rtant part here is the notion that it's really an accommodation on a customer service option and frankly in our role we also need to be different to the needs of the business in these areas including even if they become real operational efficiency so which is why I wanted to just both mention and preface it by by saying that I'm in support of it thank you commissioner ready for motion yeah I think Dr. Leibman you would like a vote correct on this yes please thank you Madam Chair I'm happy to move that the commissioner approve the usage of my second grounds as discussed here today second thank you commissioner Stebbins thank you and no further discussion okay got commissioner Cameron aye commissioner bryan aye commissioner commissioner Zuniga aye and commissioner Stebbins aye and I vote yes Erica 50 thank you Madam Chair I'll just take just a moment but commissioner Stebbins congratulations on your new appointment your thoughtfulness and your consideration you know we've always valued it here at Sterling Suffolk and appreciate the good faith effort and time you've taken to understand the racing side of the business I know the commission you know has to focus quite a bit on the gaming side but we do appreciate your your effort in learning more about our business and helping us navigate through the last several years and I will see you on the other side you're not done with me yet commissioner Stebbins I happen to have an interest in a recreational cannabis company in the commonwealth so I look forward to talking to you in a different capacity thanks Chip I look forward to that too and you know it's growing up in western mass where we didn't have a lot of horse racing I want to thank you because you did so much to help educate me about racing as did Dr. Lightbound but what was really impressive was the the unique history and tradition at Suffolk Down and all the incredible thoroughbred racing history that that property holds so I thank you for that best wishes thank you commissioners happy holidays Chip thank you for your contribution today to clarify this and I wish you the very best for the new year okay moving on then to the annual report is that correct Dr. Lightbound yes that's the next item on the agenda is the annual report this does not require a vote and if I haven't screen shared before I'll see if I can Dr. Lightbound how have you escaped that this year let's see you have multiple windows open Alex you have the right document okay great all right so I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this obviously people can read through it at their leisure but we want to hit kind of the highlights and Chad is here again he'll go over the financial part of the annual report so to start off with there were a couple of milestones this year this is in 2019 first of all we apologize for this report being so late Chad and I were working on it back in March and thought we'd get it on the agenda by April and then COVID struck so we had other things that we needed to attend to so again this is the 2019 annual report this was the last year of racing at Suffolk Downs which originally opened in 1935 and they had a wonderful run of racing the commission did have sort of like going away at one of their meetings with slides of Suffolk Downs and all near the end of 2019 another milestone was that our chief commission Stuart Susan Wallace was awarded the Pete Peterson Outstanding Support Award by the Racing Officials accreditation program and that was quite an accomplishment on her behalf and again congratulations to Susan Dr. Leipzig, if I can stop you there I did have a chance to read this report and that part made me smile remembering recognizing you know Susan Wallace for that accomplishment a tremendous accomplishment and her work was just impeccable so that really was nice to be reading milestones to remember her accomplishment now it was exciting very exciting to have her honor so much so now on to the Plain Ridge Racing Statistics most of these were very similar to the year before 108 days of racing where we had 110 the day before that I mean the year before that the number of races was slightly down because of that the field average field side stayed very similar compared to the year before there was a little bit of an increase in the total purses and we'll go on to the Suffolk again their changes were mainly due to the fact that they race six days instead of eight which they had in 2018 so again the number of races was down a little bit because of that their average field size they did hand out almost three million in purses which was down again just because they didn't have as many days of live racing our licensing stayed again very similar we usually do around a thousand per track the numbers at Suffolk were down a little bit again just because it was fewer days of racing and our numbers at Plainridge don't take into account people who might have taken out a multi-year license the system just can't calculate that so I'm always encouraged at Plainridge that we do get quite a bit of licensing every year which is in addition to people who've already taken out a two or three year license the State Police Investigative Unit continues to be a big part of racing again they their number of investigations and all was similar two years before there was one ejection and they provided numerous background checks and did a lot of fingerprinting if you recall that was opening of Encore in 2019 so the racing unit also helps out on the gaming side with performing backgrounds and fingerprinting and other staff needs as is dated with the casinos on to the veterinary services and the lab we have contracted with industrial for several years now we've had great a great working relationship with them they're very easy to work with they have a wealth of knowledge and I can't say enough good things about them at Plainridge we had 11 we would call therapeutic medication overages so these are medications that equine veterinarian would use in their daily practice we just want them below a certain level when the force actually races this was down considerably from 2018 when we had in addition to 12 therapeutic violations we had three what we would call an actual positive and two high TCA readings so that was a positive note on that side at Suffolk Downs we also saw the number of drug violations go down there were five in 2018 and there were only three in 2019 so that was a positive note getting to the judges at Plainridge their number of rulings and all were very similar to the year before and the most of the suspensions were relatively short suspension of maybe three days for a driver infraction for interference in 2018 there were 114 rules compared to 119 in 2019 there were slightly more fines in 2018 and again there were slightly more racing days so not much of a change there and at Suffolk in 2018 that was kind of a bubble year there was one incidence where multiple trainers were involved in a um claiming violation so there were 16 fines and suspensions that year and in 2019 it returned to a more normal level where there were only three rulings and three fines and those were all tied to the drug rulings then on the appeals to the commission if a a licensee has a ruling by the judges and they want to appeal it they can appeal that to the hearing officer so there was one that was appealed to the hearing officer and that was denied we had one that was withdrawn it made it to the actual day of the appeal and then they decided to there was a waiver granted and then there's was one that was ongoing so again that's pretty much in line with what we would see in a in any given year and with that I'll turn it over to Chad Bork our senior financial analyst to discuss the financials Chad could he be on you I don't see him there we go sorry about that okay great thank you yes uh thanks Alex uh before again begin I just want to make a quick note of two adjustments the first will be the amount distributed to the thoroughbred accounts from the racehorse development fund the amount there will be four million four hundred twenty seven thousand dollars in which will bring the total disbursements to fifteen million four hundred twenty one and a hundred and fifty four dollars the other is going to be with the Suffolk Downs Capital Improvement Fund the program revenue should be one million sixty two thousand dollars and the RFR payments are a hundred and one thousand bringing the ending balance to two million five hundred ninety thousand and these adjustments will go ahead and and will be reflected in a report and they'll be posted to the to the gaming website so to continue 2019 saw another successful year of racing in Massachusetts and I thought I we would just share a couple of the the financials and we'll go ahead and start with revenue the handle commissions from all tracks generated just over over eight hundred and fourteen thousand dollars and this was a site slight decrease of four point four two percent versus 2018 and from revenue from licensing badges fees along with fines and penalties brought in a little over ninety one thousand which was a decrease of roughly thirty percent versus 2018 and the decrease in these two categories can be directly attributed to the decrease in in live racing plain ridge conducted one thousand one hundred thirty one races and Suffolk Downs conducted sixty eight which was a decrease of two point eighty three and thirty point six one respectively when we look at assessments and association licensing those brought in just around one point one million which was in line with two thousand eighteen and to complete we have our expenditures which came in a little over two point three million that was an increase of less than one percent and then we'll move to the handle thank you two thousand ninety I just want to make sure are there any questions for Chad on that it was just a little hard maybe to follow the numbers so any clarifications that you need thanks Chad sure so with the handle two thousand nineteen saw a decrease of four point five three percent versus two thousand eighteen and again much of this can be contributed to the decrease in live racing one thing I do I do want to point out is you know we continue to see an uptrend in wagering through the ADW providers again from the likes of TVG, Twin Spires, ExpressFeds ADW wagering actually accounted for basically 50 percent of the total handle and that was the only handle category that was up in 2019 and it was up two and three quarters percent so again a continuation of the generation moving over to kind of the internet based and the mobile wagering lastly able to report that the racing division provided nearly eight hundred and fifty five thousand in local aid to cities in towns where racing activities took place so with that finally I just want to give a special thanks to my colleagues in the finance department who assisted with the report any questions for Chad and Dr. Lightbaum my only it's not a question but it is a an observation I think these this 2019 numbers really are the test to the fact that this is such a clean meat meaning very few violations very few medication overages you know I think you know those are a number of things Dr. Lightbaum you talked about the outstanding work of our accredited lab which makes which really does make the case that when there is an overage we can demonstrate in a way that folks can believe that it's been done properly and the same thing with the hearings that are held by our judges and stewards who are very well trained in order to conduct a very professional hearing so few of them make it to the commission on appeal I just think it's it really is it speaks to the good work being done by your staff and how professional everyone is in the way they do their job so these numbers really do speak to that so thank you it's it's nice to see it and understand it for the whole year so we can understand that that work is just really well done thank you commissioners um I I don't know if we can take the power point down are the up report down now thank you I just think I can see everyone's faces commissioner Brian commissioner Zuniga I'll just make a comment similar to to commission cameras thank you for this report it's a reflection of a great year