of proceed in this fashion so everybody can see everybody's faces or i'd be happy to share the document if that would be a helpful as well commissioners are you comfortable with having your own document up do i have noz okay okay looks like we're all set five excellent so let's jump right in and start at 218.01 you'll recall again that this is generally modeled after the rfa2 process but there are a an extensive series of modifications that were made to suit our present needs and one of those areas was the pre-application consultation so it's important to note here that it says that the commission or its designees may conduct a consultation meeting or information session with applicants just to provide guidance as to what's expected of them as far as submission of the application is concerned and you'll see that there's a second sentence added to this section that provides that the commission may use other methods to respond to inquiries regarding the application process such as publishing responses to questions submitted by applicants and that was the process we discussed last week so no decision necessarily needs to be made today as to how we will go about doing this but this will afford the commission the ability to engage in a series of processes to help clarify any questions that may be outstanding for the submission of the application commissioners any questions on that i'm hearing on Todd make the good point we don't have to decide on that but given that the application process is going as underway do we have a consensus that we would that we might want executive director Wells to make a proposal perhaps to us on on consultation meetings for the applicants or there's also the answer in question should we should we ask for that or maybe to be advised for next week or i'd be in favor of that chair okay i'd see Mitchell brian snorting her head okay thank you it could be both too it might actually be um both us and i see commissioner hill giving a thumbs up okay good thank you okay Todd yes i was needing to ask this preliminary question have we received comments on these draft regs i know they were published they yes that that's right um you know i i'm not aware of any comments that have come in um no so be able to there's uh oh maybe there was hi good afternoon no we haven't received any comments on this regulation yet thank you i should also just to mention uh since there's only eight of us on the screen that uh attorney macarius has joined us as well he's been a critical uh made a critical critical role in preparing uh these regulations as well thank you questions that come up um so if we can we let's move on to 218.02 the application requirements so this is the section that starts out by saying that essentially the application has to be filed before the deadline established by the commission which has been done there are a couple of important provisos here that we should walk through as well the first is that the commission may establish different deadlines for applications within the different categories and though we haven't done that at the moment you reserve the right to do that if you are so inclined and it's important just to take a look at paragraph b here in conjunction with that which says that after an application deadline for any category or group of applicants has passed the commission may establish a new application deadline for such applications this language is included in recognition of the somewhat uncertainty in the landscape at the moment particularly as it relates to perhaps the category two applications and at the moment where those proposals are still evolving and being developed it may be that the commission recognizes that the existing submission deadline is not going to work well and it may be adjusted so this gives the commission the ability to adjust the deadline even after it's passed with any particular category or for all of the categories depending upon the circumstances no i'm i'm glad that's in there because i had questions when we wrap this up the last time about you know what if we don't hand out seven untethered or what if someone either has their license revoked or they relinquish it or to your point you know there is no qualifying category two at the moment of the submission and therefore they come later and ask for something so i mean what i'm hearing is that would give us the room to set up a different timeline to do the same criterion but that different circumstance exactly right and i had asked um i think i went first to uh executive director wells and and copy Todd to ask about precisely this issue too but i was thinking more on category two particularly as we were um addressing the new racetrack application because i wasn't sure about the alignment of their deadline should you know a license for your lord so i think this covers it right well it's like a regency if there is a regency casino that will be tethered to those and so there are other scenarios where this may come up that's a good point beyond this you know 1121 deadline so um i like the the amendment here Todd for that flexibility thank you for it very much yeah thanks Todd i really like the language to Todd and Mina and i hope we could consider using utilizing it for the scenario that i described earlier whereby there is a gap in the timing between when ieb completes its spoping work and the actual deadline of currently 1121 absolutely yep no i think this again is designed to afford the commission uh flexibility to to deal with some of these circumstances as they may arise um so paragraph c and then two which we'll talk about as well uh just describe the scenario where an application may be submitted after the deadline so paragraph c says that the commission may decline to take action until essentially the suitability or preliminary suitability decisions are made and then paragraph two gets into again after the application deadlines have passed what happens if someone submits an application then or whether they submit an incomplete application and so this gives the commission some discretion to handle those matters in an appropriate fashion depending upon the facts and circumstances that may arise at the time there is just kind of one Scrivener's note i believe the reference in paragraph two at the end should be 218.031b not not just b so we can make