Okay. And we're good to go. Great. Good morning, everyone. This is a convening of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission. It is seeing how virtually so I'll do our roll call. Good morning, Commissioner O'Brien. Good morning, I'm here. Good morning, Commissioner Hill. Good morning, I'm here. Good morning, Commissioner Skinner. Good morning, I'm here. Good morning, Culture Maynard. Good morning, I'm here. All right. And today is public meeting number 446. It's March 30th, opening day. We'll get started with a little bit of a lengthy presentation. I understand. We're looking forward to this review for us. Thank you so much. So good morning and with this agenda item today, you'll be reviewing the operating agreement between the Massachusetts Great Hound Association and American Wadring, Inc. American Wadring, Inc. Is Caesar's and the Massachusetts Great Hound Association, or MGA or Rainham Park. or MGA or Rainham Park. They've submitted a full application for category two retail sports wagering license to operate in Rainham. They have entered into an agreement with Caesars for Caesars to operate the sportsbook aspect of the operation. This type of agreement is different than what you've seen in the other three retail sports betting establishments that are operating at our three casinos. That is not surprising that you'd see something different since each of the three casinos is a gaming company with a dedicated sports wagering arm of the same company. Whereas the applicant here for wagering purposes has been conducting a simulcasting operation and is looking to Caesars for the expertise and operational experience on the sports wagering side. A senior enforcement counsel, Kathleen Kramer, will be taking the lead for the IEB here in highlighting a certain provisions of this agreement that we hope will give you insight into the arrangement and assist you in your overall assessment of the application as we move forward throughout this process. I do note that you've reserved an executive session in the event that you want to get into any of the sort of more confidential details of the agreement, but with that introduction I'm ready to turn it right over to Kathleen. Thank you, Lorena. Good morning, chair and commissioners. I'm here today to discuss an arrangement between Massa Soya Greyhound Association or MGA and Caesar Sports Book. By way of background, MGA has applied for a Category 2 sports wagering license under Chapter 23N. Specifically, the statute in Section 6B2 states that the commission shall issue a Category 2 license to a Greyhound meeting licensee that conducted simulcast wagering as of December 31st, 2020 as authorized by law that meets the requirements of this chapter and the rules and regulations of the commission. MGA currently holds a Greyhound meeting license that was issued by the legislator pursuant to general laws Chapter 128C and they conducted simulcast wagering as of December 31st, 2020. MGA and its newly created subsidiary, Rainham Park Sports Book or RPS, have entered into an operating lease agreement as Loreta just said with American Wagering Inc. or Caesar Sports Book. Under this operating lease agreement, which was included in MGA's application materials as Exhibit B1C, Caesar Sports Book will provide comprehensive retail sports book services to MGA. MGA will lease the premises to RPS, will in turn lease the premises, excuse me, sub lease the premises to Caesar Sports Book. Caesar Sports Book will manage and perform substantially all of the operations and regulatory compliance functions of the sports wagering operation. Caesar Sports Book will also manage the retail paramutual race betting operations within Rainham Park for the agreement. The IEB has submitted a memo to the commission, which highlighted certain visions of the operating lease agreement for the commission's review. As a result of this agreement, the IEB has determined to treat Caesar as an entity qualifier for MGA pursuant to Chapter 23N, Section 5B and 205CMR215. This is based on the premise that Caesar Sports Book will act as the operator of the retail sports wagering at Rainham Park and therefore have significant influence over the decision concerning MGA sports wagering operations if the commission were to award MGA with a Category 2 sports wagering license. Treatment of Caesar Sports Book as a qualifier ensures that the highest level of investigation and standards of suitability apply. As Loretta noted just earlier, given that this is a different arrangement and one we have not seen before, the IEB wanted to bring it to the commission's attention. It's my understanding that we have representatives from both Caesars and MGA here today and they can provide an overview of the agreement if that's helpful for the commission at this point. And of course, I'm happy to answer any questions or discuss any specific provisions of the agreement that I included in the memo. Thank you. Questions for Keflin? I have a question, Madam Chair. Thank you. I should direct this to both Keflin and Council Grossman. Any concerns with the agreement itself? I understand that, you know, the basis for this discussion is to advance your recommendation that Caesars be looked at as a qualifier, but any concern about any of the terms of the agreement itself? In terms of the IEB standpoint, I think we wanted to highlight certain provisions for the commission. I can't say that those are concerning. I think this was just a different arrangement that the IEB hasn't seen. And I think that's what Loretta was touching on earlier. In terms of any sort of legal implications or the permissibility of the agreement, I think I would turn to Todd and his team to discuss on that end. Kathleen, good morning, everybody. There are, to answer your question directly, Commissioner Skinner, nothing of concern. I think that to me, one of the benefits of discussing it in this format is that everyone can gain a clear understanding as to the interplay between the parties here and what the terms of the agreement are and how it fits into the commission's overall evaluation of the application. And so, as Kathleen already mentioned, the entity here would be designated as a qualifier. So it's important to recognize what that means in the long term. And I would suggest that it's, as we're going through it, it's helpful to recognize its implications on the overall suitability of the applicant and the prospective licensee. And what the idea that the operating entity, Cesar's in this case, has the level of control over the operation and how that affects things. And I think it has an impact in the context of the overall suitability of the prospective applicant. And that's why I agreed that it was helpful to discuss this today. You'll recall that when you do evaluate the overall application, one of the factors that the commission looks at by regulation is the suitability of the applicant, of course. And one of the sub factors there is the applicant's business practices and business ability to establish and maintain a successful sportsway during operation. And then I'll leave it to them to make the argument, but I would submit that it appears, at least on the surface that one of the ways that they will be able to achieve that is by pointing to this agreement and demonstrating that they do have an experienced operator coming in to assist and in many cases, completely operate the sportsway during operation. So I think that that's just an important consideration as well, just to gain a complete understanding as to this agreement. But there's nothing in the agreement itself that is of concern. Thank you. And on the issue of the category two application, which we're scheduled to review in, I believe, just a couple weeks. Are there any additional qualifiers on on the Caesars operation that we would need to review, at least on a preliminary suitability basis in connection with the Rainham Park application review? I can speak to that Commissioner Skinner. I'm sorry. So as you know, Caesars is licensed under a temporary license in the category three realm. All of the qualifiers are the same. So we're able to leverage, leverage that. And Kathleen, you may have known that and we're probably going to jump in with that as well. So I apologize. No problem. Thank you. And I think she was trying a little technical issue. I think myself worked directly with me. I'm sure other commissioners questions are very clear. I have an overarching one. I do see and again, don't have me. Thankfully, the agreement in front of us, and I really appreciate Kathleen, but to the extent that Caesar Sportsbook is going to either and, you know, indemnify MGA or be held accountable for MGA. From my perspective, it would be my understanding under the statute, however, that all liabilities still are with the licensee. And so that's a question for you, Todd. And I see Steve is also maybe turning on children might want to weigh in on that. But it would be my thinking that that would be critically important that given our regulatory structure on in the statute, that everything close up. How they manage it is a different story. Todd. That's an excellent point. And I think there are a couple of things along those lines. And of course, the commission will have another opportunity to look at this agreement in the context of the review of the application. But I think that is a critical point to ensure ultimately, that the responsibility remains with the applicant here, Rainham Park, essentially, and that none of it is delegated away by contract or anything along those lines. So that's kind of at the core, I think, of the review of this agreement to make sure that responsibility remains with the applicant and presumptive licensee. So as a follow up to that, Todd, I would assume that even if they it looked like it delegated away, it couldn't legally delegate it away under the statute and our regulation. So even if that were the hope of our licensee, that they would still be held accountable. I'll turn to the, I guess, if it's appropriate, if they want to weigh in, if that's what you're imagining as well. Good morning, Chair. It's Jed Nozzle. How are you? Good morning. Nice to see you. Good morning, Chair. Good morning, members of the Commission. Just just quick introductions. We have quite a few people here. We were sure sort of with areas of inquiry. So we have folks both on the Massachusetts side as well as for as well as for Cesar. So as you recognized earlier, I'm joined by Steve Eichler also Eichler for also Council for MGA. And then I did want to introduce Dan Shapiro, who's a senior VP and Chief Development Officer. And he's got a few members of his team. He may want to introduce as well, just as a preliminary matter. And then I'll get to your question. Thank you. And again, Steve, I apologize. I, I call not I shall I want to do this. It is, it is I shall. It's Jed. Steve, good answer. The chair's right. Jed's wrong. That's point. As they say, the expression has the benefit of being true. So, Jed, are you inviting introductions? Oh, yeah, I was going to, if Dan, if you want to introduce any other members of your team, you can go ahead and do that, or I can sort of jump into the answer to that question. Thank you. Yeah, Mr. just sorry about that. And good morning, everybody. My name is Dan Shapiro, Senior Vice President, Chief Development Officer for Cesar Digital. On with me today is David Grohman, who is our Chief Retail Sportsbook Officer. And we've also got Jeff Hendricks, who is SVP and Assistant General Counsel at Feasors. I think he's been before you before. Good morning, everyone. Thanks for having us. Good morning. So, Chair, just go back to your original question. I first, I think as a, as a, from a legal perspective, you were correct, we can, on behalf of Massachusetts Greyhound Association, we cannot contract away our licensing obligations. And in fact, you will hear us say this here, you'll hear us say this when we're in front of you in a few weeks, that ultimate responsibility of the Commonwealth and of the Commission regarding all aspects of the retail sports wagering are going to reside with the licensee. And as we refer to here at Rayham Park. And as you'll see, I think in the review of the application next month, we've built a management corporate structure in order to meet that responsibility. So there will be one entity, certainly here with all that responsibility. And we have the benefit, as Todd pointed out, of being able to contract with a very experienced operator to help us carry out the day to day operations. But from a regulatory and licensing point of view, MGA or Rayham Park will be ultimately responsible for all sports wagering on the premises. Thank you very helpful. Other questions for Attorney Cramer? Director Lillius, can we take advantage of our guests here and have them make statements? Or how would you like to proceed? I think it's a great idea to ask, you know, maybe starting with with Attorney Nozzle, if he would like to give a summary highlighting, I mean, he understands what this commission is concerned with and interested in and has a lot of insight into how this application process may work. And I think this is meant as an education opportunity for the commission. There's really no decision point here. There's no approval needed for this contract for the reasons shared that you pointed out, you know, we already have our regulatory and statutory scheme, and this agreement cannot supersede those. But, you know, Jed, I'd invite you to jump in if you would like. But there are no particular, you know, I echo Todd's comments. It's not so much the particular areas of concern we wanted to bring to your attention. Just the, you know, sort of the construct of this application, as well as maybe starting to give force thought to, as we proceed in the process, if there are any conditions, at least I'm thinking about and you know, have talked to Todd about, as we move forward, are there particular conditions that would want to attach to any grant of a license given this arrangement?  