it's very thorough and detailed and um you know we look forward to the next one commissioners I'll set I would just Alex if you can remind me who this report goes to I know it goes to a number of our counterparts over in the legislature and a few other places if you can remind us where this gets filed you know I don't remember off the top of my head I know it does go to the legislature and so you know we'll definitely do that but I don't remember the exact spots that I have yeah but it was good to have and you know great work to kudos to you and Chad for the financial team for helping to pull this all together and Chad does make a good point and I usually try to make it when we do the end report we get support from all the different divisions of the gaming commission every division contributes to our success at some different levels so again I appreciate all of them for their contributions to the racism season as well as the commissioners it takes the whole team right Alex it does yes good close excellent report and so thorough and Chad thank you for the financial analysis you both bring a lot of clarity to an area that is filled with detail that a lot of us find challenging so it's a very thorough and clear report for me thank you so much thank you makes sense of of a difficult statute so thank you so much thank you commissioner Karen smiling because she knows that's a little bit of an understatement okay so I think that concludes horse racing the racing division Alex and Chad thank you so much we're now moving on to the next item on that really is under your attribute counselor Grossman thank you madam chair I'm actually going to turn the next three items pertaining to the regulations over to Kerry Terese who will walk you through those there she is hello thank you good afternoon madam chair and commissioner good afternoon afternoon Kerry so there are three regulations on the agenda today for a final vote to complete the promulgation process so I'll just run for each of these 205 PMR 146.13 is the regulation related to the table characteristics for the blackjack tables this is the regulation that clarifies that the table layout must read that blackjack page that odds of three to two or six to five depending on what odds are being offered at that particular table this regulation came before the commission on October 8th and you voted to begin the promulgation process at that time public hearing was held this morning and that was presided over by commissioner Stebbins we did not receive any comments at the public hearing we also have not received any written comments so at this time we'd be seeking a vote on the amended small business impact statements that's in your packet as well as the regulation to finalize the promulgation process other questions on on this regulation we've had extensive briefings over the course of the regulation promulgation period so I'm seeing no questions that's only because of the thoroughness of your work prior to today so thank you that means that we do need a vote starting with the small business impact statement do we have a motion madam chair I move the commission approve the amended small business impact statement for 205 CMR 146.13 blackjack table card reader device physical characteristics inspections as included in the commissioners packet thank you commissioner stevens second from commissioner cameron thank you with no further questions commissioner cameron hi commissioner o'brien hi commissioner zinneke hi commissioner stevens hi and I vote yes next do I have a motion on the the regulation language I'd further move that the commission adopt the final draft of 205 CMR 146.13 blackjack table card reader device physical characteristics inspections as included in the commissioners packet and authorize the staff to take all steps necessary to finalize the regulation promulgation process thank you any questions on that okay commissioner cameron hi commissioner o'brien hi commissioner zinneke hi and commissioner stevens hi and I vote yes five zero thank you Carrie thank you so the next regulation is 205 CMR 153 related to the community mitigation fund this is a new regulation that codifies the procedures and guidelines for the community mitigation fund including an annual review of the guidelines a procedure for entities seeking emergency appropriations minimum requirements for the execution of the grant instrument and the assessment of reasonable administrative costs to the fund this regulation came before the commission on October 22nd and at that meeting you voted to begin the promulgation process this public hearing was held for this regulation this morning as well presided over by commissioner stevens and again we did not receive any comments at the hearing or any written comments so we would be seeking a vote on this one as well on the amended small business impact statement and the regulation in your packet Madam chair if I can just add I know that they carry working alongside Joe Delaney and the team brought this these changes before our local community mitigation advisory committees as well as the subcommittee and community mitigation and at all three meetings there was support for the changes by the committee members thank you for that update commissioner stevens and before I forget thank you too for presiding over this morning's regulatory process we will miss you covering that aspect of thank you so with that are there any further questions observations comments this is again we thoroughly vetted I'm glad that it was vetted externally too with important stakeholders do I have a motion no madam chair I would move that commission approved the amended small business impact statement for 205 CMR 153 community mitigation fund as included in the commissioners packet thank you commissioner commissioner cameron aye commissioner vryan aye commissioner zinica aye and commissioner stephens aye well yes five zero thank you moving on to the bragg itself I further move that the commission approved the final draft of 205 CMR 153 the community mitigation fund as included in the commissioners packet and authorize the staff to finalize the regulation propagation process is there a second thank you commissioner any further questions commissioner cameron aye commissioner vryan aye commissioner zinica aye commissioner stephens aye and I vote yes five zero thank you carry again all right and finally 205 CMR 133 related to the voluntary self-exclusion program these are administrative changes that ensure uniformity in the process of managing and maintaining the voluntary self-exclusion list specify who is deemed a designated agent and has access to the list clarify the application contents and refine the qualification requirements for providers of services offered by the vse program this one also came before the commission on october 22nd October 22nd at that meeting you voted to begin the promulgation process it was also part of the public hearing held this morning we did not receive any comments at the public hearing or any written comment so again we'd be seeking a vote on the amended small business impact statement and the regulation included in your packet any questions for carry on this final read for today okay again we'll need a motion on the small business impact statement madam chair i moved that the commission approved the amended small business impact statement for 205 cmr 133 voluntary self-exclusion is included in the commissioners packet second thank you any questions comments commissioner kim aye commissioner bryan aye commissioner zuniga aye commissioner stephens aye and i vote yes five zero great work well done thank you Todd and Carrie and and i know many i'm sure we just need so sorry by reg itself thank you my apologies thank you i further move that the commission approved the final draft of 205 cmr 133 voluntary self-exclusion is included in the commissioners packet and authorized staff to finalize the regulation promulgation process thank you thank you so much so second with commissioner stephens now any questions thank you commissioner cameron aye commissioner bryan aye commissioner zuniga aye and commissioner stephens aye and i vote yes five zero so now i can say thank you i know it took a big team effort to get these three regs through Todd and Carrie thank you and all the the team members who helped substantively so thank you thank you before we move on to the next item i do just want to bring your attention to the two documents in your packet that followed that last reg we updated the forms related to the vsc program the enrollment form and the petition for removal just to align with the changes that were made to the regulations we're not seeking any formal action on these but um we just wanted you to have a chance to see them and i know that mark and charisa are on now if you do have any questions about them thank you did everybody have a chance to look at them like i i think they're on like page 123 and 124 they reflect the that work well done there's director vander linden i'll set commissioners yes thank you and thank you for sharing them in the packet today thank you great work so i think cary do i turn back now to i i turn back now to councillor grossman yeah thank you so much yeah thank you kary i'll take it from here so now we're on item d or the fourth item under legal this is a review of the enhanced code of ethics and for your consideration commissioners we have a variety of proposed amendments to the enhanced code of ethics you'll recall that the the first edition of the code was actually adopted in february of 23rd 2013 the second edition in january of 2018 and it certainly seems a healthy practice for an organization to periodically review and refresh its policies and procedures and that would certainly apply to the commission's enhanced code of ethics which of course governs many aspects of our daily conduct at work so it's particularly important that these policies be clear and current and fair and reflective of the commissioners and the commission's collective values ideals and the law itself and so it was through that lens that the chair and commissioner Stebbins and I set out on a review of the code the amendments before you are proposed as a means to enhance the language of the code it is not intended in any way to specifically increase or decrease the rigor of any particular area though that may be the impact of some of the amendments you may ultimately approve of and with that if there are no introductory remarks by any commissioner I'd be happy to walk through the proposed adjustments that are before you pointing out any areas that may be of public a particular interest in my mind of course welcoming any thoughts and comments along the way I can pause there for a second or otherwise just keep going here my sense was although ordinarily I would share this document I don't know madam chair and commissioners if it would be easier actually just to keep us all uh moving in this format so you can see each other and maybe engage in more of a robust conversation when necessary if people do they have access some to the document I do I think everybody has access I see commissioner Cameron has it in printed form even so I think that's a good suggestion it really does help for us to see each other's reactions and and if there's a comment I think rather than holding comments and to the end we should we should make it an active conversation as if we were sitting around a conference table in public I think that makes good sense so I'd be happy to get started thank you as we do have a number of proposals before you and we'll just take it from the top paragraph section one really is a an effort to just clarify some of the language and the ultimate goal here was just to be clear that the state conflict of interest law chapter 268a and 268b is really still the the body of law that controls the baseline of all ethics compliance for the commission and that this code is intended really just to supplement that so there are no changes in there per se that was really just an effort to clarify the language of paragraph one moving on to paragraph two and I'm just looking over at my other screen not ignoring anyone here or anything like that you know this so this is the continuing obligation