that adjustment if there are no questions on that we can move into 218 one quick question just when we're going to the application given that we may have a separate application a separate deadline for part of the application specifically the multi-jurisdictional personal history disclosure forms may be a potentially a separate deadline do we need to put that in here anywhere or have application deadlines be plural or i don't know if there's any issue there if this is covered i just wanted to flag that uh good good question i let me see uh i mean feel free to weigh in if you have any reaction to that um karen i think the easiest way just to uh clarify this would be to say the commission may establish different deadlines for applications uh or portions there are portions around because i think right now reads as only by category right that may be helpful we need to be more precise now may not on that point i disagree um the first time i think it is um probably within your power to do that whether or not it's in the regulation but i um i think if we wanted to just make that clear that so that someone doesn't say you know so and so got in part of part of their application late i did it what does that mean um it kind of gives you the flexibility to say you know especially with the scoping piece i think you might have have that issue so um on the whole i would say let's be clearer on it but i recognize you might not need to but do we need to do anything else today given that the application is out there with the three four components we include the survey do we need to do anything to say that that deadline has been extended because i don't know Karen are you recommending that extension well here's the issue is that the applicants don't know which individuals and entities necessarily they kind of an idea but they don't have confirmation of who needs to submit so until unless and until they meet with the IEB and get that letter they don't have that um that information my recommendation is that within the letter Loretta can add the deadline it would be the 21st for the BEDs but it may be a later date i don't know what do you think Loretta yeah we you know we've already been speaking with um Karen this morning uh after the first part of the meeting that we're going to communicate with them even before the scoping to let them know exactly what is coming the forms are available can be accessible on the website we'll also send them the form so they can get going and our initial written communication to them within days uh can give the you know confirm the deadline of the 21st for the BEDs and then um we expect to scope the entire piece including the individuals at one time we've determined it's more efficient for us to do that rather than have to go back and touch it a a second time so um we may be able to give them the same deadline yeah and they're they're they've been on notice of of this since the 7th so but i'm wondering in terms of you know the the question about sort of fundamental fairness accusations that may be made if someone says well you gave them two extra days i didn't realize that's your thing is there a way to write in there that any sort of extensions or whatever would be something referencing the iv process and that upon recommendation and approval by the commission so that it's clear that you're getting these because you're in the process and not arbitrarily i mean i'm worried about right share your comment about precision of language so people know this is you know same treatment across the board it's one thing if it's something on us that causes a delay it's another to say well i just was a couple days late and they were a couple days late so no harm at all a lot of media suggestions is that regulatory or is that well first let me back up and just say that you know just in rereading this language it does say that the application has to be filed on or before any applicable deadline any applicable deadline established by the commission so i think there is some built-in flexibility there though that doesn't address what commissioner brian is just talking about how do we avoid essentially arbitrary and capricious decisions is is the point and you know we could certainly attempt to be more prescriptive for the situations we are aware of and this is certainly one of them and we could build in specific language allowing for the process just described as it pertains to the scoping if that would be helpful but you know it it you know becomes a situation where you start crafting the processes for unique situations and that's that's the only hesitation i would have otherwise you know we just need to be very careful but i think the construct is here to allow those decisions to be made i guess my question is partly drafted is it clear that any continuation of deadlines is up to the commission to decide and not something that even if the genesis was because ib had a backlog on something that it would have to come back to the five of us under these rags to make a decision on extension i think that's why i just want to be clear i think we could add in some more designee language that might be one way to address that specifically because i think no i'm not actually asking i'm actually trying to make clear that it would have to come back to the five of us yeah i think it it does come it does say the commission should you know do all this stuff so and it's and um madam chair if i could it's it's also Todd's right plus if you we haven't gotten there yet but then changed to 2804 c allowing for additional information to be submitted that contemplates that if someone's for instance didn't get their full application in and is going to be allowed to add in any information that has to be in the commission's discretion that was edited as well so so that again gets that the commission making the decision on that point well director lily knows i just heard that you've had a really productive conversation with char so that's some good news what do you how how without holding you to that do you feel like that's that's a realistic um outcome then that conversation uh what to designate both individuals and entities at the same time yeah i do well director lily else and carrot thank you that's really helpful and of course that would um this issue of you know we always there can be