And obviously, we'd answer any questions. Again, I'm I know at the beginning of this, this is a fairly sensitive document from a commercial perspective. So, you know, there are any questions regarding anything, you know, on the commercial side, we certainly like to respect that confidentiality. So I'll give a broad overview, really from a licensing and regulatory perspective. And obviously, we have the, the, the Caesar's team here, who I think can also talk about how this model has been used and has been successful in other jurisdictions as well. So, which I, again, we're not reinventing or doing anything different here in Massachusetts. As the, as discussed sort of early on, really from a, you know, from a regulatory perspective, one of the bigger things or implications for the agreement is actually, does it create a set of facts that would change any of the licensing dynamic here? And the IEB has reviewed this, as Kathleen has gone through, as Director Lilios has discussed and decided that because of the arrangement here, that that would make Caesar Sportsbook a qualifier. That's something we've been cooperative with. It's something, you know, we have agreement with and from a practical perspective, as Caesar's has already been found, preliminarily, suitable in connection with our category three license, we don't think that changes, you know, certainly the dynamic or the timeline in any way for licensure of Rainham Park. So I, you know, I gave you sort of my, my lead line before, really, that this agreement, you know, maintains ultimately the responsibility for, for Rainham Park from licensing and regulatory perspective to be the responsible party. The key, I guess, components, I would say is really, this is an agreement where Rainham Park is going to provide both a temporary and permanent facility for the Sportsbook. The latter is going to be a 30,000 square foot venue at a cost well over the minimum contributions. Capital contribution requires requirements of 23 and we're really excited to be in front of the commission in a few weeks to talk more about that as part of the application and that project is also well underway. Rainham is fully supporting that this facility, including all the surveillance security as well as food and beverage services, Rainham Park management will be on site. This really isn't a situation where we're, you know, tossing the keys to somebody and say go for it. This really is a partnership and Rainham Park is going to be very much involved in that day to day operations, but we are going to rely on Caesar Sportsbook to bring their expertise and really try not try to recreate that for a category two licensee, but really go out and contract for it. And that's what this agreement does. And it sets sort forth the roles and responsibilities of the parties as well as the various commercial and financial aspects. And just to summarize quickly and, you know, Kathleen hit on some of these, you know, Caesars here is going to be providing the comprehensive sportsbook services, including the installation, testing and maintenance of the wagering equipment, all the operational trading and risk management services and expertise related to that, the comprehensive compliance and internal control systems, again, all approved, ultimately by Massasoit, Rayhound and submitted on Massasoit's behalf. They're also going to have their own personnel. They'll be responsible for trading the ticket takers and all the aspects of the sports wagering operations personnel. They'll also have some responsibilities for signage and promotional programs and services. And of course, you know, both will be committed to and supporting responsible gaming initiatives, including I think on premises through a partnership with Game Sense. That's really the highlights of the of the of the agreement. And again, we have a team here that can certainly answer any questions that that the cushion may have. And I think as Todd pointed out to, you know, this is something we wanted to have an initial conversation with to, you know, to again deal with sort of that upfront issue primarily on the licensing side. But this will also be part, obviously, of our application. And it is part of our application that will be back in front of you in a few weeks as well. Chair, if I can jump in a moment. Jed, so on the parties to the agreement, there's actually three parties to the agreement, MGA, Caesars, and then this new entity, Rain and Park Sports Worker RPS, could you address that with the commission that that was newly created entity, you know, the purpose of the entity and how it fits into this agreement? Yeah, and I may ask Steve to jump in here as well. Essentially, that was for, you know, created for corporate organizational purposes, and it's a wholly owned subsidiary of MGA. It has all the same officers, all the same owners. And what it helps us do from an organizational perspective is have the sportsbook operations essentially concentrated in one operating subsidiary. And that allows us, I think for the commission as well to keep those operations, you know, very, you know, separated from the overall operations of MGA. Massoia Greyhound Association is not only involved in a sportsbook and also a paramedical wagering, but it's a company that has other lines of businesses as well. We wanted to have a dedicated operating entity for that purpose and for purposes of ensuring all the regulatory obligations are met and easily identifiable through that. And Steve, I don't know if you want to opine any further from a corporate perspective. Yes, I mean, I think that summarizes it quite well. I think, you know, in terms of operations and assets, it's just that MGA as an entity has additional operations, but also other assets, real estate holdings, etc., that have their own financial aspects to them. And so one of the purposes of creating RPS was that on an ongoing reporting basis in terms of having financial statements and all that, we could do the sports wagering and simulcasting business on kind of a standalone basis in a single legal entity and make it less confusing for whoever needs to see those, including the commission, without kind of commingling, you know, the unrelated, unregulated real estate operations of MGA. So that that was really kind of the primary point there to kind of keep the reporting clean and non-confusing to all involved. And the only thing I'll add on that from a licensing perspective, both are designated qualifiers. So the, you know, there's a full suitability review of both entities, which doesn't isn't affected by the by the structure here. The IEB is looking at all of MGA for purposes of determining its suitability as well as this new entity, RPS. Madam Chair. Yes, Commissioner Hill. I'm sorry if I missed this earlier in your presentation, but did I hear you say that you have similar agreements and other jurisdictions or not? Or is this a first? I'm going to defer to the Caesars team for that, but I did make that representation, Commissioner. I'll allow the Caesars team to write a little more detail on that. Yeah, I can I can take that question. So Caesars nationwide is involved in the operations of about 180 sportsbooks nationwide. The vast majority of those being in Nevada, about 100 of those more in Nevada. This arrangement has been quite common, not only in Nevada, but as sports betting has expanded to other jurisdictions. You know, I'll just mention a couple that I think were in your memo. We're active in New Jersey with a similar arrangement for a retail sportsbook with a facility called Mammoth Park Race Track. Very, very similar arrangement there. We've also got similar arrangements in Iowa, Washington, DC, and most recently in Ohio, where we opened up a sportsbook at Rocket Mortgage Field House, which is where the Cleveland Cavaliers play. So quite a common arrangement.  Thank you, Dan. And thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Sure. Did you want to add any color to what your expectations will be? What's your expectations? Arrangement? Sure. You know, we think this is a great opportunity to to bring retail sports betting to to a different part of the state, which is which is where, you know, Rain and Park is located. You know, really excited about opening a temporary facility as soon as we can after licensing in the current Rain and Park facility, which is currently for simulcast and only and has a very loyal crowd of perimutual horse racing bettors. You know, so the intent there is to open up a temporary facility. While Rain and builds out their larger 30,000 square foot facility adjacent to the current, the older facility. So we're really excited to first introduce retail sports betting to the area. And then after that, transition to what Rain and Park is building, which is going to be a beautiful state of the art facility, not only for sports betting, but but perimutual horse racing. And then you add a great food and beverage component to that as well. So, you know, again, we've done this successfully in many other jurisdictions where you marry the horse racing and the food and beverage aspect, and you create a real experiential dynamics or for sports bettors to watch games and to wagering games. So we're really excited about it. Good questions for either Mr. Nonsault or Mr. Madam Chair, I think I have one more. Thank you, Mr. But I don't know how to ask it. So I'll just ask it. So will you be partnering with the perimutual horse racing as well, or will you be totally separate from that operation? The intention is when we move to the permanent location. So initially in the temporary location, we wouldn't touch perimutual. When we move to the permanent location, the intention is for Caesars to manage the perimutual operation as well. And a few reasons for that. One is that we can offer both perimutual wagers and sports wagers in the same kiosks and terminals. So there's some efficiencies there that we can create and bring in our modern technology to handle those wagers. I think it's also going to be a benefit for perimutual wagering as well. It's going to get the product in front of people who may be coming to the facility for sports betting to potentially try a perimutual wagering. So that's the intent. As we talked about, this relationship was really to bring both together, cross market them, and create those efficiencies on both sides. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good questions. Michelle Bryan, you're not leaning in, are you? No, I'm not. I'm all set. Thanks. So may I be thinking it or you're all set? I'm taking it all in. Naturally, my first thought during that, Mr. Shapiro, is we're going to have a situation where we're going to have to think about how a joint kiosk is used for an 18-year-old and a 21-year-old. But that's something I'm sure we'll think about going forward. And I can... Yeah, I'm sorry, Dan. I was just going to ask that. We actually have been very sensitive to that. And I can tell you that both the temporary spaces we're proposing, as well as the permanent space, is going to be a over 21 facility only. I think we're actually going to be maybe addressing some of these issues in our meeting today. But there would be, of course, separate reporting and obligations on that finance. But if you have the technology to sort that all out, we'll care about that in the application process. And for the application process, I'm assuming that while you have the temporary, you'd be addressing temporary and permanent. Sure. We're happy to do it, however, is most efficient for the commission. I think because we're so far along in the planning process now, I think we are prepared to talk both about the temporary space and the permanent space. I know that you approached that a little bit differently, I think, with Plain Ridge and having it go through the licensing process and then come back and apply for the temporary space. And again, we're happy to do it, however, the commission would like. But we will be prepared to talk about both on the 12th. Thank you. Other questions? Just a riff on that, Chair, I would be interested when I know we're not talking about it right now, but how that investment goes towards the statutory obligation and requirement to just throwing that out there. Other questions? Director Lillios and Kathleen, Tony Kramer, anything further you want to add that you think would be helpful for the commissioners in advance? Of course, we can revisit the contract as part of our review. Anything further you want to add? We have the ability, as noted at the beginning, to move into an executive session. If there was anything that we would identify as perhaps commercially as a competitive situation where we put them at a competitive disadvantage. I'm not hearing any of those increased. But we have anything else, Chair. Okay. If there's no other questions, then we can say thank you to all that showed up. Commissioners, are we okay? All right. Well, thank you. It's nice to see you. And we are looking forward to the application process. Thank you. Have a good day. Thank you, everyone. Okay. Thank you, Kathleen. Well done. I think the thoroughness of your memorandum, he put in a lot of questions. So thank you so much. All right. So now I'm moving to 2B. Director Lillios, are you moving to that or your colleagues? I'll handle that, Chair. And this is just a very brief update. I wanted to inform you of a matter that was publicly announced by the SEC and also reported in the media. It contains to Mr. Jake Paul, who's a qualifier for the bed our category three license. On March 22nd, the SEC announced charges that it filed in federal court. The main charges involved three crypto companies and their entrepreneur owner. In the same announcement, the SEC announced that it also charged eight individuals, all described in the announcement of celebrities for illegally touting two of the crypto companies assets securities, specifically with respect to Mr. Paul and according to public documents from the SEC, Mr. Paul promoted the crypto assets in a tweet on February 21st, 2021. He did not disclose that he was being paid to give publicity by the company offering and selling the crypto to the public. He promoted the security on Twitter in exchange for a payment of crypto assets valued at approximately $25,000 and not disclosing this compensation violated the Federal Securities Act, which makes it unlawful for any person to promote security without fully disclosing the compensation from the issuer. Six of the eight individuals charged agreed to pay a total of over $400,000 in disbursement interest in civil penalties to settle the charges without admitting or denying the SEC's findings. And Mr. Paul paid a discouragement of around $25,000, basically covering that amount of the value of the asset with interest in the civil penalty of approximately $75,000 to resolve the matter fully with the SEC. Within 24 hours of the resolution with the SEC, Better notified the IEB and I do note that the company Better was not a party to this matter in any way. So this is something that the IEB will review in the course of our full suitability