section of the code and by way of comparison section 20 of this code discusses a related topic but not identical and we'll get into that momentarily but I just wanted to point out what the proposed amendment to paragraph two is you'll see in the stricken language the proposal is to remove the duty of each commissioner and employee to review and assess the conduct of fellow commissioners and employees under this code and the ethics laws and the reason is is that it could inadvertently create a culture of one having to report on a potential violation of someone else that pertain to very complicated and nuanced areas of the law that being the state conflict of interest law which could be difficult for someone to navigate it's difficult sometimes to navigate for yourself even more difficult if you were to attempt to do it relative to someone else's conduct so the thought here is that we remove the obligation to report relative to someone else's conduct of course we keep the obligation to review and assess your own conduct in light of this code and the ethics laws and we say that instead of whenever there's any reasonable doubt as to whether something could be a violation or not that if you have any question as to whether your own conduct is in comport with the law that you need to ask and inquire further so those are the changes here and by way of contrast and I mentioned section 20 already that section deals with a duty to report if you observe or aware of a by that someone else has violated a criminal law or directly violated chapter 23k so that's a whole different area and we will get to that momentarily but we buy this proposed amendment to section two we're not attempting to allow people to ignore certain things that may come to their attention just to really create a more fair and equitable duty that we place upon each commissioner and employee I asked the question in the two by two on this one since duty report is such a topic of discussion when it comes to public safety these days but I did receive a good clarification from our general council but this is really just talking about ethics and your own ethics you know and of course your ability to ask is this okay very different than a some kind of a criminal matter so I once like I received that clarification I was certainly supportive of this change excellent in that case why don't we move down to section five which is page two of the document and you'll see a lot of red in there but really all this is is a reorganization of the existing language just to clarify both the materials and documents that have to be offered to and provided to the commissioners and employees for their reference as well as streamlining the training process and clarifying how that will work there really are not any substantive changes proposed here though again there's a lot of red the there are two things that were changed though just for everyone's reference and the first is that we said that the provision of the documents to commissioners and employees upon their employment has to be within 30 days instead of 14 days and what that does is it just aligns that requirement with the actual ethics training that we also provide to the employees so that it can be all done on the same time schedule and that we don't have separate time schedules the other thing we added in here is just that all employees be provided with a copy copy of the summary of the conflict of interest law which we do provide to everyone annually but this just helps remind us that it needs to be also provided upon employment with the commission or within 30 days of employment so those are really the two big changes the other piece of language we added in here is really just a reference you'll see it's under paragraph there's paragraph one and two in part C which is the big red paragraph we added language that says that the commission will also provide applicable training under the conflict of interest law to advisory and subcommittee members as deemed necessary that is a practice we already engage in we're just codifying that practice here so that everyone is aware that we we do that and that we will and continue to do it and paragraph what will was paragraph D will become paragraph B I'm just moving down to the bottom of page two we just outline all of the things that will be included on the SINA form that everyone will be asked to execute after the training so there's really no change there it just identifies all the documents and all the items that are already on the form section six this is on page three the only notable change here is in part B where we added the reference to chapter 23 K section 3 V you'll recall that's the section of the law that talks about commissioners and employees being prohibited from owning stock or being employed by anyone who holds a license under chapter 23 K as an enforcement mechanism that we presently employ we ask commissioners and employees annually to attest to the fact that they're in compliance with that section so all we're really doing here is adding a reference into the enhanced code to reconcile it with our present practice section seven towards the bottom of the page is our definition section and there were a number of adjustments to some of the definitions that have been proposed the first is to the definition of the term consultant and when looking at this definition it's important to also have a look at the definition of the term employee which is two definitions down from there and what we say is that an employee essentially is not a consultant so consultants are specifically exempted from the definition of employee which is why it's important to be clear who we believe or we define consultants to be and so we haven't really changed what or who a consultant is other than to just clarify that if someone is a consultant that this code doesn't the enhanced code that is doesn't apply to them but that the commission by way of contract can make either the whole code or any provisions of this code applicable to any consultant so we have the flexibility on an ad hoc type basis to review and assess a particular situation with a particular consultant and add in any provisions that might be beneficial as opposed to painting with a broad brush and making the whole code applicable to all consultants next is the definition of direct or indirect interest and this comes up in the context of ownership in the licensees and what have you the law says that one is not allowed to hold a director indirect interest in licensees so again it's important to define what that term means as it's not defined in chapter 23k and as you see here there's only a highlighted provision I haven't stricken it because I wanted to take some time to talk about it and think about it and if if there is a consensus here today we can take action but the the language that's been highlighted you'll see pertains to an exclusion from what a director and direct interest is and we say that it does not include an individual's interest in less than one percent of publicly traded companies but by way of contrast there's also a black and white rule and this is the law that says that we're not allowed to own any stock in any licensees so this particular provision and I don't recall the genesis of it specifically I don't believe it really has any application whatsoever it seems to be superfluous and could actually prove to be confusing to people and so the proposal on the table is that we take this out before I did that I wanted to float the idea to make sure that there are no unintended consequences of doing that I haven't been able to think of any but that's something to just talk about before we take action on that provision if I can comment on that because I I was going through this with with Todd in the briefing and I think he raises a good question as to the notion that perhaps this creates a little confusion there's one aspect of publicly traded companies here that may that we should inherently be considering here if we're talking about gaming related publicly traded companies that we license that's a clear absolute preclusion elsewhere in chapter 25k as well as elsewhere in the in this go and if we're talking about any other publicly traded company the question arises as to why would that be necessary um if if you have stock in in in other publicly traded companies unrelated to gaming let's say the threshold would seem arbitrary to me when it comes to ethics so we can either remove the language or specify whether these applies to publicly traded companies that are not gaming related or licensed under the chapter which is really and have that allowed to us and employees or whether the intention was and I don't recall myself the genesis to have no ownership of any publicly traded companies more than 1% that would create potentially other conflicts I cannot say what those would be but that's the question that's the distinction that I think we need to be thinking of do you remember any discussion around that point commissioner no I am I have always wondered about that prior to even joining having seen that threshold Todd did you I hear you saying I'm not sure if you have a clear recommendation for us and maybe we need to maybe we table this discussion on this definition until we get to the other item does that make sense to talk to about them together or which other then there isn't there another section where it refers to fact that we couldn't that we could have perhaps up to 1% interest in in a I think it's a correction that you're recommending today in one of our licensees I think this is this is the provision here okay this is does Oh I guess I thought it was in a separate as well my apologies no it's all oh I realized I'm not sharing my screen so highlighting it doesn't do any good but the no this one just talks about an individual's interest in less than 1% of publicly traded companies and it is possible that the intent was as commissioners Zuniga just described to really allow for an ownership stake in a non-gaming licensee company that happens to perhaps be a vendor of some kind right because oh I see I guess I'm my apologies my notes I should have had them in front of me because right now the way it's written we could have an interest in well I would say no only because there's a broader rule that says you're not allowed to own any stock so the question under the statute yeah and we actually say at the beginning of the definition of direct and indirect interest it means an ownership stock ownership loan property leasehold so we say stock yeah there so but the term doesn't include an individual's interest in less than 1% of publicly traded companies which would be stock I can provide an example there's actually a personal example and you know since we're talking about ethics that's that's relevant my wife is an employee of a publicly traded company and she owns as part of the their stock plan as part of the retirement has on stock in the company that the company contributes I haven't checked but I'm sure we're nowhere near 1% that's a very large company but but conceivable that that could have been a scenario envisioned here where we would not have to worry about unless there's a direct or indirect ownership in another company that then begins to raise the question as to whether there needs to be some kind of disclosure or divestiture or whatever but and for the record it's a completely unrelated to any gaming I know for sure yeah yeah yeah company which is what would appear to me to be part of the sentence capturing because the way it's worded it would be any publicly traded company not just gaming related or or with a interest or rather revendor or some kind of relationship to a gaming related What is your recommendation Todd you know I think perhaps we should leave this one as is and come back to it at a later date it hasn't caused any issues to date and I think it just needs a little more review perhaps on its own and so for because there is still a bit of uncertainty here so let's let's not just delete it can I ask though is there an easy fix to just exclude publicly traded companies that are are licensees or or doesn't is it more nuanced than that well you know and the statute talks about not holding a director indirect