circumstances that arise right um director lily else but that that was a productive conversation so let's see how it plays out but it sounds as though we've got the language here that we need uh measures unless there's some further questions on it thanks great okay um so next up is 218.03 uh we're now at the bottom of page 43 top of page 44 in the packet um and you recall we discussed this uh last week and just i just wanted to kind of remind everyone of the distinction we discussed and that was between um administrative completeness i.e whether everything is actually present and then reviewing the content itself the substance of it and drawing that distinction and these regulations do as drafted recognize that distinction the administrative completeness review is more designed just to ensure that all the information and documentation that's required to be submitted has been submitted not that it's really well done or thoughtful or gives us everything we want but just that everything is there um and so that's that's what we're talking about in 218.03 so you'll see in paragraph one it says that the executive director or their designee will review the application for administrative completeness and actually then references um if you're following in paragraph one here as described in 218.032 i think um and Mina and I haven't had a chance to talk with this so we're i'm going to operate on the fly on this one i think instead of that cross reference because it doesn't doesn't really answer the question i would propose that we replace that with the language i actually just read which is to ensure that all information and documentation required to be submitted as part of the application is included and so the first sentence would read the executive director or their designee will review each sports wagering license application for administrative completeness to ensure that all information and documentation required to be submitted as part of the application is included and that i think lends some precision to what this process is designed to do and it also ensures that the particularly that the people who will be performing the review are clear as to what the level of scrutiny is supposed to be. Director Wells i bet you have a question. Yeah so in uh i'll just uh to be quite blunt this is this is the ideal process if we had a lot of time my concern is that you know in looking at the timeline uh if the team is doing administrative completeness checks you know right now we have 27 that have done the scoping survey that potentially delays when it gets to the commissioners and cuts into their time of review so there are a couple of options you could include this administrative completeness review and keep that same process which as Todd indicates has some benefits to the commissioners because they are you know they're reviewing the applicants and it would be complete. The other option would be that the applications be submitted and given to the commissioners and they are basically submitting at their own peril the commissioners would know anything that's not in the application and that could be taken into consideration with respect to particularly the untethered a comparative analysis of the applications. So there's you know there there's certain options on how we do the staff will be you know ready willing and able to do it however you would like I just want to make that aware. The other issue is that when we do the administrative completeness uh when we're doing for example right now qualifiers for new qualifiers for the casinos for the BEDs and the multi-jurisdictional forms and they'll defer to Loretta on the present practice but we generally are quite rigorous and will will licensing will go through those applications and if an applicant has not filled out the form correctly we may list all those deficiencies and send back a letter to the applicant and they have to correct it and send it back and we have the process in place where it's completed before it goes to the investigators and the advantage we have with that um is that it puts the onus on the applicant to have it done correctly and that the investigators are not spinning their wheels chasing down supplemental information from the applicants because if we wait until it's complete the clock for the investigation doesn't start ticking until the applicant has done their job. So this is a bit of a different scenario because in that circumstance if someone for example a key executive is looking to get to work it's on them to get things done right and they can't start working until it's until um they submit the information. The situation we're dealing with now when we're dealing with a competitive process you theoretically could have a situation where say there are 18 applicants for the untethered licenses. If two of them are not submitting their application materials properly and there's a delay because we're going through this back and forth because it's not complete and we're giving them a chance to complete it then uh that could potentially impact the other operators and impact the timeline. So it's um you could have a it's like a thumbs up or a thumbs down like it's just not complete you're out of the box but then you'd have the this the staff of the MGC making final determinations on on these licenses as opposed to the commission which I'm a little uncomfortable with. So there there's a lot to consider here and it's just it's a it's slightly different scenario than we're used to with the IEV. I don't know Loretta if you have any comments on the administrative completeness. Yeah I know we've spoken in the the commission's public meetings for a couple months now about that part of the process that it is an integral part of the submission process that the cases don't get transmitted over to the IEV until the licensing division has performed that review that they uh and Nikisha you'll well know uh this that they uh have been trained to do that review in a sensible way. So uh you know the example that I think I've given in the past is that if the instructions direct the applicant to write NA for not applicable in a line but the applicant writes none well they're not going to send it back you know to follow the instructions more carefully because it's clear what the applicant meant but if the applicant neglects to