investigation into Better. I did want to acknowledge it here. Again, it's been a public matter. I know many of you saw it in the media want to let you know the IEB is aware. Company did notify us and we will look in more detail as part of the full suitability review. Thank you, Director Lillios. Any questions? Just for clarifications, they gave 24 hour notice to IEB within knowing he was being looked at or knowing they had resolved it. The resolution. OK, so they did not notify you that it was pending, they notified you about the resolution. And that is an area that we will be looking at. You know, we are currently in the process of, you know, we usually send a letter to our licensees really spelling out their duties in much more detail than the regulations. And we have talked about having a meeting with all of our licensees as we issue that letter. We have not done that yet. So, you know, just one that's on our that's a high priority item for us right now. Great. Thank you. I'll follow up, Director Lillios. We don't know. In fact, the SEC may have prohibited any discussion on time there. It's public announcement. Yeah, I don't I don't know that. OK. So that's part of your review too. All right. Correct. Other questions for Director Lillios. Thank you. OK. Thank you for the update. Director Lillios, is that it for you today? I think it is. I'm really looking forward to the rest of my day being. So I hope you have a good meeting and you know how to ping me if you need me. That's not going to stick around the round. She is going to stick around. Anyway, and Kathleen, thank you so much. We appreciate and we appreciate you started off your your day with these thorough reports. So thank you. Have a good day. And we'll turn right to sports waiting. And I should note that Executive Director Wells would be here today. But she is I am very pleased to say she's taken some well deserved vacation time. And she is enjoying some sunshine and warm weather. A little bit warmer than here today for opening day. It's pretty chilly. So we are thinking of her and God bless him. But that's why she's not here turning now to Director Van. Thank you, Madam Chair, commissioners. Today we're we're going to present you the House rules for better. And Mr. Carpenter will do the presentation on this. Morning. Good morning, chair and commissioners. So in your packet on page four, I believe is the House rules for better, better addressed all the comments made by the commissioners in previous meetings for the six licensees that went live on March 10th. Pretty much straightforward, better as a very slim. Amount of. Rules due to their limited wagering of just. Football, I don't want to say incorrectly. I believe it's football, basketball and baseball. So football. Baseball. And basketball. So those are the only three sports in which they allow. And they are looking for the commission to approve their House rules. And in today's meeting. Questions for us, Mr. Carpenter, Sturrell. And it's great to see you, Sturrell. Thank you for your work. Thank you. Questions. If you recall that better have an application represented its micro betting approach and the support of their application that they would have to your offerings but take a different approach. Sorry, business model. Well, I'll start with I don't think I see anybody turning in. So I'll start with a question, Sturrell. In your review, even though it's a slimmer approach to the extent that they have those offerings, is there anything that you're concerned that they there isn't full transparency about or where they need to flesh out their bills more? So there were several areas that have been addressed by better. We've brought to their attention. They also placed in their that in the event of incorrect events or or odds that we have that we have seen recently, they actually even posted in their what steps they will take in their House rules. Avoiding any wager if they were were to accept one that was not acceptable in the Commonwealth. So it's even though it's slim, they as appreciated by myself, they followed the House rule regulation almost in line with what we ask. So you can tell that there is a compliance team that was looking directly and specifically at our regulation, which, of course, most of the really large companies are already established in other jurisdictions and instead of rewriting or creating the wheel, they try to most their stuff into ours, betters critiquing are they are using theirs to match our regulation. So it was appreciated by this person. And it sounds like they were responsive to all of your requested changes. Correct. Thank you. Other questions for Sturrell. OK. Sturrell, I'm hearing no further questions. You need a vote. We do. I have a motion. Madam chair, I move that the Commission approve the House rules submitted by better Holdings, Inc. DBA better as included in the commissioners packet and discussed here today. I can thank you, commissioner. OK. Any questions or edits? For the discussion, commissioner O'Brien. I. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. Hi. I vote yes, five, zero, Sturrell, all set. Thank you. And I know that we're going to be revisiting the certificate of operations in the near future, correct? OK. Right. Yes. Sturrell, thank you. Moving on to legal. Yes. Good morning, madam chair and commissioners. So points that Massachusetts LLC has submitted a request to withdraw its application for a category three sportsway during license. The reason this is before you today is because we do have a regulation that governs application withdrawals 205 CMR to 13 point oh two requires that if an application has gone through the hearing or evaluation process or actually more specifically, even if the hearing or evaluation has been requested and the commission has determined to hear the application, a request for withdrawal of that application must be expressly approved by the commission upon a finding of good cause. So given that this application has gone through the evaluation process, the withdrawal must be approved by the commission. The request in its entirety was distributed to the commission. It's included in the packet with competitively sensitive information redacted. And Rachel Casper, who is VP of legal compliance and licensing at points that is here, should you have any questions on the public portion of the document? Good morning, Ms. Casper. Thank you for joining us. Questions. Respect to this process that we designed. OK. Commissioner Hill, you're taking your head. No, Mr. Skinner, are you all set? Michelle Maynard, you're nodding.  No, just a little disappointing, obviously, that we approved it and, you know, less than two months later, there's a turnaround. But I don't have any questions about what was submitted. OK. Well, I think the legal team for its work and I think Ms. Casper, for since the submission, thank you, Terce Stein. OK, well, we need we need a vote on this. So if there are no further questions, Commissioner Hill. Madam Chair, in accordance with 205 CMR 213.012, I move that the Commission find that Points Bet, Massachusetts LLC has shown good cause for the withdrawal of its category three sports wager and license application. And I further move that the Commission approved Points Bet, Massachusetts LLC's application withdrawal request. OK, any questions or edits on that motion? OK, Commissioner O'Brien. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Cushia Skinner. Hi. Cushia Maynard. Hi. Yes, five zero. Thank you. And we appreciate your coming in today, Ms. Casper. Good luck. Thank you. Thank you. So we are now, Harry. Moving on. I am for the we have a number of comments and related materials in our packet. It was it was is this you, Todd, today? I will. Yes, I'd be happy to jump in on this one, Madam Chair and commissioners. And hello again. If I may, there was a question raised as to whether wagers on horse and Greyhound racing may be offered by sports wagering operators, i.e. whether that activity can be included in the Commission's catalog of approved events. And the Commission has addressed this issue previously and determined that wagering on horse and Greyhound racing is not permitted in 205 CMR 247 point one sub two. You'll recall that the Commission outlined a series of activities that an operator shall not offer sports wagering on. And there in the Commission expressly prohibited of horse and Greyhound wagering in subsection D. There are a number of reasons why, in my opinion, that that was a sound decision and need not be disturbed here. And they include both legal reasons and policy based reasons. And I'd be happy to just run through those with you now. So the first place to begin is the definition of sports way sports event in chapter twenty three and that's in section three. You'll recall that the definition affords the Commission fairly broad, but not on bridal discretion to determine what types of wagers will be permitted. The term sports event is defined as a professional sport or athletic event, collegiate sport or athletic event, a collegiate tournament, motor race event, electronic sports event or other event authorized by the Commission under this chapter. And it's this other event language that gives rise to the issue before you here today. That is is horse racing and Greyhound racing, the type of other event that chapter twenty three and contemplated when it included this language. And to answer this question, it's helpful to look at a few other areas of the law. As we know, wagering on horse racing and Greyhound racing is specifically authorized under its own discrete body of law. This includes both wagers on live races at the track, as well as simulcast wagers on races conducted at other tracks. This process is set out largely in chapters one twenty eight a and one twenty eight C of the general laws. So the question here is what is the correlation between chapters one twenty eight a and C and chapter twenty three N. And one way to look at it is that the racing laws have expressly occupied the space that sets out the requirements that have to be met in order for one to offer wagering on horse and Greyhound racing. And that absent a clearly expressed legislative intention to do otherwise. That should remain the sole and exclusive authority on the subject by its very terms. Chapter one twenty eight a section thirteen expressly criminalized is holding or conducting a gambling pool or managing any other type of wagering or betting on the results of any horse or dog race, except as permitted by chapter one twenty eight a. That is just a further indication that wagering on racing was intended to be confined to this statutory a construct that's set out in chapters one twenty eight a C. In this instance, chapter twenty three N does not in my opinion express any clear intention that wagering on horse and Greyhound racing be permitted to be offered by licensing sports wagering operators. Where chapter twenty three N does clearly articulate, for example, the wagering on motor race events and electronic sports be allowed. It does not include any horse or dog racing on the list. And notably, as far as I'm aware, these are all activities that are not otherwise regulated or specifically addressed in other bodies of law within the Commonwealth. Accordingly, the Commission has complete discretion as to how and whether to allow wagering on those activities. By contrast, racing is clearly addressed elsewhere, including again in chapter one, twenty eight A. One of the other areas that it is addressed is in the Interstate Horse Racing Act, which is federal law, and that would likely be implicated in the event that racing were included in the catalog. That act, the Federal Act, which is actually directly referenced in chapter twenty three K section seven and the Gaming Commission is designated as the host Racing Commission. That act sets out a series of approvals and authorizations from post tracks and associated horsemen's groups. There requires certain terms and conditions be in place prior to such operation. So at a minimum, it would likely not be as simple as just including racing in the sports wagering catalog if the Commission were so inclined to do so. In some, the jurisprudence in Massachusetts requires, as you know, that we read all laws in harmony with one another when deciphering their intent and that we assume that statutes did not radically change the law unless the change is clearly expressed. I would submit to you that that's not the case under the statutory construct under twenty three N, where chapter one twenty three A and C do actually address this issue squarely. Those are that's the legal piece of it. There are a series of policy related concerns that would be associated with including racing in the catalogue as well. Many of them are expressed in the series of written comments that we have received that the chair referenced, namely that if the practice were to be allowed, the takeout structure and associated revenues that the racing laws required to be directed to the racing industry under chapter one twenty eight A and C would not be in place. And this revenue stream is protected when such racing wagering is offered by an ADW provider as the wagers there would flow through the approved racing entity and be subject to the racing laws. This would not be the case should wagering be permitted under on horse racing and Greyhound racing be permitted under chapter twenty three N. So in some. You know, the the issue is presently addressed in the regulations. I thought this was a helpful opportunity to add a little bit more clarity to that issue in the event that it were to be something that the commission is inclined to address now or in the future. But those are the points that I wanted to make. I'm certainly happy to address any of those points further or take any questions at this judge. Commissioners. Well, we did get this question Crystal was with me on the floor of MGM Springfield on the launching day of retail. So it's what you drink. And. Forgive me, I did not remember at the time that it was in our regulation. And it's under that whole list. I just was double checking the red because I saw Penn was and triggered my memory. You know, last night that it was in there and it's under the prohibited activities. So we did. That's a pretty fulsome list. So we had that in mind when we. That it would be prohibited. With that said. The legal analysis that we've been given. Is that to do contrary would not be consistent with the statutory structure? Is that there? Yes, that's exactly right. Yeah. OK. Any other