interest in a licensee under this chapter so that's I mean that is the rule that present and so we're just defining what that means but if you then take this term the term does not include an individual's interest in less than one percent of publicly traded companies of course we wouldn't be able to with that prohibition in the statute we can't have any stock in the licensee so I wonder how if this if this provision competes with that statutory provision I guess it was trying to articulate that it might not right if we're talking about none other non gaming and I agree with you entirely Commissioner Zuniga so I do think we need to make sure that Commissioner Zuniga's scenario is permitted but make it clear that this doesn't suggest that if we were all lucky enough to own up to one percent of one of our licensees you know in in stock of other companies non-licensee companies well no there's that but also the opposite which would be strictly prohibited I just wonder if it if it just needs to be the term does not I know that we have a strict prohibition but if on first glance this looks like it it's it competes with that prohibition well only because it's excluding the direct interest interest definition Commissioner Brian I think we could be clarifying it please by saying that publicly you know traded companies not licensed yes under 23k I think that's exactly I would I would suggest that yeah therefore the exclusion would be relevant and not in conflict with the other prohibition yes and that people could own up to one percent of a publicly traded company that was not a license under the chapter I would I would make that suggestion too Commissioner Brian I see you kind of nodding do you do you agree that that might be helpful yeah Todd and I talked about this a lot in terms of you know why it was there and yeah I I don't think that creates any issues in fact I think it solves it but I don't know Todd I would think do you want to do we propose that with sort of an asterisk going forward today to be double checked Todd to make sure that putting the not in otherwise regulated solves the issue yeah well I mean I think that does absolutely I mean that I think is okay anyway you're allowed to own stock in a company that's not licensed under 23k that's right that's not at all an issue the question I think for me is what how the commission interprets licensed under this chapter that phrase because the rule specifically is that commissioners employees shall not own or be in the employee of or own any stock in a business which holds a license under this chapter so it clearly only applies to companies which have a license under chapter 23k and a company that doesn't Amazon or something like that certainly doesn't count you can own as much Amazon stock as you want but it's a company that is licensed under 23k that becomes the question and whether we read licensed under this chapter to mean just the gaming licensees or any licensee like a vendor a racetrack all those folks to the extent they're publicly traded companies I think we mean both we mean anybody who's licensed under 23k what we've called in the past as big L or little L you know the the gaming manufacturers et cetera if you put licensed then it applies by the way your example of Amazon the way I read this current language including my proposed Provisio would limit our ability to own more than 1% of Amazon stock even if we could afford it the way the way I see this written because it says direct ownership would not apply to somebody's interest in less than 1% of publicly traded companies it would limit our ability to own more than 1% the way I see this written okay well I just you you don't understand what what I've been sort of trying to articulate I do I've always kind of given it a different read though I mean I I viewed this as meaning first of all this is limited to whether you have a director and direct interest it doesn't place any other independent restriction on you so if you don't fall into a director and direct interest then there's nothing to be concerned with and so I've never read this to mean that it applies to every publicly traded company on the market it's just ones that happen to be licensed under chapter 23k and what effect that has on employees and commissioners ability to own stock in those companies and so if you're a company that's not at all licensed under 23k then I think employees and commissioners can own as much stock as they want 1% 20% whatever you want so I've kind of looked at it a little differently and for that reason maybe instead of making a change to it right now we just kind of hold this for a moment until we're all comfortable with it and we can revisit it yeah it's not an imminent or urgent matter nothing's come up or anything like that and we want to make sure we get it right we don't know what we're getting for Christmas yet right well or Hanukkah yeah I'm not getting anything I already know what I got for Hanukkah so that 1% have some public maybe that it's not just the highlighted part but the rest of the sentence that maybe you incomplete in terms of qualifying but let's really see that she suggests because they can there's a read I guess I made my point already that you might apply to any and I and I agree with with that and so I do think well we can table it today I don't think we should table it for long you know I think we should revisit it sooner than later but I do think it sounds like you're being thoughtful about the license in our ability to make sure that that we can attest correctly about our our ownership it is I think it's a prohibition on license all together any licensed company all together but again let's revisit it I think Commissioner Brian and you have had some good conversations and I think it's worth really drilling down on it this was not something Commissioner Stevens and I spent with Todd much time it was a discovery and I can I can only say is I saw this as before I I joined joined the organization as competing and of course didn't have a practical problem but wondered what it meant so you know from that personal point of view I don't know Commissioner Brian if you did the same thing but it did seem to be a little bit at odds with the the statutory prohibition at least on how we read it so yeah because I know we want to move on but the exclusion of mutual funds is is a much more intuitive one right and very consistent with the Ethics Commission's practice because we don't have ability to control right control factors so yes and that's that's very clear here so that's important right thank you we can if we may I guess we can keep moving on to the definition of employee which begins at the on the next page and again we're just this is we're clarifying what the practice was and I believe the second edition of the code this was contemplated by the commission but we recognize there was not as clear as it could be in excluding members of our advisory board or subcommittees from the definition of employee such that they are not subject to this enhanced code of ethics and to be clear that doesn't mean they're excluded from any ethical considerations they're still deemed special state employees so chapter 268a does still apply to them as it applies to any special state employees so there are still ethics considerations just not the whole enhanced code of ethics the next area for discussion if we kind of scroll down to the bottom of this page is the definition of significant relationship and this comes up in the context of the the discussion about conflicts of interest and one is not allowed to engage in any financial any particular matter in which there or an individual with whom they've had a significant relationships financial interests are implicated and we'll get into that section in a moment too but the the question before the commission here is whether the tense of the language here in significant relationship is as it should be and just by way of reference I went back and took a look at section 3m of chapter 23k which is where the term significant relationship is used in the statute and it says that it applies to anyone who has present tense a significant relationship with someone else so you'll see and we reference this I think in three places in the code this is the first place where we wrote in there in number 4 that it's anyone with whom a person shared and that's of course in the past tense an influential or intimate relationship there was some discussion about adding shares or shared but the prevailing thought may be that we just make it present tense as the statute talks about and make all references to significant relationship to a situation that you are presently in with someone so this would read if that's agreeable that it's anyone with whom a person shares an influential or intimate relationship I think you have a consensus there okay so we will strike the word shared and replace it with shares along those lines and I just mentioned this if we then go up to number 3 in significant relationship it talks about former spouses domestic partners or life partners so X folks those are all of course by definition people who there were past relationships with so perhaps consideration should be given if we're moving towards making this a present tense to removing that to the extent we find it to be inconsistent but if that is viewed and it can be as such a limited carve out because those people are in such a special place in one's lives that we keep it we at least need to recognize that most of the definition applies to present tense but that one is in the past tense Commissioner O'Brien yeah Todd and I had a long conversation about this trying to reconcile the tenses in the different areas and I do think we should be consistent you know I was trying to do different hypotheticals in my head and it's like you know you could have had a significant domestic partner life partner spouse that was over 25 years ago and you don't see the person and you have no idea and it's you know no more than a close friend so to me doing this catch all of past sense and pulling that in where we're doing present tense for the other I feel like it should be consistent I feel like the past tense goes too far but that's that's what I conveyed when I got briefed on it I don't necessarily disagree with that Commissioner O'Brien's point the only one in that specific line and that might be of some interest is a former spouse who might still be paying some type of you know financial obligation to or what have you that could be viewed as competing wouldn't you have a financial interest wouldn't that fall in financial interest category potentially it would still come up under appearance issues and things like that so it's not yeah so I mean if your ex-husband or ex-wife even if it's from 20 years ago came before you for a license I mean you'd probably need to disclose that at least yeah but in terms of the in terms of the absolute I mean Bruce we were talking about this that if you had something like that it would seem that the definition of financial interest in one salary, gratuity or other compensation or remuneration definition it would seem to fall in that because then you do have an interest in it because helping this person that might help you get out of your alimony all right and so I wasn't bothered by changing the tense because that still seemed like it was caught by the financial interest I agree with that assessment by the way I think I think that way covers it I I like it I like it making it more consistent if to I think Commissioner Stevan's point is addressed through other through other if you don't as a financial interest definition so we don't see a conflict if there's no financial interest with that former then it's Todd's point of appearance of conflict as opposed to an actual financial conflict so it's just to be clear the consensus is then to take it out okay Commissioner Cameron are you comfortable with that if there are other vehicles yeah absolutely I'm fine with that okay so we'll take three out and then we'll delete the word shared and it will replace it with shares perfect okay now we're down to section nine this is the conflict of interest section there are again a number of amendments here but I'm hoping we can easily