initial and date each page the way the instructions directly applicant to do that is something that if we ever have a problem on the information on that page it goes directly you know a hearing officer or the commission looks to whether the applicant has signed that page we've learned that the hard the hard way. So our team tries to be smart and not send things back for deficiencies unless it's a meaningful deficiency uh but it's an important part of of the process. Commissures I have some thoughts I don't really want to go first um so I hate to put Commissioner Skinner on this spot but it seems like she might be the have the best perspective on this. Oh well yeah I mean I you know at the outset I'm not in favor of penalizing an applicant by deducting points or outright rejecting the application in a scenario where they're not getting the benefit of the regular administrative completeness review process you know the issue that is potentially created here is self-induced. I respect the fact that the commission voted to adhere to a truncated timeline by which to get sports wadring up and running but I find it just I'm fundamentally opposed to holding applicants accountable for for for for for something that we decided not to put in place right we decided not to put these safeguards in place with respect to the administrative completeness review I mean I know that hasn't been decided yet but that is the discussion if we go that route again I think it's it's it's a problem that we are creating yet we are uh holding the applicants responsible and I again have a fundamental problem with that. So I do hear Commissioner Skinner you brought this quite up the last time and I do understand the idea of administrative completeness I wasn't the chief licensing officer as Commissioner Skinner was but it says my understanding the policy behind it is what Director Lillius just referenced is that what they've learned over time is that it actually really impacts the investigatory process you know our team DEU the financial team end up getting an incomplete document and it has to start although you know go backwards in time and they created some efficiencies there. I do see this process that process our licensing process that we do right now under 23k that's different from the process that we're going to be using to for a competitive process for evaluating the pool of untethered category grade and I think that's where maybe I'm just you know I can be persuaded otherwise but I see a distinction in that process and I think that's perhaps the Director of Wilds was getting at.  No coming. 203 contemplates the issuance of either a positive determination of administrative completeness or negative but that's what we're discussing so. But I just wanted to go with my policy the policy thinking of administrative. Two separate issues the IEB policy perspective but then there's this determination so my point is you know an application gets issued a negative determination because they don't have the benefit of having the licensing team complete that administrative review that. I'd like to finish my thought because I might not be saying that we have that negative. Yeah no I suggested that you do and you offered me the floor so I turn I yield the phone back to you Madam Chair. Well thank you I thought that you were I thought you were done when you pointed out the language my apologies are you you're all set and no my my thought was that maybe we could come into some kind of a you know in between when I heard the language that that God offered you know one of the concerns I had is that it's all being all administratively complete because then there's a whole bunch of judgment around the answers etc you know it's not the same thing but I did run the Judicial Nominating Commission and the judicial applications were extensive and very very competitive that the applications are very extensive of significant background checks etc there there wasn't the opportunity to correct there was an opportunity to be evaluated and sometimes you know candidates did a better job on applications than other times in in each evaluator had to assess I wasn't an assessor I was the executive director that we could adopt that approach where the applications come in there might be some kind of a check for fairness commissioner scanner maybe that's what you're getting at to make sure you know did you mean to leave out something but it gets to us and and then we make a judgment college we're evaluating what they what they they did and what they left out what I also really cognizant of is down the road for suitability for our finalists we're going to be back at that point where our investigators going to want the the full sum check I don't know if that that process can be continued along you know down the road somehow if there's something that was identified as as missing but I think we would identify it during our evaluation process so I wonder if those are in between it the licensing process that is in place now it's not part of a competitive evaluation process and that's where I'm seeing the distinction yeah however as the regulation is currently written an applicant doesn't even get the opportunity to compete right to be evaluated the application doesn't even get submitted to the commission if it is not administratively complete yeah I agree with you I think I was just sort of issue is if if they if they don't have the benefit of a normal process that this agency offers in the application in the license application process for instance they get issued a negative determination you know they if they if that determination is issued before the application deadline they have the opportunity to cure I just want to make sure my point is clear I guess I just want to intercept I think that you're talking about this as if we've adopted this reg and we have why I said as currently written so I think I'm happy to you know engage in in discussion and hear from from our team as to how my concerns are you know how we can adjust the language so that my concerns are addressed and they might others may share this concern as well oh yes I understand I guess what I'm also saying is the normal process that you're I don't want to put words in your mouth commissioners kind of what I'm hearing the normal process what you're saying is the process