comments, questions? Commissioner Hill, are you moving? I'd be happy to move. I was just going to say, I think this. This was an easy one today. Yeah, it turned out to be. So because because of that, I moved that the commission find that horse racing may not be included in the sports wager and catalog approved by the commission under GL Chapter 23 and. So I didn't need to interrupt Commissioner Hill with a good little bit. Yeah, easy. We like that. Thank you. The second. Yeah, second. Thank you. And I'm chair, I just have a process question since this matter has already been decided in the regulation. Do we even need the vote? Not necessarily, but I think it just helps kind of solidify the position and the legal analysis in case there's ever an effort to revisit this, the commission will have spoken clearly on the issue. So I think it's helpful. Perhaps another way for me to think about it, which is kind of why I asked the question is the red stand. But we could change the. I'm not hearing that anyone's interested in the other. And that's why I mentioned it's really the legal analysis that was propelling me to say our red stands. So I guess, in that perspective, I'm comfortable. None of your point is is a good one is on the agenda. So it's a redundancy, perhaps, but it does confirm our earlier decision on this. That's helpful. Yes, we actually received a lot of feedback once people saw this particular issue on our agenda. So good way to put the hammer down, they say, right. And I suppose if the legal analysis had been less clear, we might be revisiting it from a policy point of view. But I'm not hearing anyone wanting to do that today. Right. OK. All right. So are we comfortable then? With this motion. No need to reframe it or edit it. OK. Mr. Bright. Hi. Christian. Hi. Mr. Stinnard. Hi. Mr. Stinnard. Hi. And I thought, yes, five zero. Thank you. And I'm probably got clarity on that. All right. So for A and B, we're going to turn then. To. That's what I found. Good morning. Today we have the item of Fandall's request to approve a direct link within their Fandall sportsbook to their ADW Fandall racing. As the commission's aware earlier, the commission approved Suffolk Down's vendors for account wagering and one of those has been Fandall for a number of years. The advanced deposit wagering system, importantly, will remain completely separate from the sports wagering system as far as the monies go. There's a sense of regulations and statute on how paramutual racing gets paid out and all. And so that definitely will remain separate. There still will be standalone access to Fandall racing. Tances are that anybody who's interested in the Fandall racing probably is also interested in the Fandall sportsbook. But if there is somebody who only wanted to do racing, they still will be able to go directly into their racing account. So that's an important thing to know. One of the advantages to this system from the Fandall aspect of it for their patrons is that once a user is logged into the Fandall sportsbook, then they would be logged into the Fandall racing. It wouldn't necessitate separate logins. So it would be a little easier for people. They do have it make it clear that once a user moved from the Fandall sportsbook to the Fandall racing, there would be a notification to the user that they've left Fandall sportsbook and that they're in racing and it's a separate product. And then one of the last highlights is that users who haven't used Fandall racing before would be prompted to agree to their advanced deposit rate during terms and conditions prior to being able to use it. According to Fandall, there is 11 different states that have this system in place now. It's interesting as you all know with gaming and sports wagering and racing, a lot of the states have different ways of setting up the regulation of it. So some states have something similar to us where one commission oversees both racing and gaming and sportsbooks. Some are under the gaming part of it and the sportsbook is under lottery. Some of them have two completely different agencies but are a gaming agency and a racing agency. But with the different ways it's been done, there have been approvals made. Some of them were made at the staff level. Some were made at the gaming commission with the OK from the racing commission. So there's different ways that the states have gone about approving this type of an item. At the staff level, we felt it was important to bring this to the commissioners or them to hear about it, to talk to FanDuel and decide what they would like to do. It's important to note it that there are several other vendors for account wagering that also have ties to sportsbooks that are now approved in Massachusetts.  I don't know if I left anybody out. And there are several other ADW vendors that Suffolk does have a relationship with it. They ultimately have some type of association with a sportsbook. So this may not be the person only time this question will come up to the commission. So I just wanted to make sure the commission was aware of that, that there might be similar requests coming in down the line. And one of the things that the commission may wish to consider is would they want, if they do approve FanDuel today, if another group comes forward in the future, would they like that to come back on the commission agenda individually? Or would they want it to be held at the staff level? So from the racing perspective, there doesn't seem to be a downside to this. The racing industry feels that the sportsbook may end up driving more business to the account wagering companies, which is a good thing. As you know, the tracks obviously benefit from the account wagering. The horseman's purses also do. And the racing division's budget also gets part of the account wagering revenue. As you've seen on our annual report, it's actually a significant part of our budget right now. Let's see, Josh Mehta should be on from FanDuel. And if the commissioners have any questions for me or would like to turn it over to Josh. I think Commissioner O'Brien has a question first and then Commissioner Skinner. And then I'll turn to Serena after those two questions. I'll let the commissioners have another question for Alex. Commissioner O'Brien. So Alex, I have two questions. One has to do with, I'm assuming, the licensees that have the ADW relationship with FanDuel are in support of this request. I mean, you're saying that the feedback is you think it'll drive up business, linking them in with the sportsbook. I just want to make sure that conversation's actually happened because this is a change the relationship. And then the second is whether I mean, they kind of have to keep their stand alone because of the 18-21 difference. And so I wanted to make sure if someone's toggling back and forth, there's no risk an 18-year-old is going to backdoor their way in to FanDuel's sportsbook. So from the track standpoint, Mike Buckley, the COO of Suffolk Downs is actually the one who arranged asked for me to arrange a meeting between him and FanDuel for this. And on a slightly separate note, Steve O'Toole mentioned that they don't have any issues with this particular item as well. OK. And then maybe FanDuel can answer the other 18-21 question I had. Sure. Could we hold on it just for one second? Sure. And I want to try to push your scanner, please. Thanks. I just had a general question as to the difference between this request by FanDuel and the request from DraftKings we heard last week. Is it the structure of the entities that have requested the account wagering provider status? I just need some clarification on why this is a different type of request than the one we that was before the commission at last Thursday's meeting. Sure. Last Thursday's meeting was a request for approval of DraftKings' DK course as an account wagering vendor for Suffolk Downs. FanDuel Racing, Suffolk Downs asked for that approval of FanDuel back in December with their group of other account wagering vendors that they use. I don't know how many there are this five or six of them now. And FanDuel, they have to do it every year. FanDuel Racing has been approved by the commission for a number of years. So FanDuel Racing is already an account wagering provider. So the commission does not need to approve them as an account wagering vendor today. What they're asking for is now that they have a sports book with the commission. They would like to be able to have that direct link from the sports book to their racing, to account wagering.  Each of them separate and you can click on each one or whatever. And they're looking for a link within if you're already in the sports betting link within that particular site to go to the racing site. OK, and this would be the first request of this time. Yes, commission. OK, OK, thank you. That that that's clarity for me. And you don't have any concerns with the commission. The request. Thank you, Dr. Leitman. Thank you, Commissioner Stanner. If we're going to turn to Mr. Metta for you heard, Commissioner Bryan's question, my question would be a follow up that I could ask Alex, but I think it's probably more pertinent to you, Josh, is. When a Fandall customer, whether it's ADW or for sports wagering, comes on to the single platform will in comics. I don't know the answer to this. Will there be the advantage of new responsible gaming messaging for an ADW patron that we don't see that now on the ADW platform? Yeah, absolutely. And I really appreciate the commission's opportunity to address all of you on this issue. I'm happy to take these in turn first, Commissioner Bryan's question. Thank you. Each of each of the products that we offer have different age requirements in different jurisdictions. And we have an eligibility service on the sports banking system that's been certified by GLI to ensure that only individuals over the age of 21 in the Commonwealth will be able to participate in sports wagering. This effort has no bearing on that. It doesn't affect whether ADW users in the Commonwealth are able to participate in sports wagering if they are between the ages of 18 and 21. Those eligibility determinations are made on a product-by-product basis. And then before turning to Chairman, Chairwoman Jett's science question, happy to address any follow-ups. Yeah, so I guess my question is if somebody has an ADW, there's no way that they can toggle in, right? Correct. They have to independently establish the sport that they're in KYC. That's correct. They would have to independently establish and they would have to pass KYC on the sports betting side, which does have different KYC standards than the ADW KYC standards. Okay, but if you're going back from ADW into an existing sports wagering, there's no reconformation of 21+, right? The assumption is it's the same user and the KYC is the same user. For additional clarity, I guess I'm gonna ask, it is the sports betting application itself that this phandal racing access point would be put within. There is no analogous access point within the standalone phandal racing mobile application. So there's no way to go from the standalone mobile racing mobile application to the same sports, but they're distinct platforms. Okay, great. Thank you. Absolutely. And then, yes, to Chairman Jett's science question, we do have, we apply our responsible gaming tool across all of our products, because we do think as a business that is best for all of our consumers. So it would introduce additional responsible gaming tooling. It would make it more visible as well. These individuals that are in the Commonwealth that are sports book users going over to ADW may not be aware that these things exist. So with a lot of the messaging that the commission has put forward and a lot of the game sense resources that has been requested to be included on the platform, those would be visible both from within the sports book experience. And then through messaging on the transfer screens that are in your packet for when the person is transitioning over to our end of view that operates ADW, ODS technologies in the Commonwealth. Sure, as I was not clear on the regulations whether these other requirements are being not being for the ODW. Mr. Maynard, you've taken a peek at the non-regulation, but who's like that? Can you help me out? Yeah, I'm not sure I've had people to do it. Yeah, I'm not sure it's in the racing regulations, but I know that Suffolk and the other, you know, Rainham and Pine Ridge have all worked with the responsible gaming even from before there was a gaming commission. Even when it was just racing, and I know fairly recently over the last couple of years, Mark VanderLinden has reached out to all the tracks and worked with them on the responsible gaming to get them up to speed. I think there might have been a little bit of a gap when some of the transition between Marlene and whoever was her predecessor along those lines. So I know over the last couple of years, Mark VanderLinden has been working with all the racing licensees to get that messaging out there as well. And Mark magically appeared. I'm always listening. Yeah, sure, we appreciate that. Yeah, I mean, Alex is absolutely right. We have, you know, it's different working in racing and at Rainham and Suffolk than it is in the casinos. But it's trying to translate the game since message over to that. And each of them honestly, it's been incredibly welcoming and open to it. The staff at each of those sites have been excited about bringing and offering games since materials. And certainly there's no stopping us continuing that to move forward. Very helpful. Patricia, do you wanna follow up on that, Commissioner Maynard? So in relation to that, but slightly different, I guess it would be from Mr. Metta. There are no plans to cross-promote at this time, right? There's no, you know, bet $10 a year and then $10 comes over a year.  