explain what we've done the first is in paragraph A this is really just to bring this provision in closer line to the state law and it's easier really for training purposes a just to note that a conflict of interest applies to yourself too if you personally have a financial interest so we didn't say that here because that's covered under 268A but here it's just easier to add that applies to the financial interest and something you know about so it's to your knowledge so those are just two additions and then you'll see although I can't remember if I just did this or this is in your draft there's the part where we say have or had a significant relationship in the last line so we delete the or had and it would just read with whom they have a significant relationship so it would be more oh it wasn't deleted in this version so okay yeah so that's consistent yeah okay so we'll get down to paragraph C and D and there are some similarities between C and D we'll take them separately but at the end of the day we are trying to do basically the same thing with both and the distinction with paragraph C that's important here is that it only applies to commissioners and it only applies to situations in which you're making a licensing decision and this provision is included in chapter 23K and it says that commissioners must recuse themselves from any licensing decision in which a potential conflict of interest exists so the terminology potential conflict of interest does not appear in the state conflict of interest law that is special to chapter 23K but it makes sense to have a mechanism tied to the mechanics of the state conflict of interest law to handle any such situations that may arise and the closest comparison is when there's a so-called appearance of a conflict of interest under 268A chapter 23B3 in that case one is required to file a particular form which is referenced here in the new language in red and that form is to be filed with your appointing authority not with an executive director or anyone else you file that form regardless of who you are with your appointing authority so the proposal here to help us navigate situations in which a potential conflict of interest exists is to say that if that situation arises a commissioner can file a notice of an appearance of conflict under 23B3 with their appointing authority and the commission will have deemed that that potential is dispelled so there's no longer any potential because it's been put out on the table out subject to the sunlight everyone can see it everyone knows about it and the appointing authority then of course has the ability to make a determination if they so choose as to whether the person can continue or not continue on in that particular situation but at the end of this paragraph you'll see we also added language that says because an appointing authority essentially is not obliged to necessarily make a determination that a commissioner who files such a disclosure with their appointing authority must announce the filing at a public meeting of the commission so that it's all out in the public if this type of situation were to arise so that's the additional language you see here in paragraph C it may be helpful of Madam Chair and commissioners just to go on to paragraph D before we have discussion because there's a lot of similarities between the two although the language is slightly different paragraph D pertains to commissioners and employees and again there is language in Chapter 23K that addresses the situation here and which is not addressed in 268A the state conflict of interest law so again it's unique to the gaming law but again raises similar issues to the so-called appearances under 23B3 so what we have said here is that in the event that a commissioner or employee finds themselves in a situation that could give rise to an appearance of conflict or in which their impartiality may reasonably be questioned and that's the language that's in the statute impartiality may reasonably be questioned that they may file this disclosure under 23B3 and that as it does with appearances of conflict under state law shall be deemed to dispel any such appearance or any question as to whether their impartiality may reasonably be called into question and like before we say that such filing shall be made with one's appointing authority and in the case of the commissioners your appointing authorities are your statutory appointing authorities whether it's the governor or the attorney general or the treasurer or the combination of the three when it comes to most of the other employees of the commission that would be the executive director who is our appointing authorities and when it comes to the executive director it is the commission who is the appointing authority but and whoever that happens to be that's the individual or group of individuals you would file the disclosure with and the ultimate decision as to whether you could continue on would be with your appointing authority the change that was made to this section was because there was a bit of a tricky situation that we unintentionally created whereby commissioners would be required to file a disclosure with the executive director who would then be called upon to make a decision which creates an awkward situation to say the least in which someone would have to make a decision about their superior essentially under a conflict of interest law and that's not a great setup so the amendment here is designed to remove that and to bring this situation into closer alignment with the existing vehicle that's used under state law to address these kinds of situations and again when it comes to commissioners the requirement would be to announce publicly that you have filed such a disclosure with your appointing authority so that's paragraph c and paragraph d and I think it might be a good time to pause for discussion comments or any questions about what the proposal is questions I think it's well articulated by you now and by the changes here something that took me a little while to kind of get sort of understand really the question that was being brought up I kept thinking of the personalities in the in the prior executive director but I think the amendments here are appropriate and reflect every process no problem at all when it was briefed I thought this made sense okay excellent in that case we can keep moving along the next change was to section 11 it's just a real minor clarification it requires if anyone commissioner or employee gets offered a gift that they report it for their own protection to ward off any suggestion that someone actually kept a gift it requires the reporting to one's immediate supervisor where commissioners don't have immediate supervisors here at the commission we added in that that could also be filed with the general counsel and that would just be on record in case of any future issues that are asked if we keep on going down to section c of section 11 we talk about travel expenses and this is already in the enhanced code the adjusted language here is really just a clarification of the rule and ties it even more closely to state law on this issue and points out that if you were to follow state law that acceptance of either travel travel expenses or a reimbursement of such expenses or the waiver of any such costs shall not be considered a gift and that is consistent with state law on the matter and we are really just following that here so that's really just a reworking of that language but not a change in the policy can I just add one observation on that and commissioners we all have the great help of jamie on travel and conference setting but there are regulations under chapter 268a where if there is any element of third party support whether it's a waiver of costs because often we don't we use our own internal budget to cover those costs but if there's any waiver there it may trigger an obligation to file a disclosure with your appointing official and it does require a determination from your appointing official so just keep them in mind and we'll remind jamie of that requirement she knows it but just she's a great gatekeeper to remind us on for that and it should be done it must be done I should say in advance but that's but that doesn't happen that frequently for us but if they waive that also has value so is that fair to say Todd so we'll remind jamie so she can remind us okay thanks right we're all on the lookout that's the key to this holocaud you know it's hard to remember all of this so it's important that's why we train everyone and we talk about it regularly but she's so helpful on that front so so the next section section D talks about use of employee cafeterias or dining rooms the commission I believe reviewed this within the past E I mean it might be more than a year although it feels like it was within a year or so but it's in our employee handbook so now we're just migrating it over to this enhanced code too and it allows employees who particularly work at casinos or in the casinos to make use of the employee cafeteria dining rooms provided that they pay a market price for any of the items that they purchase it's our understanding that oftentimes the casinos will offer some discounts or good deals on their meals to their own employees or even perhaps offer them for free in certain circumstances and we of course can't do that but if we do accept the food or beverage at market price there's no violation of the rule so we're just codifying that there are also a couple of typos here that I would I would just kind of take out there are a few extra vats in here so I'll delete those as well thank you to Commissioner O'Brien who keenly caught those um section 12 that's just clarification of the unwarranted privilege rule just tying it more closely to chapter 268a it's discussed there there's no real substantive change to that one section 13 talks about use of the licensee facilities and particularly staying overnight at hotels that are owned or operated by the licensees and here what we have done and this kind of harkens back to the part where we talked in the conflict of interest section about the executive director being required to take some action pertaining to her superior so we wanted to remove that type of scenario and which we initially had whereby the executive director would have to approve of a commissioner staying overnight in a hotel so we instead the proposal is we just say the commissioners shall not stay overnight it says no commissioners shall stay overnight in a hotel of any kind for any reason period and we separate that out from any other employee like a gaming agent for example who may do so with express authority of the executive director director of the IEB or the gaming agent divisions chief provided that we pay for those rooms so that's the the purpose of the change in section 13 looks good well commissioner Cameron all set this one makes perfect sense so there's no reason to stay at a licensee facility yeah yeah so that is actually a clear improvement or a further additional enhancement here right commissioner Cameron oh yeah I never thought that we that there was any need to do that ever and this is good clarification thanks Todd section 14 has a similar amendment whereby initially in the present language a commissioner could place a wager in the course of their official duties if they had the approval of the executive director director of the IEB and to remedy that situation where a commissioner would need the permission of subordinate we instead changed the rule to essentially say that commissioners can never place a wager in a casino which of course is the law anyway we carved out a very limited exception here that an employee can place a wager in the course of their official duties the theory being that it would presumably be part of an investigation of some kind or some type of compliance effort to ensure that the integrity of a particular game is being met but the thought is that it would never really have to be a commissioner who would engage in that type of activity really just an employee of some kind and so what this does is it just kind of codifies the fact that no commissioner will really ever be placing a wager in a casino there is no undercover work for commissioners