that's applied currently or our licenses under 23k is that what you're saying when you say the normal process that's afforded yes yes and in response to Karen's concern about adhering to the normal process in this environment okay director wells I just want to make sure I understand this correctly because when I'm reading this and then maybe I'm just confused but this this reg is written Todd seems to say if there's a positive determination it goes on to the commission if there's a negative determination if the deadline hasn't passed the executive director can allow them to cure the deficiency if the deadline has passed they can request an extension so I I yeah so one thing I wanted to point out on that I'm not so sure why you would have discretion in the first scenario to me that should be stricken and it should just say the applicant you know make sure the deficiency prior to any applicable deadline and then if the deadline has passed then they come to the commission I don't see like there's any discretion on the part of the ed it's like if you have time to cure it try to cure it before the deadline the deadline's passed you have to go to the commission and ask for permission to get an extension and then what's the 205 cm r 211 1 Todd the process for asking for the extension yep that's the extraordinary extraordinary circumstances language which gets back to commissioner skinner's point of we need to talk about what that means right and so what I see just from an operations perspective from a truly practical standpoint hypothetically you know we've got what 2930 entities that have suggested they're going to apply if they all submit you know two days before the deadline or a day before the deadline this the team can't does it you know we these are hundreds and hundreds if not thousands of pages we can't do this and get back to them with these deficiencies so just from a practical perspective I'm not sure with a deadline and this process I'm not sure what we do I don't know what I'm supposed to do right I don't see it as applicable here in a competitive process I liken it again to a procurement or selection process rather than a licensing process to be engaging so are we treating two and three tethered and untethered differently well well that's actually an interesting question because you know hypothetically let's take out the the the competitive process the tether if we were just doing this on tether once if their application wasn't complete well that's on them and maybe just their launch date gets pushed back because they didn't fill their forms in time and they commissioned didn't have that ability but it's just feels different with the competitive you know our system seems to work you know the administrative completeness would probably be helpful to you you know with the category once before you give it to the commission make sure this is all in order but with a hard and fast deadline you're that's where this is complicated but the deadline being what happens the reason why it works in in our normal process is that qualifiers come up at any time and there is no deadline right that so that's why it's it's kind of apples to oranges there's you know today you maybe see news that there's a new qualifier forgot it and then they're going to they're going to apply and and then the process goes and our licensing process works so superbly and it really works for our investment in this case we have we do have deadlines in order to make it a fair standing up process for each operator we know all the the policy decisions behind that it wouldn't be ever you know we could do rolling basis but I I mean I know that Maryland is sort of facing that idea but I think that's kind of we we sort of know is sort of fundamentally unfair in this particular market Commissioner O'Brien yeah I mean this this is some of the concerns that I raised on that aggressive timeline that we sort of all hashed out a week or two ago this is some of the minutia that now is cropping up that we need to deal with and one of one of the ways to separate there are different processes that are applicable in different standards statutorily applicable to category to retail and then tethered versus untethered and so the question I have is are we do we need to be adding more specific processes into these regs and how we're going to process these applications that specify the the retail the tethered and the untethered because I don't see how this realistically works in a way that is fundamentally fair to both the applicant and quite frankly the five of us and staff to get this done under this timeline unless we do another dive into this and further delineate separating out in terms of how once they're in by the 21st how those are going to be needed out so the law does look at each category differently right the law actually contemplates one category too so maybe Mina and Todd can help on this but also talking to Loretta and well yeah you know in terms of what's what's realistically helpful both to staff us and fundamentally fair to the applicants as commissioner Skinner has pointed out and and and to further that point I mean yes chair there is one universal application date November 21st but the variable is going to be dictated by when the administrative completeness review is done by the licensing team when the scoping is completed and so you're going to have dates that are all over the place that will quite frankly determine you know how how much lead time an applicant actually has to submit their package before the November 21st deadline and it's going to dictate when their application gets submitted to the commission if that turns out to be on a rolling basis if I can jump in on the scoping piece I'm confident that that can be concentrated in you know a concentrated period of time to minimize you know the spread of time between some when some applicants learn of the designations compared to others there's been some discussion I'm not sure from from whom but about that the under the current 23k process it's qualifiers who we have to do the administrative completeness review and if that doesn't happen in time well you know the operation keeps continuing but okay okay um thank you I just want to clarify that that process applies to the qualifiers which is a small amount of the applications that we receive