I just wanna make sure there's gonna be separate accounting features on promotions. There are separate accounting features. I think something we would look to do in the future is to have, you know, some sort of cross-promotion to be able to introduce sports book users to the ADW experience. I think one of the things that makes us different from the prior discussion is, and this is mentioned in a lot of the comments from the racing industry on the prior issue, the ADW service that we offer in Commonwealth today is a 128 service. So as opposed to adding racing to the sports wagering catalog where sports wagering systems are gonna be accepting racing wagers, these are wagers accepted by an existing ADW system. So, you know, a part of the opportunity for this particular initiative really is to, you know, introduce more people in the Commonwealth to the ADW experience, you know, using their interest in sports as well. But if that is a, you know, a commission directive, we could also, you know, re-empt the ability not to offer those, you know, sorts of promotions as well if that's something that the commission finds preferable. I think, oh, do you have a follow-up on that, Commissioner, or are you thinking? No, I'm just thinking. I wanna make sure that we, you know, that we don't swallow the rule, right? That one platform is not a different, an ADW, you know, in disguise. That's what I'm thinking. For the other operators, we haven't come wealth and we don't have the ADW, I'm thinking that way too. And I wanna make sure that, you know, all the funds go where they need to go. And I see Chad on here, but, you know, and that they're okay. Absolutely, I understand.  So it is not the case that a racing bonus could be used on the sports betting system or vice versa. You know, there could be promotions run that award racing bonuses, but they would only be able to be used on the ADW system. Are you saying racing bonuses because you have weighed your own sports weight drink platform about racing bonus points? It could be something that we would consider in the future, but it's also something that we have the ability not to offer if that was the commission's preference. But the clarity is you can't get a promotional gaming credit that could be used across multiple platforms. Mr. Maynard, I asked the same question on pre-grossing for our meeting. How it wasn't, how were the two issues kind of separate? Todd, I don't know. I mean, Todd made it clear to me, really, it's the difference in platform and the reporting. But what I'm hearing is, you know, Andrew would like to promote both of its products and it could come up through sports weight drink marketing. By the way, you can get on the derby by going to, by setting up ADW account, by going to your ADW account. And they would have that access because they happen to have ADW account where one of our other licensees can't promote, well, they could promote the derby, they just wouldn't be able to offer that at that. So they want to use their advertising dollars on that, if they were making it a party or something, but because they have both models. Todd, is there anything else you want to add? That was kind of what I was struggling with too. Is there any unforeseen consequence or any restrictions? We would like to launch on those. Yeah, no, I mean, I can't see any unforeseen consequences, but I think that it's the key consideration is that in this case, FanDuel and a number of other operators too, as Dr. Leipman mentioned, is a legally authorized ADW provider and there's a body of law that governs that activity and they are a legally authorized sportsway during operator and there's a body of law that governs that activity. The only question here is whether they're allowed to do it kind of on the same page so patrons can see both of them and whether the idea that if they're following both sets of laws appropriately, whether there's a concern having them appear on the same page, it's more of a policy question, I believe, than a legal issue, but assuming that all of the legal requirements are being met on both sides of the ledger, there's no, I can't think of any consequences that may arise as a result. Any further questions? Mr. Netta, Dr. Leipman, oh, I think that Dr. Leipman is looking for a motion. If there are no further questions, somebody wanna move. Madam Chair, I move that the commission approve FanDuel group inks requests to enable access points to the FanDuel racing experience within FanDuel Sportsbook has included in the commissioners' packet that we're gonna discuss here today. Second. Any further questions or add-ins? Okay, Commissioner. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Mr. Skinner. Hi. Terminator. Hi. And I vote yes. There we go. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Netta, for showing up today and giving us some great input. Thank you, commissioners. I appreciate the opportunity. Okay, great. Thank you, Mark. And Dr. Leipman. And Chad, thank you. So we are about to turn to Director Vandalin's report. I wanna check in with both Mark and Mills to see about scheduling. I know that Mark is also gonna be interviewed for a work-related matter. How's the scheduling going? Should we take a lunch? Should we keep on moving? Should we take a break? I'm gonna turn first to you two and then I'll turn to my fellow commissioners. The schedule on our end is fine, Chair. I think whatever the commissioners would like to do unless Mark has a different thought, but I think that's fine. Yeah, same. Whatever the commissioners would like to do. Okay, commissioners, do you wanna take a short break and then turn to Mark for his research agenda? That's fine. Okay, excellent. So it's just 11.30.  Thank you. Thanks, everyone. And very efficient meeting today. Thank you to everyone for all of the input at a time. How's the wind out near Boston and West?  It's foundation, it's so windy here. If I were at home, I'd have to look outside and see something, but there's no indication from here.  Welcome to spring in New England, go socks. I heard on the radio today that it's the earliest opening day ever. I didn't know that. I heard that there's never been a March opening day. I think I heard that right. Did you hear that, I mean? Well, it's funny, my husband and I were just saying that. I was watching the four reporters, like, you know, in their comfies trying to stay warm. And I don't remember a March one. Yeah, I think they said the earliest was April 1st. Yeah. I remember the coldest one on record, but they were saying it's also, it was cold. So I don't know if it's on record. I went to an April one once, I think, and it was cold. Yeah. I've had season tickets for 22 years and I've never seen a March game. Yeah. So Joe, I think that the reporters were saying that and I think that makes sense. Yeah, I was disappointed to have such an early game because it's brutal. I'm back, 20 years ago I went to a game and saw Pedro strike out 11 with a winter hat and jacket and wool blanket on at like 11 degrees in Fenway. That was like April 10th or 12th, but never March. Are you going to today's game, Joe? No, I live in California. Well, I know, but I wonder if you could come East for it. You know, I wonder.  And the original guys I got the tickets with, just like the movie, honestly, still have like 50% of the tickets, but they're in my mind. That's great. That's a great story. They said today it's going to be colder today than it was during the Fenway hockey games when it was like 56 degrees. Brutal. The Patriots came with her. Again, welcome to New England weather. I don't know what we would do without it because what would we talk about? All right, so I think we're all set there. Make them. All set. Okay. Excellent. This is a reconvening of them. That's just getting commissioned. I want to thank the team. We got to much of our agenda today. Record speed with thoroughness and I think the preparation was so very good. It really helped us. So thank you. And as Commissioner Hills indicated, some of the matters where we're more perhaps more straightforward than we anticipated. So that's great news. So last we heard from Dr. White down on item number five, turning now to item number six, I guess I better do a roll call. Commissioner O'Brien. I am here. Commissioner Hill. I'm here. Patricia Skinner. I'm here. And Commissioner Maynard. I'm here, Madam Chair. Okay. And I'm going to finish up then with the recavailment and a critically important topic. We're looking forward to hearing from you, Mark, as you set the stage on your 24 research agenda. Correct. Good morning. Almost afternoon, Madam Chair and commissioners. Yeah, I'm bringing before you the proposed FY 24 gaming research agenda. And so just before I kick it off, just a reminder, this is kicking it off and very open to any feedback that you have. But after today, we'll be sharing this with both the gaming research advisory committee, which is a non-statutory advisory body to the commission to give advice and to share research with, but then also the gaming policy advisory committee, which is statutory. And we will seek their advice before it comes back to the commission, probably realistically near the beginning of April or May. I'm sorry. So to kind of kick this off, this is actually one of the funnest parts of my job is to begin thinking and dreaming about where we take this research agenda from year to year. I think we've all heard just how unique the Expanded Gaming Act is in Massachusetts. And I think that we have the advantage, even though we've been at this for over 10 years, we have the advantage of kind of coming late to the game, if you will, and learning from a lot of other states that had gone before us about what should we consider, what should we be doing differently to have a successful gaming industry in Massachusetts. One of those things is the gaming research agenda, specifically chapter 23K, section 71, outlined a requirement that the Massachusetts Gaming Commission carry out an annual research agenda with the advice of the gaming policy advisory committee to examine the social and economic effects of Expanded Gambling and to obtain scientific information relative to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, epidemiology, and etiology of gambling. Last year, this statutory requirement was extended to chapter 23N, which required us to carry forth a research agenda looking at the exact same thing as it relates to sports wagering. So you'll see that that is actually very clearly reflected, that new mandate is clearly reflected in the FY24 research agenda. A few years back, I think it was 2019, that the commission adopted a strategic plan as it relates to the gaming research agenda, and it organized it into seven key focus areas. It's economic research, social research, community-engaged research, public safety research, responsible gaming evaluation, the cohort study, and data sharing. I have a brief description of each of those specific lines of research there for you, but rather than focus on that, I just wanna just review a few of the reports, studies that have come out of each of these areas, and this is definitely not an exhaustive list. We have over at least Bonnie and I were counting over 60 reports and studies that have been released now over the course of the past 10 years. So in terms of some of the types of economic research that we've covered in that time, for each of the casinos, we've done a construction report looking at spending employment economic impacts direct and indirect and induced impacts of the construction of the casinos in the state. We've conducted new employee surveys at each of the casinos. The Sigma team did a real estate impact report looking at how has real estate, residential and commercial real estate change in the communities where casinos are placed. Each casino has, we've done a patron and license plate survey, the latest of which is on core of Austin Harbor and that report will be coming to you here in the next month or month or so. We've done a wide range of different types of social research, kicking it off back in 2013 with the general population survey looking at gambling behaviors attitudes before the introduction of casinos in Massachusetts. It provided us with a really good picture of what does recreational gambling look like? What does at-risk gambling look like? And very importantly, what is the prevalence rate of problem gambling in the state before casinos open up? Likewise, similarly in the next month or so we'll have for you early findings from the follow-up general population survey. How has all of that changed in the last 10 years since we've launched three casinos in the state? And it will also serve as a functional baseline to understand sports wagering behavior in Massachusetts. We've also in that same social research it produced the Sigma team produced an understanding of the prevention paradoxes that relates to gambling behavior. There was a study done in release last year looking at sports wagering specifically and provided some information for the legislature and gaming commission to consider as we've promulgated regulations and rules. We've done a wide range of community-engaged research and I know this is a line of research that's near and dear to the commission. We've looked at the community perspectives on core Boston Harbor from the Everett community, looking at a wide range of different communities within that area. The Asian Cares report has had a huge impact and informed us in Massachusetts and outside of Massachusetts even. One of the first ones was casinos and gambling in Massachusetts looking at it from African American perspectives. And again, we have another report coming to you here soon looking at perspectives and impacts in the Springfield area. Public safety research last year released an assessment of the casino's impacts on operating under the influence and OUI traffic collisions. For each of the casinos in Massachusetts and their host and surrounding communities, we've done a baseline and a number of follow-ups that really try to understand the impacts, calls for service, crime impacts and the like. We will be releasing another one very soon for the Everett and surrounding communities. We will be sharing that next week with police chiefs in the area and then followed by, we'll be releasing that to the commission hopefully I believe next month or later even this month. That's just in terms of responsible gaming evaluations. We've evaluated each of the core responsible gaming programs in Massachusetts, voluntary self-exclusion, play my way and game sense. Data sharing, we've launched Moe to the Massachusetts Open Data Exchange and now hosts a number of the broad data sets that have been produced by the Seegman team. We will continue to add to that library of available data sets for researchers, including the section 97 requirement that will add player card data for the purposes of research. I think that gives you, I could go on and on, but honestly, I just wanna give you just a general idea of kind of where we've been over the past 10 years and how when I say I'm excited to see where this research agenda goes, I truly am because these reports mean something. Research like this hasn't been done generally in the past or if it has, it continues to provide details that are relevant to Massachusetts. And it adds to the overall body of research. So with that, I'll turn to the proposed FY24 gaming research agenda. So the FY24 proposed gaming research agenda is $1,865,000, it's approved by the commission and carried out as we anticipate. This is roughly a 30% increase from the adopted FY23 budget. May I interrupt for one second? Your volume went down when you were announcing the amount of money that was being spent and I didn't hear it. Could you repeat that please? Yes, I'm sorry, Commissioner Hill. The amount of the proposed FY24 gaming research agenda is $1,865,000. And Commissioner Hill, this is a 30% increase from the FY23 gaming research agenda, largely due to the expansion of the gaming research agenda looking at proposing a number of studies related to sports ledger. And just to kind of go into... One minute please, I'm sorry, I guess we'll just be on real time as you go through. But this is on the integrated social and economic impact sense. Did you say 1.8 or 1.3? 