no undercover work for commissioners there goes my one skill that I obtain about switching dice go down in history down yeah I always advertise it at the one and only time that I might ever do it this is the Zuniga rule that wasn't even undercover that was right out in and I was in full view yes and plain view so um paragraph in a very limited I just want to be on the record very limited circumstance on a test night so this is just to clarify really a clear rule again very much like the overnight at the hotel correct commissioner Cameron yeah absolutely no need at all to place wagers as a commissioner I or the wagers I'm thinking it's worth that because that's something I did participate in undercover capacity this is very different no need as a commissioner yeah so that's clear so good thank you Todd do you want to continue on to 15 yes so paragraph 15 just a couple of real minor adjustments one is just to clarify that an employee working at a gaming establishment may purchase food or drink within a publicly accessible area at the post and menu prices which was already the policy but this is just the distinction from the employee dining areas where you can't just pay the posted price you have to pay market price but if you buy if you're at the casino and you purchase food or drink at out in public at the posted price then that is permissible and not considered a gift or or actually doing anything in violation of the code if you scroll down in the same section section four again this gets into the situation where a commissioner was required to obtain the approval of the executive director so we changed that this pertains to the scenario in which someone wants to go to a gaming establishment for a family or social gathering or civic or charitable event or what have you and we do have a mechanism in place that allows for that provided that amongst other things you a regular employee gets permission of the executive director this would require commissioners to notify the executive director of such and then announce such filing at a public meeting that you were going to the casino so I should just point out that this is just now putting a notice on on file which was recommended by Todd I don't think it precludes a commissioner from maybe taking the additional step of filing you know some kind of an appearance disclosure with their appointed official to just say I'm going to be at the licensee for and my cousin's daughter's wedding or whatever just to you know make sure that you're clear on the record but I thought this was a really reasonable recommendation and it wouldn't preclude additional steps this is because this is a measure that isn't doesn't stem from a statutory prohibition but from our enhanced code correct Todd that's right okay paragraph B of this section directly below I don't believe you have any marks on the draft you have in front of you but you'll recall that this section pertains to a commissioners involvement as an officer director or fundraiser with educational religious or charitable organization that receives significant funding from any gaming licensee I wanted to raise this to seek to clarify a bigger question about this and that is whether this is intended to apply solely to such service in a commissioner's personal capacity or whether it was intended to actually cover such service in the course of a commissioner's official duties as well it was my sense for what it's worth that this was intended to apply to one's personal involvement and any such organizations because that's really where the conflict of interest law is designed to to jump in and help moderate behaviors but in this type of situation where a commissioner is providing service to such organization in the course of their official duties I would suggest that the concerns that the conflict of interest law are intended to address are really limited and so I think a clarification as to that point would be helpful here are we talking about it has to be a charitable event does that work not just any other kind of an event at the licensee's premises well it's not an event it's really service on a board this is letter B B S-T-B okay Todd gave a great example to me you know we're quite proud of the fact that director Wells is on the Niagara this doesn't pertain to her commissioner Cameron because it's only with respect to commissioners but suppose you know you can't I can't use commissioner Stebbins well I can because he's still here he gets a request today to serve on a gaming licensee's a non-profit organization that is made up of regulators right really is serving the industry it would be really about your official capacity and I believe that there are ethics the ethics commission has made rulings that would be consistent with what Todd has suggested here with that said there's always other prohibitions in terms of confidentiality around our own business etc on serving on those boards but it doesn't it doesn't involve the potential conflicts that I think you were probably intending when you put that in back in the day it really is around the non-profit organizations that we serve personally I serve on various private non-profit organizations and coming here to the gaming commission I did my due diligence to make sure they weren't invested in any gaming companies and so I think that's what you were hoping for on that but we haven't had any invitations yet to serve on a non-profit are we talking something like Ayagra or yeah he said you don't think a commissioner should do that no the opposite the opposite I'm saying the opposite okay because saying you're sure you should be able to do that because it's an official capacity yes I see the distinction okay yes versus if we were on a non-profit that had a substantial financial interest yes very big difference yes yeah because then it would be for our personal perhaps personal gain versus our professional correct got it and so we'll make that change I think that's a good suggestion right yes okay you know for in the interest of disclosure I could have on the exact conversation I have been invited to be a member a board member of the to of the national council on program gambling and have not done so to be you know a board member to be in in in full compliance of this provision with the you know without necessarily and you have the benefit of this discussion that you know it was not perhaps meant to be as part of my official duties so it is a very real situation it's and this is a helpful clarification I think ultimately beneficial to the commission and that's what was intended okay paragraph C you'll see there's just a deletion to 11 C the theory is that 11 C references the gift restriction and the thought is that compensation or honoraria are really not travel reimbursement so it was somewhat perhaps of a misplaced cross reference so that's the purpose for that deletion and E is really again just a clarification that you may participate in civic or charitable activities that supplies to commissioners or employees that do not interfere with your independence of judgment or just adding in there related to the commission I mean if you're involved with something else that affects your independence that's your business but we're only concerned with ones that will affect your judgment here at the commission okay so section 17 deals with unlawful conduct if someone happens to be charged or ultimately convicted of a misdemeanor or a felony the statute this is right in section three of chapter 23 K says that in certain circumstances we have to suspend that employee and certain circumstances they have to be terminated the what's interesting though is that the section we realized after a careful review does actually not apply to commissioners and the reason for it I believe is that the decision as to whether a commissioner should be suspended or removed from their position is really up to the governor not up to the organization to decide and so in that event what we say is that a commissioner would have to report to their appointing authority that they have been charged with such a crime but not to the executive director otherwise the rule remains in effect for the rest of us as it should so that's that's the purpose of that amendment paragraph 19 just adds you'll see the commission into the category of individuals and entities with whom someone will have to cooperate in the event of an investigation and I think the last section I just wanted to touch on is section 24 which is on page 12 of the code and it talks about violations and this language was derived from section three of 23k and it relates to a scenario in which the governor could remove a commissioner for cause essentially and there's a whole body of jurisprudence related to removing an appointed official from their position the intent here I believe initially was to just give the other commissioners a mechanism by which to convey the existence of any of these scenarios that are described in the statute to the governor but when we went back and read it it doesn't it didn't quite say that it may have added more of a duty or a burden than was intended so the language you'll see in here is intended to really clarify the obligation that a commissioner or group of commissioners would have to make a certain report and just to walk through it quickly sections one through and this is roman numerals one through five are the exact language in the statute that the governor may use to remove a commissioner if any of those items are in existence six we added in so that's not in the statute but that it relates to of course a violation of this code and one of the keys to the amendment is that it's not incumbent upon the commissioners to make a definitive finding that another commissioner has done one of these things but just to conclude that there is essentially evidence for the governor to consider that one of these things may be in existence and the standard that we've tied to this is essentially the substantial evidence standard and the language before you says that if a majority of the commissioners agree that information exists that a reasonable mind might accept is adequate to support a conclusion that another commissioner has engaged in one of these particular behaviors or activities then they shall after providing notice to that other commissioner reported to the governor and the important thing here is that this is a shall so if if three commissioners concluded that there is evidence of one of these things they shall report it to the governor after providing notice to the third and this is the type of thing presumably depending on the situation that could actually be addressed in executive session we'd have to if for whatever reason we ever find ourselves in the situation we'd have to look at on a case by case basis but there is language in the open meeting law that may allow for such a discussion but this would mandate that group of commissioners to take action if there was evidence of one of these six are we are we using the term reasonable mind instead of reasonable person because it's plural is more than one commissioner or is that a term that's this is the exact length instead of saying that if a majority of commissioners agree that substantial evidence exists right we we use the language that defines what substantial evidence is so this comes to to turn reasonable mind reasonable mind oh I'm always familiar with reasonable person never mind yes and in fact I think we use reasonable person elsewhere in the code here but it was just a way to tie it to an actual legal standard you know so it's subject to discussion we could make it a reasonable person of course but that's where it came from I just wanted to explain that if it comes directly from you know it's used elsewhere and it's applicable I have no problem I just personally never heard the term yeah it's it's an interesting it's an interesting way to think about it but it comes up of course in our work all the time particularly in the hearing context uh context when we have to look at whether there's substantial evidence and of course the commission the judic could adjudicating any number of matters has looked at whether there's substantial evidence so it's a pretty well understood term and this is just