it applies to um vendors it implies to employees uh it implies to all three levels of of vendors so there are categories of folks who you know can't get going uh until they have that completeness that completeness review so it was really just to provide you the example of the qualifiers but of course it extends out but my point was that in this case we're standing up everyone at the same time right so it's a little bit different because the administrative completeness review process comes in depending on when when you get notice of the new a new applicant right a new employee a new vendor a new qualifying but in this case we have applicants for a competitive process and so I actually wonder if we have to have the administrative I know that this language contemplates an administrative completeness process but for the let's just look at category three on 10th and then go backwards to the ones in twos um and then in the category three tethered do we do we treat them differently because of the competitive process and can we without being arbitrary and conclusions and and I'm going to it would be an exception to Commissioner Skinner who says the normal process and I trust me Commissioner Skinner I love our normal process I'm just trying to think how we apply it in this um in the in the job that we've been asked to do which is to stand up the sports wage ring not 20 you know luckily that's stood up and running smoothly I come away so I have to say we yes madam chair we have been asked to stand up sports wage ring but we have not been asked to do that by Super Bowl or by March Madness can I can I cut in here madam we did make a decision on a timeline if that needs to be and I acknowledge that I acknowledge that if we need to make that reconsidered and we got we did it with a caveat yeah and my last amendment was based on the number of applicants we got and we've exceeded that but I wanted I want to stick to today's um item on the agenda right now to see if we can work out today's agenda item under the deadline that we adopted you know after 12 hours 13 14 hours of meetings commissioner Maynard madam chair I feel like I've listened a lot here thank you for timing in in in uh full disclosure I may sound like a revolutionary but essentially I think the scariest words in the English language is this is how it's always been done and this is how we did it right and I want to look at what can we do with the charge that we have today I I know that this is tough and I hear what Karen saying and it is and it's weighing on me too but my thought is is there a way that we can find a middle ground here right is there a way that there can be a for a lack of a better term truncated administrative completeness review where there is a check of the application itself I understand there are hundreds of documents that are attached to this application I'm not saying I don't understand that but maybe it's not as deep a look at that to get us to the competitive process right now it gets deeper as we go and I think that's been a theme of our entire discussions over the last few months is the normal process is going to take place the question is when is it taking place and to sound like a broken record here the law definitely contemplated us moving quickly I would say it contemplated us moving before Super Bowl not by Super Bowl so you know I think that we have to we have to find ways to make this process work I don't want to I don't want to you know put public safety at risk at all but I do think that we have to find a way to do this and looking backwards isn't always the best way to do it which is why I you know to your point Commissioner Maynard you know I'm going by what has been presented to us today in this set of regulations as they read today I'm not comfortable with a lot of with a lot of what's in here unless we make some concessions particularly around the timeline you know I am not okay with penalizing an applicant right for not instituting our normal process completely fine with forgoing our normal process as you say given the charge that's before us but I think we have to just work out those fine details I don't I don't want to have an applicant not make the final cut because you know they left an answer blank in their application I don't think anyone's disagreeing with you on that well if they according to the if they do not answer a question then then they get a negative determination of administrative completeness and that application will not go forward so I think this is a good time to pause Todd and Mina can we walk through the regulation as written because what you're hearing is feedback from the commissioner is that it doesn't necessarily reflect the process and and from Director Wells and perhaps Director Lillias it doesn't necessarily reflect what we're looking for based on if we let's just walk through the line by line and see you've heard us you're both talented lawyers see where maybe you can make some suggestions for us because I think we all we may come from different positions but I don't think we're I think we all are absolutely in agreement we no sacrifices of integrity no sacrifice on consumer protections understanding that's a different law understanding that we have lots of processes we can turn to for to inform with also the idea that we might have to pivot on all of this too Christian Hill you haven't weighed in before the two lawyers take over are you all set all set to move forward before we move over to the attorneys that the question that I have because I had what the thought that the commissioner skinner raised which is if we strike the section and then the question of completeness falls entirely on the commission I haven't vetted these before what does that mean can staff who's been here before you know explain to the body of five if we strike that section what does that mean in terms of our work well it's going to fall on us and so I guess I'm trying to see what's the difference in product that gets to us if the answer to fundamental fairness is we strike the process of administrative review by staff and it falls to us is that a layer that we then have to add on to our work or what happens well I think there's there's a lot that was just said and if I may I'll try to address as many of those points as I can as as concisely as I can first of all