1.8. Okay, that's all right. Thank you. And then the only thing I'm wondering, Mark, as you go through this, do let us know if this will be newly prepared or how? Yeah, yeah, yeah, absolutely, that's a good point. Yes. Because I'm always thinking about opportunities for different places, so thank you. Correct. So just a couple of highlights on research that we're proposing that is new. And as I go deeper into it, Madam Sherrill, highlight whether it will be a new procurement or whether it's just a new line of research. First is a study to examine the effects of gaming in Massachusetts on human trafficking. There, and then diving deeper into sports wagering, we are proposing an evaluation on the effectiveness of sports wagering responsible gaming tools. A study on the impact of eye gaming on public health with particular focus on comparison of participants in other forms of gambling, comorbidity and problem gambling. And specifically and importantly, impacts on youth under the age of 25. We're looking at a prospective study on the feasibility and potential impact of allowing retail locations in the Commonwealth to operate sports wagering kiosks. And this is a study that is currently moving through the procurement process of or work, including it in the FY24 research agenda because it will carry on into FY24. And which one is that hard? That is the kiosk feasibility study that's required in chapter 23. I guess I'm trying to follow along in your memo. Maybe I'm lost. I'm just, Madam Chair, I haven't gone into the table that is presented there. I'm just kind of covering, I'm just like teeing it all up for you right now. Thank you so much. Okay. There's also required in 23 and the study on the participation by minority businesses, enterprises, women, business enterprises and veteran business enterprises in the sports wagering industry in the Commonwealth. And then finally, we're proposing a study that takes a look at different marketing affiliate affiliate payment structures and the impacts on players. So now Madam Chair, I will dive into the table and it organizes it into the different lines of research. Okay. So I think I'm looking at page 45 of our pocket. So the first is the FY24 integrated social and economic impacts report. And this is drawing data and research that's been produced basically since the beginning of 2015 since Plain Ridge Park Casino often. And looking at the overall social impacts of gaming in Massachusetts. This is a big report that should provide a pretty clear picture on social and economic impacts. Interestingly, this will take work that we haven't really done much with since 2014 when the SIGMA research team did a matched comparison exercise, looking at other Northeast regions and towns and cities and looking at communities that did not have casinos so that we now can do a comparison of what impact has having casinos had in Massachusetts versus if we didn't have casinos in Massachusetts. This study is a continuation for the SIGMA research team so this would not be a new study. So can I pause there, Mark? Yes. This is part of the 1.8 million. This is part of the 1.8 million. It's part of the 1.8 million dollar contract? No, no, it's part of the SIGMA contract. The overall research budget, including new lines of research as well as leveraging existing contracts we have with researchers, the total of that is 1.8 million dollars. So my question is a little bit, for fiscal year 24, it would be 1.8 million dollar budget for the SIGMA team. No, the SIGMA team, the SIGMA team and Bonnie, correct me if I'm wrong, I believe is roughly $990,000. So it's about half of the overall research budget and the rest of it would be spread out across new procurements and smaller, smaller procurements that we have. So you can get new procurements and have those procurements been done yet? No, they have not because this is proposed at this point. Okay, so it's all proposed. This is where commissioners, I would stress that there's a real opportunity to get voices from minority communities, underrepresented communities and it's a healthy chunk of change. And so, Mark, I know that you've heard me over time justice. So I hope that that's an opportunity we can see. But so it's about 900,000 for UMass and then they would be overseeing the entire research project in coordination with all those new contractors or no. No, there would be new procurements that we would have that would be overseen by our division of research and responsible game. Excellent. And but we have an ongoing contract with Sigma or UMass Amherst School of Public Health and Health Sciences that I believe we were well into it. I can't tell you exactly when that contract ends, but we have at least a few more years left where we're working specifically with Sigma on a range of social and economic impact reports. Much of it is ongoing research that we've had for a while. Excellent. Okay. Thank you. And I see, and Dr. Bonnie Andrews is on here as well. So Bonnie, feel free to chime in where I'm not being clear too. Patricia, do you have any follow-up questions on, I'm following up on Commissioner Hill's inquiry and any other questions on, this is a big piece of the overall agenda. An ongoing great work. I see. Yes. Next is the online panel survey. And you'll see that this is the FY, or the FY23 report. So this is the actual report. So an online panel is different from other types of surveys. It relies on an online panel, obviously. We've worked with the Sigma team now over the course of a couple of years to take a look at how we can really leverage online panels versus population-based surveys to give an accurate estimate of the prevalence of gambling behavior in Massachusetts. Traditionally, online panels have not been great in this, in that way, but we believe that we're working towards utilizing an online panel, which is significantly less expensive than other types of survey research. So I think that there's great utility in this. So this report, the FY23 report will assess changes in gambling participation from 2022 to 2023, as well as the overall prevalence of problem gambling in the state. And as it states in the memo, it creates a template for reports moving forward. This would be overseen by the Sigma research team. Out-of-state visitorship to Massachusetts casinos. It's been a long time, but early on, as the legislature was contemplating expanded gaming, researcher by the name of Clyde Barrow did a study looking at how to state visitorship to Massachusetts and what the commonwealth could possibly see in terms of people coming to the state to gamble. This proposed study takes a unique look at this, using anonymized cell phone data to look at people who are coming to the state and visiting casinos. It's called the air and air stage data set. Arguably a much more accurate way to do a study like this than counting license plates and at casinos and in garages. This as well would be overseen by the Sigma research team. Next would be an online panel administering a new wave of the online panel launching in FY24, which would build on the FY23 report. The goal being that we continue to do these types of online panels on an online basis so we can access sort of a monitoring function to understand how gambling behavior is changing and most specifically how is problem gambling changing how is at risk gambling changing. So that sort of monitoring process allows us to work with our partners, including the Department of Public Health to be able to respond. There are changes that we're seeing. And then finally is an ad hoc economic report that will be determined by the commission later in the summer. And perhaps this is sports wagering, perhaps this is not, but it allows more flexibility for the commission to identify a pressing research question that you all have and be responsive to that. Under the public safety research, for a second any suggestions or questions for Mark on this portion of this framework that's being presented. Economic development, the three categories are economic development, safety, economic impact on me or social and economic impact. Correct. Public safety and then you're out of town. Community engaged public. So what's up next would be public safety research then followed by community engaged research, responsible gaming evaluation, sports wagering research and then a brief piece on our research review and knowledge translation exchange. So anything on economic impact right now Thank you. Not beyond what is in the Oh, not for me. I'm sorry. Sorry. I'm looking for the one that you're seeking, Mark. Okay. We'll move on. I just want to make sure that we do it in real time because it's pretty dense. So try our brains button in a good way dense. It's really, but keeping our brains nice and flexible for your work. Okay. So moving on to public safety research. We're proposing an assessment of gambling on public safety in Plainville and in the five surrounding communities. And this would be an eight year report. We haven't done a report this nature in Plainville for a number of years. And we felt that it was time to go back to Plainville. As I said, at the beginning, we're about ready to release a report with the Everett and the surrounding communities. And the research team is also right now in the midst of collecting data and writing a report for Springfield and the surrounding communities. So this is a logical sort of mixed step in our mind to do. This would be carried out by Justice Research Associates. We have a contract with a small group based out of Virginia, but with extensive experience in Massachusetts and specifically with a number of the police agencies that we're currently working with. Christopher Bruce is a name that probably rings a bell. He was carrying out this research for a number of years on our behalf. Quite well, I might add. He stepped back, but is still involved with Justice Research Associates. The new principal investigator for that group is Noah Prince. Was that not in pursuant to a procurement? That was pursuant to a procurement last year. I'm losing track of time, Madam Chair, but I believe it was last year that we re-procured that work. It was about a year ago. Okay, thanks. And the other study that I also briefly mentioned, the beginning is an assessment of the influence of the expanded human trafficking in Massachusetts. This is an issue that's come up a few times over the years and we felt like it was time to take a deeper dive in this specific type of research. This would be partnering with a wide range of stakeholders in Massachusetts with specific interest and expertise in this area. We envision that this would be a new procurement. It may leverage our contract with Justice Research Associates that we would not envision that they would be the principal investigator on this project. So if there's any questions on that, otherwise I'll move on to community-engaged research. Are there any other areas that you would want to explore on public safety? Commissioner O'Brien? Nothing additional that I can think of right now, no. On a broader question, and then Mark and I have already talked about this, is I'm intrigued by the interplay of advertising with sports wagering. And so I'm sort of interested in making sure we don't miss next year in terms of that, but that's not necessarily public safety. Yeah, that's the category. That's what I was sort of thinking of our categories. Where does that apply to? And I think on top of mind, can I also throw into the mix for public safety? I'm very happy to see human trafficking. That I just reached out to former, many of you would probably know him. Executive Director Ronnie Jones out of Louisiana. He's working extensively on human trafficking. I reached out to his partner, Christian Park, to see if they might come present to us on, and I got back just by chance last night. So it's been on top of mind for me. I know Commissioner O'Brien's been on top of mind for you. So I'm really delighted to see this. The other area of Commissioner O'Brien, I think you've thought about too, maybe others have probably certainly been talking about is anti-money laundering. And it seems as though there's no opportunities for that in the sports weight training world. So I don't know if that's too much to take on this fiscal year, but I think even our GEU unit, they want more training. I know this issue has come up. So Commissioner O'Brien. I mean, I think training is a great idea. I think putting AML and advertising into what we already have for framework for research might be fighting off more than we can shoot next year. But Mark, I don't know what your thoughts are. Well, if it's adding, then there would be more dollars to it. But if we could explore looking at what perhaps we would want to defer or not do next year and replace it in AML study. Or I don't know. I guess I don't know the true scope of it, but perhaps could that be something that we look at as in that economic ad hoc? Well, to the extent you can explore kind of a high level about what's practical, I'd appreciate that. Commissioner, do you have any other thoughts on that? Just Commissioner O'Brien on the training. I don't know if that could come. I think some discussion that we can have with IEP. Right, Madam Chair. I mean, in addition to or instead of there, we also, you know, we have the ability to do extensive literature reviews, find out what research has been done and perhaps identify where the gaps are and this type of research. And we'd be happy to, in the interim month, Bonnie and I would be happy to do that type of research for you and report