how it's legally defined so it's if I could sorry if I could just add I think that shell there was always a obligation affirmative obligation to make a referral to the governor the difference that I saw was that the language as it existed before suggested that the commission had the power to make the um determination of the or the findings that are outlined in the statute where um ultimately in a removal process that the governor you know would be exercising it would be the presiding officer who would be the governor that makes the determination of the evidence so um in this case if the you know the commission would be more likely to know about something so you know there's a now a tool that the majority the commission could come together and say you know gee we seem to have made a decision or that there is this substantial evidence and then as you had before make you know affirmatively make a referral to the governor then of course it would be up to the governor as to what to do with that so it really is reflect it reflects the process of removal more accurately um and then but the other thing is the fairness factor right Todd where the commission would give notice to the the commissioner as as well that's right and that was that's a it's a great description of what the driving intent was behind this proposal yeah but I would I'm with commissioner Cameron I would not have known reasonable mind either and and for whatever reason but it does it's it is in aligned with with substantial evidence as in terms of its definition I'm going to go to our other legal mind commissioner O'Brien you're comfortable with I think of all of the changes this one was probably more of a of a challenge to to write and I thought Todd you did a superb job on it so thank you well thank you madam chair there was there's only one other proposal that I thought we would get to quickly here and that's in section 25 post-employment section where we talk about how long one would have to wait to be issued a license or registration by the commission in the event that they were dismissed or terminated for a violation of the code so if we have to terminate someone because they did something impermissible under the code we say that they at present it says you have to wait two years many people including commissioners have a two plus year cooling off period under law anyway so that really wouldn't have any effect to say that you have to wait two years so in effort to give some effect to that we say that the two-year waiting period would be after your statutory cooling off period so if you were terminated from the commission for violating this code you'd have to wait three four or five years before you could be licensed or registered to work at a casino and hopefully we'll never have to deal with this either but it's just uh while we're at it we might as well I love commissioner Cameron's expression it just kind of blossoms no concurrent sentences here no no it's the consecutive yes I see that get the number twice here that's it I just have a quick question on that Todd if someone is booted off the commission then what authority does the code then have over them um or is it that the that the so the licensing division would now be prohibited from licensing that person under this that's right that's what we would do but in massachusetts yes commissioner Cameron I suspect they may have different roles in different states but that's I'm fine with the the uh consecutive here yeah no light sentences if you're I mean you know if someone gets terminated violating the code it's probably going to be a unique situation to begin with yeah in that scenario the code terminus versus the parallel might be the least of the issues I think so too so then um like that is the last comment I had um I can turn it back over if there's any further discussion we can hit on any uh other comments or questions otherwise ultimately it would be something that the I think the commission should take a vote on as to whether to adopt the amendments and then as you'll recall this code gets filed with the state ethics commission so we'd have to update it and then file it with that body before we take any action formally I just want to thank well one Todd for your thorough thorough work here you you had made edits and allowed me the opportunity to chime in and Commissioner Stebbins I want to thank you for all of your contribution while you didn't necessarily add comments today you were you know wonderful contributor to the thoughtful changes that Todd proposed today so thank you for your attention on this you know again I think Todd set the stage right but you know this was really thoughtful several years ago thoughtfully done and it's been updated and it's probably just a good habit to review this important document on a regular basis to make sure we commit ourselves to the standards that that are expected Commissioner Stebbins yeah thanks Madam Chair I would agree a great job by our general counsel and you know thanks to you I know this has been your bailiwick this has been in your background through your years of public service so your input was incredibly helpful I know this started off is trying to make some simple corrections but I'm glad that we took a chance to really do a top to bottom review and update a lot more than I think was originally on our agenda to keep it current so I thank you for that and again thank Councillor Grossman for his good work and his incredible drafting abilities wow that's thanks to all of you we all participated and it wasn't very thoughtful and well any question I had had really been thought out thoroughly so I do appreciate the work of all of you I guess I'd like to have ended on maybe the construction report or the annual horse racing report but this was business that it's it is a good closer to get done especially because Commissioner Stevens did contribute and given I wanted to make sure he could be part of today's process so I'm happy that we took the time today to get through this and I think Todd has does suggest that it would be good to formalize I know we've had a couple one at least one matter that's outstanding and then there's been one change I think one amendment that wasn't in our document today but you noted it so with that I don't know if there is if unless there's further discussion if there is a motion on this matter Commissioner Bryan are you thinking certainly if I go back to the agenda see how we can Madam Chair I would propose that the commission vote to adopt comprehensive amendments to the enhanced code of ethics included in today's packet and as discussed second any clarification or amendment we'll just come back and review the clarification of the publicly created companies threshold matter Commissioner Stephens you're all set yes okay then again thank you Todd and thank you to all who patiently listen today it does affect the entire team so very helpful for you to stay on with that said we'll call vote Commissioner Cameron I Commissioner O'Brien I Commissioner Zuniga I and this may be a final vote for Commissioner Stebbins you want to stir things up Commissioner Stebbins well I'm just thinking it's not going to apply to me in here in another couple weeks so I'm sticking the rest of you with it now I'm happy to happy to vote I also thank you and I vote yes five zero Erica and before we turn to the next item Commissioner Stebbins thank you for that last formal action and now we will turn to the Commissioner's update correct and this does involve Commissioner Stebbins so it's just a formal vote the last formal vote we'll turn to Commissioner Zubrayin and Commissioner Stebbins thank you Madam Chair I start this off with an apology and a maya culpa there was a miscommunication between myself and HR in terms of getting the draft in the packet we didn't make substantial but I can and Bruce correct me if I miss anything but we we didn't do significant disforms what we really did was tweak them to be more relevant to particularly for the ED as opposed to a non-exempt employee and particularly for this year being calendar 2020 and the fact that Karen was put in as interim and then appointed this year without the benefit of having gone through a formal process where she set out particular goals for the year things that would be normally part of this process and you would harken back to those as part of this so this might what I suggest is I can go through what we propose maybe some of the discussions about the dates that we as a body can agree on in terms of timing in terms of care and self-evaluation our evaluations and then the public hearing and then what we may want to do is put on for January 14th the first public meeting in January final discussions about what our form is going to look like again we didn't do a lot of changes to it but as we Bruce and I talked about this people may feel differently about how or if they want that form to change and the mechanisms for doing the actual review but what I can do right now is simply say that the the original form that was disseminated that had been used for years when Ed Bedrosian was the executive director really it was ministerial changes to make sure it was Karen would be self-evaluating for calendar year 2020 not on a fiscal year basis that it makes a reference to the goals and how how did you do in progressing toward those goals but we simply populated with not applicable this year because she was not given a chance to give any goals in the beginning of the year it does give her the place obviously to set goals going forward for the next calendar year and then the really the three areas that we propose adding to this for this year because she couldn't set goals but we don't want her to not be able to talk about her accomplishments there is another form that HR and management have been using to do these quarterly check-ins with employees and I kept referring to it as the purple sheet which had a number of you know other questions to ask an employee kind of more regularly as the year goes on and one of them was which accomplish which significant accomplishment or contribution to the MGC this calendar year have you contributed to and which of those are you most proud of and so that we propose adding in this year for Karen so that she can talk about what she thinks she accomplished as interim and director even though it's not an official goal that we're going to be gauging her on whether she attained it or not and then breaking out into goals for next year agency related goals and personal goals so one would be introspective in terms of does she has any particular goals as ED and manager that she wants to accomplish on a professional basis versus what are the two to three goals that you set for you to accomplish for the agency as a whole but other than that the form looks very similar to what was given to the former executive director in terms of asking her to self-evaluate her communication skills her personal effectiveness skills her management qualities and her interactions with others so it's it's what it does is it's the same form we've used it's simply calendar versus fiscal and then it does add in significant accomplishments and personal assessments on that because she was not obviously given the chance to set those out in the beginning of the year and Bruce I don't let let me know if I left anything out No, I think you covered it it is again the commissioner Brian's point we didn't change the the the base form over overly dramatically just some some ministerial changes but the real meat of this was what we commissioner Brian called the purple page which I think is for the first time giving us and our ED a chance to talk about how they want to improve professionally what goals they're setting for the agency as well as a review of the goals and it gives the commission the chance when we talk about her performance to also have a discussion about the goals that she has put in her self assessment and how she views the work of the commission and the team going forward into the into the calendar year so yeah that's really the big standout change and you know thanks to to Troop D and Natasha for both helping commissioner Brian and myself kind of tweak that and make it relevant but I think it's a good solid