I think it's important to recognize that the draft before you was designed to cover all three or four if you will categories of licensure it uses the same principles for each one but the the language recognizes that there will be essentially separate processes for each so they need not be identical in all cases but they do have to adhere to the same general principles in the same decision making and that's why they're all set out as they are the the alternate way to do it of course would have been to just write a reg that says for category ones here's the process category twos here's the process and we certainly can do that but there seem to be enough overlap between all of them that that was not the drafting approach that was taken but the exception and we'll get to this shortly of the untethered category threes whereby we do contemplate a competitive process so there were a few additional measures and principles that had to be addressed so for starters I would just make that note the second thing is as far as administrative completeness is concerned it is not included here because we've already always done it that way it's it's there for a specific purpose and this gets commissioner brian I think to your question a little bit if you don't do it which is okay it's not required to be done in any way what what could happen and this might be an unlikely circumstance that something like this would happen given what appear to be the the quality of the applicants we may be looking at but what could happen is that the application deadline approaches an applicant has not completed some type of analysis they don't have certain data that is required so they just don't include it and if there's no administrative completeness review their application would move ahead for evaluation and the commissioners would get to looking at that and say well we don't have anything here can you get me something the whole while that particular applicant would have had an opportunity to be working on that whereas other applicants may have rushed it or moved it along quicker because they knew it had to be submitted so you could create inequities potentially in the quality of the information that comes before you if there's no gatekeeper rule I should just add and this was another point that was made this is intended to be a very high level overview of the application is there something there it's not intended to get into the substance of the quality of the work or whether you believe it or you you're persuaded by it or any of that just that there is something there that's responsive to the question but given the circumstances we are operating under this is an area that you could remove the it's I'd have to spend some time less meaner or Paul commoners has joined us as well I just wanted to make sure everyone has noticed that he is joined and he's a critical part of this drafting process as well just make sure that we recognize that it's there for a specific purpose and it's it's not just something that gets done because it's the way it's always done that's not why it's there and certainly it could be different in the call in the scope or otherwise than we do it in other capacities it certainly doesn't need to be the same as it was in the rfa2 context but it does make sense to have some gatekeeper kind of function when these applications come in though to to Karen's point it does take some amount of time to have someone go through and look just to make sure that all the materials and information have been submit so it's kind of in some ways it's a it's a policy question but there are certain legal risks that you want we would take on if we don't perform any um completeness review ma'am chef I may add to that um just to you know maybe a couple of clarifications or options that might be helpful here as well um I completely agree with everything Todd just said it it's certainly we understand that this takes some work and we spoke frequently with the IAB in preparing this you know because of that we knew that this would be a lot of that work would fall on them um the the one thing to keep in mind I think Todd alluded to this is the different processes already have some distinctions um in terms of what is going to be required in the application and when and and perhaps that is a clarification just as I think we correctly made that clarification above about the different deadlines for portions of the application perhaps making that clarification here as well might be a good part of the solution at least if not the whole solution because for instance uh where you are going to have the competitive process if you're relying or allowing reliance and again I know it's a separate issue on an attestation or certification type approach by applicants for suitability what is going to be submitted at the outset uh may be different than what then whether you need all of that all at once up front so you know what what a complete application is will look different applicant to applicant and of course for category ones in particular you have a lot of the information um are ready right so you're not you're not looking for that so that's one one potential solution to it um as Todd said I don't think there's a um there is a requirement to do this but there are some very good reasons to it to actually to put applicants on equal footing um I certainly um you know I think you heard director Lillio say you know this this the the review is not intended to be unnecessarily nitpicky I think that the you know the commission's direction is that an opportunity cure deficiencies will always happen one of the things for instance the RFA one and two process had is just instead of tying it to a deadline it tied it to 14 20 days whatever I think we've said it seven or 14 days from notice of the deficiency so you maybe have a little bit more time if you get stuff last minute I don't know if those are the right timelines given the number of applications just suggesting it as a model so there are ways to deal with that I would say though on on the whole the idea is to have an application that gives you what you need to be able to do the assessment and if you don't have that and you're chasing folks for pieces of it um wanted it has an unfairness but also make great more time while you're setting up to do other work in the review p