back. There truly is a gap here. I think that's a, I love the idea of doing that. If you have the resources. Of course. Okay, thank you. All right. Okay. Oh, just real quick, that in the area of advertising, we actually, as part of our FY23 research agenda, have a specific study. I believe it was the ad hoc study for FY23, looking at the impacts of gambling advertising. And so we do have something coming your way probably later this summer, looking at that. Community engaged research. So community engaged research has been a really important part of our research agenda over the past several years now. This is really intended to die deeper within communities in Massachusetts to look at the impacts of gambling in ways in which perhaps broader population based surveys and research methodologies wouldn't do. So we encourage applicants for this type of research to think broadly, think creatively when they're proposing different research methods. It still goes through the same research review process. So there is academic rigor to it, but it's really intended to highlight perhaps how gambling impacts are affecting specific communities. We wish to extend this and you'll see that we're proposing two new community-driven research projects that would come from the Public Health Trust Fund where this research is coming from. So it would allow us to work with smaller community-based organizations or nonprofit entities. In addition to that, and we're really happy to be working with our community location team because over the summer and in this last funding cycle, we've extended that type of community-driven research into funding out of the Community Mitigation Fund. And so we would be really happy to be able to continue that work with the Community Affairs team. They're going through the review process now and I know that there are applications that would fill this category that they're currently reviewing. So we would be looking to extend that. So we would have community-engaged research in a couple of ways, at least two that would be proposed, that would be the sort of community-based organizations would be able to apply. Community Mitigation, it requires that it would be municipality or local government that would apply for that funding in partnership with community organizations. I feel like that was kind of confusing, but I'm happy to take any questions if it was not clear. Questions, commissioners? I have the budget question, I may have missed it or not understood. Not on community-engaged research to get complicated with community mitigation, but just on how you estimate the budget for the two new community-driven research projects. I know they kind of work both, but how does that work again? Well, so these would be new procurements. And we estimate that each one is approximately $100,000 each, or we budget about that. Is that enough? There are times where we award more and they're multi-year grants. And so for example, we do have examples of community-engaged research where it's $100,000 and it kind of starts it off and then there's different phases of that specific type of research that allows us to continue and it brings more funding into it. So some, yes, some, no. Have you found ever that when you're working with that, we never really asked this. Could they have done more interviews, done more in-depth work if their budget has been bigger? In other words, do they indicate budgetary restraints as part of their exit interview or whatever with the other? Yeah, you know, I mean, that is a good point. We work closely, any research team that receives funding from the Gaming Commission, we work closely with them up front through the sort of procurement process and proposal. It's not entirely out of bounds to take a look at where they are and what else could be done and as long as it remains within the scope of that original procurement, we have adapted the research plan which oftentimes means that perhaps additional funds are directed to it. But if your concern is that perhaps we need to move more into this fund, that's absolutely feedback that we can take and we can look at that overall budget and see how we can shift some of the priorities. Commissioner's percentage of the budget, he said it was 30% increase for the 1.8 million. So what percentage of the budget is community-engaged research? Yeah, I would need to do the math on that. That's the overall, you're all wrong. Yeah, so, well, and one point is that any community-engaged research that comes out of community mitigation time is obviously not drawing from... Separate and apart. So I'm just looking at those two, the two that we would drive directly. So it's like a couple of hundred thousand dollars we're setting aside two projects. Right, so it'd be roughly, what is it, 10%. Which if you would like, we would certainly take that feedback and take a look at how we can adjust the budget there. This is, which is exactly, that's great. That's the purpose of these conversations that we'll be having over the next month or so. My feedback that I would seek if you could look at it would be, does our budget ever create barriers for getting proposals because it's just too little or on the other side, do we feel that there could have been a little bit more gaps in our community? And we all, you're very perceptive. We all like these projects so much. Is there anything at the end that if they had had more money, they would have done a little bit differently? That's the feedback if you have it, thanks. Yeah, and just one more point on this. Sometimes this is hard research to procure and identifying issues and organizing because we ask that there's a community organizing component to this in order to come together to identify what the question or issue is that they want to explore. And really an area that we should continue to explore is how do we promote this and how do we talk about community-engaged research? How do we share that, do the research mobilization so that we're talking about impacts and it gets people thinking about other ways that we can look at impacts of the, okay. Follow-up ideas from Mark in terms of that issue. I wonder if we're reaching out to various groups of commissioners and Hill, you may have ideas about this given your past work. Commissioner Maynard, your past work, Commissioner Skinner, as an attorney and Commissioner Ryan, as an attorney on the different types of organizations across the Commonwealth where we could promote these opportunities in market. This opportunity in a sort of an effective way to support Mark on these projects. And Commissioner Skinner, are you thinking? Well, I am and I don't know if this speaks to the community but I know that the commission's share of dollars from the Public Health Trust Fund has decreased over the past several years and I wonder now with sports wagering if there is an opportunity to revisit that at all with the Executive Office of Health and Human Services. I have not been part of any of those prior discussions but I do think that that is a potential source of dollars. I'm very sensitive to Mark's, the budget questions that you asked and I think they're good ones but if there is an opportunity to reopen that discussion, I think it's the right time, particularly given that we now have sports wagering to contend with and those research projects that are gonna be looking, Mark's gonna be looking to fund. Are there ideas about what this whole institute has done to make sure that my point was to make sure to market the opportunity for community-based research projects. So I'll think about my list, others can pick up. And I think this is tied to knowledge, our knowledge mobilization efforts and that we've really ramped up over the past year too. And not for this meeting but for another time to talk about how we've been different groups that we've Bonnie and Long and I have reached out to over the past year to share information about our research and just part conversations about unanswered questions. Okay, so I'll move on to data sharing. We would continue, we really wish and think it's important to continue our work with mode and that's choose it to open data exchange as we support open science and open access to our data so that we're able to look at it in different ways as different researchers draw upon those data sets. And we would continue working with our licensees, casino licensees, the Department of Public Health to get over the finish line with the player data requirements in section 97. And we're very close on accomplishing that. That would be a great contribution to the mode data set library, mode data library. There's no questions about that. I can talk about responsible gaming evaluation. So in just anything dealing with mode there's dollars connected to it at this point we envision that would be an agreement with the Department of Public Health to support those data sets and to work with them on anonymization and data privacy and protection aspects of it. Responsible gaming evaluation. This is a little bit open for discussion. We think it's important to continue our commitment towards evaluating responsible gaming tools and measures that we currently have in place. We have an evaluation of our game sense program that's currently underway right now. That is funded to it's Carlton University and Dr. Michael Wall. He will be wrapping that up relatively soon. We're probably three quarters of the way through a four part evaluation. We also have an evaluation happening right now of play my way at MGM. Again, through Carlton University not with our funding from the gaming commissioner the public health trust fund but he secured funding through the International Center for Responsible Gaming to do that and MGM has been a partner in cooperating with that study to make sure that they get the data and information they need. And certainly we've contributed as needed to that study. Sorry, Commissioner O'Brien I was trying to read your body language cleaning it. Welcome to my world, Mark. Okay, and then we would be proposing another wave of the game sense evaluation and this would be slightly different. This would be and through a proposed license agreement with the British Columbia Lottery Corporation and the National Council on Problem Gambling looking at our game sense program compared to other game sense programs and other jurisdictions. Those are primarily in Canada but there's increased information and interest in game sense around the country. So it would be a partnership with the two of those entities and looking at our game sense program what are strengths and what are its weaknesses and how we could potentially continue to improve. All right. Sports wagering research. So first is an eye gaming study and Bonnie and I put this on the sports wagering research recognizing perhaps it's not truly sports wagering research but we put it. We felt like it was the best place for it. And so this came up that as sports wagering has grown significantly since 2018 eye gaming also with gaining a football then in the United States and much like it was helpful or would have been perhaps even more helpful to the Commonwealth to have an early study on sports wagering dating back to 2018. This is sort of trying to get an understanding of eye gaming and potential impacts in Massachusetts. This would be a new study in a new environment if the commission decides to support this type of study. The second in the sports wagering category is the kiosk study and as I mentioned earlier this is required in chapter 23 and section 20. It's a prospective study on the feasibility and potential impact of allowing retail locations in the Commonwealth to operate sports wagering kiosks and we're well underway with this right now through the procurement process. We're hopefully crossing our fingers near the finish line of that and share more about it soon. A bulk of this work would be done in FY 24. The other one that's required in the 2022 act regulating sports wagering is section 25, a study on the participation of minority women in veteran business enterprises in sports wagering. As discussed late last year, we decided or commission decided that it would make sense that we would not launch this study until the sports wagering industry had a little bit more experience under its belt so that it would be, we can take a look at it when it's closer to full stride. That would be, we believe probably sometime mid FY 24 that we would be commencing on that particular study but that is required by statute. So we will be doing that study. And then the final one, and I absolutely, this was an idea that tracking all of the information that's been coming before the commission as we struggle through these issues dealing with sports wagering advertising rather than sort of compared to the general study of advertising impacts that's being worked on right now and we'll come to the commission over the summer, this would die deep into one specific area that seems to have garnered a lot of interest and it would be a study on different existing marketing affiliate payment structures and impacts on, again, totally open but we felt like advertising has been such an important issue in the Commonwealth and in the country. We really wanted to continue our research in this specific area. Rianne, that's a good one. That's right. Right, that was one of my questions. Is that really a Rianne during the round table said that? Oh, actually, that's a good question. I don't recall where it came from but perhaps that's right. And I thought you guys were in boots. Oh, I don't know. Oh, commissioners, do you remember Rianne embracing this in the third party round table that it's an opportunity for us to be thought leaders in this area? What's the budget for this one, Mark? I do not have, Bonnie, do you recall if we had a specific budget line item on this? We must have. Was this in that general sort of $100,000 range at $150,000, much like some of the kiosk study or the minority and women-owned business study? I think so, but I can take a look. Okay. Commissioner Rianne, you had brought up advertising earlier. Is this what you've been wanting to do, something broader? I had forgotten that Mark, when we talked about it, that Mark had been able to tweak a little bit for this year as well so that we weren't missing the both. So this is sufficient in terms of everything I can think of right now. I'm sure as soon as we get started and we actually do procurement, I'll think of something else, but. Commissioner Skinner? So I think that the attorney general's office first assistant, Pat Moore, I think that he