document again used in the past and now we've tweaked some of the you know goals setting that all the employees are using to have it specifically relate to the executive director questions it sounds sounds reasonable sounds appropriate this is the year that we've had to improvise so this is one more document that we needed to do it so I I thank the two of you and the team that assisted you with being thoughtful about this and I just thank you for the work and it sounds great I agree the on the only thing that maybe I have missed I haven't thought correctly about that that the evaluation and compensation process would be on a calendar basis but it sounds as though and not surprising given it's also deals with compensation that it's that this has been was expected to have been done on a fiscal year basis historically yes when we looked at the forms it was historically done on a fiscal year basis but we'd have that conversation earlier in the year in terms of whether to go forward with Karen on an annual based on her start data to stick with fiscal and the consensus at that time had been to do the 12 months look back even though it was going to fall on a calendar cycle and do you think with that now with reviewing the document commissioner that you would still think that's appropriate or should we have that discussion on the 14th as well whether we need that we ship right fiscal year versus calendar I think that might be a question for going forward you know whether in interim six month and then we're back on a fiscal as we move forward with her as ED that's what I'm wondering yet right and that could be a discussion as we move forward you know do you have a small one and then it's stretched out to to sync up with everyone else okay so we'll plan on that for the 14th so it's possible that she could do a half year set goals for half year okay excellent I just wanted to go back that cycle of fiscal year as opposed to calendar so commissioner Zunica will you think about that too if it's important to get keep it on the fiscal year basis for you know fiscal purposes or we could ship to the right I don't see a really imperative I think it's a matter of preference you know so I'm finding the way frankly all right excellent sounds good and that and I'm excited about the purple page I know I was too actually Bruce and I thought it was actually pretty pretty good idea that was how people were doing that with their Supervisories so the only and then the only other discussion really is the machinations for how this goes forward in terms of when Karen gets this form and does the self-evaluation the recommendation that I had and then Bruce had when we were talking with Tripti and Natasha about this was if she's instructed to return it to HR and then HR disseminates it to each of us so we can each do our individual assessment of her and then HR could disseminate our individual assessments back to her no compilation etc that she would get an individual assessment from each one of us and then there would be a separate public meeting to do an overall assessment that we would need to do because of the position that she's in that would talk about our performances etc but mindful of public records laws exemptions and privacy rights that would attach to personnel records etc it's my understanding in the past compilations of assessments were made Bruce and I were talking about how that would work what that would look like etc just doesn't seem to me to be a good process and it seems to me that the executive director should get the benefit of knowing what each commissioner thinks I mean heaven forbid there be outliers one way or the other she should have the opportunity to sit down one and one with that person and talk about what those issues are and that can be done one on one with one or more commissioners if the commissioner or she wants that so we didn't really want to go forward and continue with that idea of just getting one summarized review but we obviously wanted to take it to the full board to commission to see what you guys thought and and the idea was that we would still have some kind of we would we would benefit from the one on one but there would still be a compilation of some kind by HR on no so that's just that is the compilation would really be us oh triptus here what we had talked about there were two components historically to how the commissioners evaluated the ED and one was purely numeric it was breaking these various general categories of communication management style et cetera engaging them on a score of one to five that's purely math I mean so if the question is and Todd I know this gets into maybe other questions of you know how we want to go forward a public meeting but it would seem to me HR simply compiling the median and or the range of those to be presented at the public meeting and then we each can give our summary of what we think of Karen to me would be the better way of publicly discussing her performance without having someone go through the exercise of subjectively deciding how to merge everyone's comments about her yeah I think the compilation was as you just clarify included the comments there's the summation of all the different comments so it was not just limited to the to the numerical exercise which was in part of part of the deal I'm fine with this process you know what would you suggest I think it would enhance the feedback so so long as we don't preclude it doesn't become at the expense of our robust discussion in the opening which which is the purpose of the review to be done in public which I know can be awkward but but it's it's part of the deal really part of the structure that we are faced with I think what we were and Bruce jump in please but we were trying to balance having a vigorous process publicly but also acknowledging that there is a component that even the public records law acknowledges is allowed to be kept exempt and so we're trying to do this in a way that's robust in public but also acknowledges that there is that component to this Todd and I were talking about you know exactly what the mechanics are and the forms etc that that you know could be shared it doesn't mean obviously that the five of us to see the other four's evaluations at the meeting that would mean that document is public but to me the benefit of her being able to individually see what we say and then we as a group publicly talked about that I think satisfies both those requirements but I don't know Bruce if you wanted to comment also yeah no I would agree with that and Todd has dug us out some very useful information both in terms of case law as well as practice and you know even looking back to our you know what I saw was our last evaluation of an ED which was quite some time ago we we did have you know on a discussion in a public meeting but again you know some of those documents weren't included as part of the packet for the purposes that Ellen just explained so I think it you know the processes for thinking about it helps Karen as a professional to understand how her bosses kind of view her performance and at the same time gives her some thoughtful feedback allows us to weigh in and again the new wrinkle being now having a conversation in a public meeting you can assess the goals that she's laid out in this kind of whole new piece to the to the review and assessment of the work I think it's thoughtful then I would have my camera off too if I were Karen I I think Karen is appropriately using herself she's got her cat in the cat's visiting this is very awkward so I figured I'd make it less awkward by jumping out Karen I don't know animal just your cat Karen if we um if we ever do this back in in real life again you have permission to bring your cat and hold the cat hear that Cooper cat yeah there you go thank you and we're almost we're almost concluding our meeting but um to the only last the timing so it sounds like commissioners O'Brien you're going to take this on now on your own you'll have the document to share with us for further input on the 14th we'll mark it up onto the agenda and it seems as though we maybe at the next agenda setting meeting you could make a recommendation about how we might schedule next steps and and how many meetings that you imagine this would take I have no problem with us you're pushing this into the new year it's important to get it right um it was right before but you know again I think you know your your set of eyes looking at this with the benefit of Mr. Stevens past eyes it sounds as though you've got you know some enhancements that that Commissioner Stevens think will be really helpful right so getting Karen's input in terms of how much time does she need realistically to complete it that's right and and us as well so that we can do it in a meaningful way for the meeting yeah we want to be fair all around so no vote on this however before we um take oh actually Commissioner Stevens you might have one more official vote I just realized that you were very generous at the beginning of the meeting but this is a public record Commissioner Stevens so I do invite you to share your parting thoughts if um Elaine Driscoll were here for our archives this is an opportunity for you to speak on the record you'll have opportunities to speak off the record in our you know informal compliant meetings but please and don't feel pressed on time everybody relax well I will be mindful of everybody's time first of all let me say it was as I said as I was sitting here and I'm looking at the date and I was reminded that in about another month that was 30 years ago that I left what I thought was going to be the best job I ever had and come today to sit here and realize maybe that wasn't true 30 years ago because this has been an incredible experience I'm really humbled by the opportunity to get to work with everybody on this incredible team and that includes you know staff that were with us and have now left for other pursuits as well as my other former colleagues from the commission Chairman Crosby and judges McDonald and McHugh it has been great over the last eight years to not only get to know all of you personally and professionally but to really enjoy working in a place that has a true sense of family and teamwork you're all incredible I have learned so much from each and every one of you you know I in I respect you all so much as professionals and you know getting to know each of you personally I'm going to miss Colonel Cameron's stories about her days in the New Jersey State Police and I'll miss Commissioner Zuniga's Payeya and his turkey stories I've enjoyed Madam Chair hearing stories about your incredible family as well as Chippy's not in the room but a very cute dog and I can't wait to see pictures of Commissioner O'Brien's new member of the household you know I this has been incredible and I want everybody on this team to always realize the incredible work that you do and bringing a new industry to Massachusetts and that you were really helping afford a number of our fellow residents the chance to go to work and you're affording a number of small businesses across the Commonwealth to really have incredible new opportunities to work with our licensees and that's so important you should all take great pride that you're really making that happen every day for for folks across the state as Commissioner Cameron said this is not fair well even though my commute is probably going to go in the opposite direction when we all return to office space but it's not a fair well and it's simply and you know until we see each other again so thank you all very much thank you Commissioner Stevens so kind of me the roast comes later yeah I bet you're you're writing them as we as we speak Commissioner Cameron so um if you will I'm going to allow or ask Commissioner Stevens to make the first little his last official gaming commission motion Madam Chair I move that we adjourn this meeting any objection except that it's to say goodbye and thank you for your service your integrity your fidelity and loyalty and with that we'll call vote Commissioner Cameron I Commissioner Bryan I Commissioner Zuniga Hi Commission late I vote yes Commissioner Stevens yes I and with that thank you everybody that's five zero thank you everyone