had mentioned, you know, getting some use out of the data that the operators, the online mobile operators collect relative to patron behavior patterns in terms of, you know, the pause of the wagering and those kinds of parameters that they have available to them. So I don't know if this, where that intersects with what you have in mind under the advertising piece, if at all. And if not, I think it doesn't should be considered, you know, that arm on the sports monitoring side. Right, that's a really good question. That would be different than what I was thinking about for that specific study, but you're right. I mean, there has been a lot of work in this area collecting primary patron data in order to develop risk markers and interventions, whether that would be, I'm thinking, commissioner. It's definitely an area of interest that it's something the attorney general pointed out and I completely concur. We had been, we've looked, we've been exploring this area for a while now. And I think it's something that we want to continue both working with the AG, but also, you know, there's, there's different ways of using that primary patron data. I'm trying to figure out though, how it gets into the research agenda, whether it has a spot in the FY24 research agenda. Can I get back to you on that? Absolutely, I was thinking about it. For sure. I was thinking whether it would be too soon, whether it's, you know, an FY24 item or perhaps an FY25 item to give the sports wagering industry time to kind of set in. Right, so we had also talked about exploring how some other states are, by regulation, mandating the operator start to collect and do some work on that. So I had envisioned that as more something to have the conversation on the rags and the RG side. Do we want to put other parameters on the operators in terms of collection, use in their analysis of the data, the way like New Jersey and Colorado are doing. And maybe once we have that footing, the following year, if there's some sort of research that can come off of that. Once we have it in place or are working in this space, how do we evaluate the effectiveness of the. Right, right, yeah, right. I like that because it gives us an opportunity to understand exactly what data is available. Right. I think Commissioner Skinner and Commissioner O'Brien really captured what I initially went off for. But kind of, I was going to see Mark once. So have you not got these comments? What was kind of what you were looking at in regards to this? How would you have put it together? Because I think I had an idea of what it was going to look like. And I heard Commissioner Skinner say something very similar, what in this budget what were you looking at? Or the, I'm sorry, for the advertising piece, had it? The advertising piece. Well, specifically looking at marketing affiliates. I'm sorry, Commissioner, is that, yeah. So what we've seen is that, you know, marketing affiliates work in different ways. They have different structures and there's been questions about what is the impact of that on player behavior. Recruiting players and encouraging play. And so, and retaining customers to certain operators. So I think that we would be looking specifically the behavior piece of this and how those different structures are affecting play behavior. So Mark, is it fair to say that you're kind of looking at how does it operate under the Connecticut model versus the model we came out with versus other states that is that kind of. Yeah, I think so. Right.  Some of these, you know, we have general ideas and thoughts and some of them we need to kind of go back and develop a little bit further. But yeah, I think it would be taking a look at different models, how different states are approaching this and how it relates to customer acquisition and player behavior. That's helpful. Thank you. Any further comments or questions? Mark, do you have any comments? I do. I'm almost done. Research review, this is easy. We rely heavily on a research review process. Any, we have research consultants that advise on drafting of procurements. They're involved in selection of procurements, but probably most importantly, they function as peer reviewers for drafts that come in and providing feedback to each of the research teams that have submitted a report to the commission. And I think that we, Bonnie and I have talked a lot about this, making sure that we have research reviewers that represent all the different types of research that we have that are coming in, whether it's economic, social, community-driven evaluation, making sure that we have people on hand to do these types of reviews. Because I'm not sure if everybody knows this, but you do have a committee now in terms of, so you're saying you're going to expand the membership and can you just say, I love what you just said in terms of, I'll probably just select your research review committee members and maybe we should, at some point, I guess, I don't know if commissioners have known about the process, we do have a rigorous review committee and it's an opportunity there. Yeah, we have, I think maybe Bonnie correct me if I'm wrong, maybe around seven individuals who are highly skilled, highly experienced in various aspects of research, whether it's analysis, methodology, economic research, social research, qualitative, quantitative, you name it. Especially with Bonnie coming on board, we've had more conversations about is this the right mix? Are we missing something given what we're wanting to procure, especially as we're extending into sports wagering research? Is it time to bring in some fresh perspectives and ideas for our research review committee? This is something that we've brought in maybe two individuals over the past 12 months to join this research review committee and I think it's just, it's a process of bringing people on board and we use them as we need them. So for example, a paper, a draft will come to us and Bonnie will reach out whether to the entire group of research reviewers or just specific reviewers that we know hold expertise in an area and she'll invite them to participate and they're paid on an hourly basis for the services that they provide. That's like the... Yeah, I love that. It's something that has evolved over time and it seems at this point, it's just part of the way that the research agenda works. Okay, and last but certainly not least is knowledge translation and exchange and this is something that was included in our FY23 gaming research agenda. We began working with a group called the Gaming Research Exchange of Ontario. I think it's about a $25,000 contract and we'd be proposing extending that contract with them that amount again to Rio. They are experts in knowledge mobilization exchange and helping us come up with a strategy to get it to disseminate our research in ways that it's meaningful. It's getting it to the right people at the right time. And so we, as I said earlier, it would be great to come back to the commission and talk more about kind of how we've been doing this especially over probably the last six months or so and where we see it going. Part of the knowledge mobilization plan for fiscal year 24 would be to hold an inaugural research conference. I think of it more as a research and responsible gaming conference but to really, you know, we have amazing community-engaged research that ties to the population-based research that the Sigma team has been doing and some of it connects to the economic research. We get, we've received this research and small batches here and there but the vision would be to say Massachusetts has been a leader in gaming research now for 10 years. Let's pull it all together and invite a broader audience to the table for this. So that's the extent of it. I think we have some notes to follow up on. I so appreciate what has been your ideas and thoughts so far and we're more than happy to take anything else. Any further comments, questions before this now goes to the chief pack? All right, so we don't take any formal action today. No. Yeah. All right. Madam Chair. Yes. I just want to give a quick shout out to Bonnie. So Bonnie, we don't get to see you too often. So when we do, we want to recognize the good work that our team does and I've been working with you now with the community mitigation group and your insight has been invaluable on what we're trying to do with the new grants that we hope to be putting out this year. So I just wanted to say thanks for all that you're doing and long we love as well. And Mark, the great work that your department continues to do year in and year out. Just wanted to give you a shout out for that. Thank you. Can I just say Bonnie started with the commission in November and her perspective and expertise as a clinical psychologist, as an epidemiologist is fantastic. And we generate a lot of research in Massachusetts, but it's not all, like Bonnie has been great about it. If you identify an issue you want to better understand, she'll look at what we've done, but she'll also look at the broader body of research that exists on whatever the specific topic is. So it's great. So thank you, Bonnie. Thank you. It's been really, really wonderful being here and working with you all. So thank you for everything that you do every day for the Commonwealth. Thank you. Thank you, Bonnie. I think there are about five of us lined up outside of Bonnie's on cubicle the other day because we keep on wanting to think about making advantage of her therapy background. So then it was a reportable eat, Commissioner Hill's donuts. We didn't know which to, you know, graphically. We're very happy to have your expertise and participation, Bonnie. Thank you. Long is also a therapist. He's an LIC SW who has extensive experience. Yeah, I don't know. It's the team that we have. You're going to have to get yourself a private conference room, too, to just deal with everybody going up at your door. Really helpful. That's good to know. Which reminds me, Commissioner, is tomorrow a little bit awkward, but tomorrow we have been invited out to MGM. Mark, do you want to just go over what's expected? And do you know the program a little bit? Otherwise, Will's can remind us. Sure. But absolutely knows if you want to jump in. We're shifting now. Any other comment with respect to the research agenda that Mark just presented and Dr. Andrews has chimed in on? OK. I know we're working. Commissioner, update number seven. Mark, can you give us a little update for tomorrow? Thanks. So tomorrow, here's it today. Today or tomorrow is the official one-year anniversary play my way at MGM Spring Festival. Commissioner Skinner, I'm glad you found it. And it's a milestone, right? Play my way launched at Plain Ridge Park Casino back in 2016. Brown then. It launched at MGM Springfield one year ago, either today or tomorrow. And it launched at Encore of Austin Harbor in September. And so Massachusetts, the first state to have this type of play management feature on every slot machine in the Commonwealth. You can set a budget for a day, week, or month. And it provides you with reminders, lets you know where you are so you can make that informed choice about whether you want to continue to game. All of these operators have been partners in this endeavor. This is not a regulation. This is our operators stepping forward with us and saying this is important. This is technology that we think is important to be on slot machines. And interestingly, it's also available on every sports mate way during platform now as well. Same play management, pre-commitment features on every mobile operator site. So the one-year anniversary, just kind of marks, we'll talk more about how many people have enrolled. What does it look like specifically at MGM Springfield? Several people have been invited. I don't know. Tom wants to say more about that. Yeah, I know the team at MGM Springfield was great to reach out, noting the year anniversary of Play My Way and also the end of problem gambling awareness month being tomorrow as well. So they thought it was a right time to invite folks to talk about these initiatives to their property and they were so kind to invite Mark and the commissioners and I think everyone is going to be there. So it's going to be great. I know last year we were able to do an event but the commissioners were unable to attend due to a meeting that was scheduled. So this will be a great one-year celebration for Play My Way. And just a call out to the Game Sense team at MGM, actually at each site, but as tomorrow is MGM, the MGM Game Sense team as Dan, they have champions of Play My Way and responsible gaming on site. Play My Way has the enrollment and the numbers and the success it does because Game Sense advisors talk a lot about setting a budget and the role of setting a budget when you consider your gambling. Any questions about tomorrow's event? Do you mind us what time we should be there, Mills? The team at MGM wants to start the event around 11th, 11th 30th. So a little bit before that would be nice to gather at the Game Sense Info Center. Gather at the Game Sense, which is beautiful now. Okay, any questions? I think, Mrs. Do you have any other updates or anything you want to bring to our attention, Commissioner Skinner? I just have one item, Commissioner Hill, it's the day for shout-outs. My shout-out goes to Long, Lily, Paul, and Dave. We were riding down the elevator one evening, a couple of weeks ago. And of course I said, okay, where are you going to socialize now? Because they are sort of known for their after-work outings, at least in my mind. But this time they were going to volunteer. They were going to volunteer at the New England Center and Home for Veterans. And that's right here in downtown Boston. That is an organization that provides housing and other resources to veterans. What they were engaging in was serving meals, participating in the meal service and serving dinner to those veterans. So I just wanted to give a shout-out to those individuals. And I'm sure they are often joined by others because I understand this is a regular occurrence for them. But I think it's a really good thing that our staff is serving our veterans in that way. And I just want to give a big thank you to them for that work. Thanks for mentioning that, Commissioner Skinner, that's really nice. And it has been a practice. That's good. Other updates? Okay. Then I will take a motion to adjourn. Move to adjourn. Second. Edits are concerns about adjourning. All right. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. Hi. I thought it was. Excellent. Thanks guys.