I want to, of course, remind everybody that because of the coronavirus, we have been meeting through connectivity technology, and really, we have been afforded great opportunity to do so through the order that the governor issued at the very beginning of our closure so that we could comply fully with the expectations under the open meeting law. Today was, just because we've only had a couple of challenges, we've been really fortunate to be able to meet regularly and comfortably through a remote means, so we appreciate the opportunity, and thank everyone for today, today just a little bit more patience. And I'm calling to order now, public meeting, it is public meeting 311, and it is July 2nd, our start time is now 1040. And we'll go to our first matter, which would be the approval of minutes, Commissioner Stevens, you've shifted on my screen. Good morning. Good morning, Madam Chair and my colleagues. In your packet, you have the meeting minutes from the June 11th meeting, which all of us can recall was rather lengthy. It was a good discussion with our licensees of guidelines. So my compliments to Shar for her great work pulling these together. She shared them with all of you because obviously there were a lot of discussion points. We wanted to make sure that we accurately reflected everybody's key points that they wanted to make.  Before we move on to seconding it, I did post edit. It's page eight, the entry at 231 p.m. I don't think that's entirely accurate in terms of what the conversation was the context of the conversation at that time was looking at option a which was based on a percentage of occupancy and the discussion, whether or not it would be part of that percentage. And then we hypothetically taught that a 50% capacity but there was no consent about 50%. It was a consensus that any percentage under option a would include employees. So my proposed edit would be the commission reached a consensus that a percentage occupancy level requirement would also include employees that that's what the entry should read at that point. And that was at that the stage of that meeting. And, and I think that it is verified in our later work where we, we indicate we hadn't had a consensus on overall occupancy level. Right. So thank you. Thanks. That's in that time frame at that meeting. Does that make sense to, you know, and to be fair to Sharra, it was a very fluid conversation at the time and probably difficult to follow. I think it's like twice to have to look at the time period again to sort of figure out how to say it concisely. Right. So thank you. Did we hear that edit. Okay. Do we want. Sharra, did you get the. Yep. Excellent. Thank you. That's helpful. Anything further. Again, very, very dense conversation. Want to make sure it's as accurate as you remember it to be. I also had an edit. Okay. On the entry, I don't know the page number, but it's the entry of 1122 AM. Okay, pages up. Eight five. Okay. Thanks. In the second paragraph where it says that I raised a concern regarding the temperature checks. At the gaming establishments. It is correct that I, my preference was for enforcement for a focus on, at the beginning. To mitigate the requirements later. So I would delete the knot. At the end, at the beginning of the last sentence. I think it was really just about other measures. Because it is actually doing so. Other measures. That's right. Later on, I also. I mean, I recall and I am currently still. In agreement that of the requirement of face masks. I think it was really just about other measures once. I was making the point. I think it was really just about other measures. And I think that the factor at the beginning would, would alleviate the necessary for being strict later on. But, but I wasn't necessarily. Singling out the requirement of face masks. So. Would you like to state it without the face mask being referenced precisely. Yes. So my proposed that it is that the last sentence in that second sentence. I would like to state it without the face mask being referenced. So I would like to state it without the face mask being referenced. For other measures. I feel that that reflects what I believe commissioners and a gut did communicate to us at the time. So I'm, I'm very comfortable with that. Thank you. Again. Blue discussion. Any other edits. Commissioner. Okay. All right. Do I have a motion? Oh, I have a motion. I have a second. Okay. Any further discussion? Again, thank you to Sharra. Commissioner Cameron. I just seconded. I am sorry. You're polling now. I. Okay. There's a lot going on. Yes. Now the votes. An eye from commissioner Cameron commissioner. Brian. Hi. Commissioner Zuniga. Hi. And commissioner Stevens. Hi. Yes. Five zero. Thank you with those edits. Moving on now to our. Our agenda. Item. Number three. Our administrative update from. Interim executive director Wells. Good morning, madam chair and members of the commission. As I expect, everyone is aware. The earliest opening date for the phase. Three opening of Massachusetts has been deemed by the governor to be Monday, July 6th. We are still aware of that. As the governor has stated previously on many occasions, that determination is going to be data driven based on health metrics. So we. At the commission are ready to go to take on our regulatory responsibilities. Once the governor. And then the licensees deemed it's appropriate to reopen. So we are ready to go. We stand by. I am going to turn it over for item three. A to Dr. Lightbound to just to give you a little bit of a briefing and. Some information on simulcasting. And E. W. For your information, just for. Interest as far as the racing side of the house goes. Because we have a lot of interesting things going on with racing right now. Before we move on to three. In terms of being ready to go. There may be some questions from. Oh, good. On that. When you say ready to go, were there any formal actions or sign-offs that. That are still that you need to take. Interim executive director Wells. We will be the fact that the commission passed the, or voted on the guidelines last week tremendously helpful. So we. Now have a framework for the licensees and for the commission. And if we, as we've talked about in public meetings as well, we also have our own internal guidelines. For the safety of our own employees. So actually we're finalizing a document for employees. So they can look through it all themselves. And we'll hopefully be getting that out today to our employees. Just so people understand what the protocol is. The procedures are so people understand what's going to be happening once there is a limited amount of our staff that will be onsite at the casinos. Yeah, that was actually one of my questions. I'm going to just jump in because I do want to take the time, Karen. You know, July 6th allows for an opening. And, and, and our licensees decide to proceed. And we'll hopefully be getting that out today to our employees. Just so people understand what the protocols are. The procedures are. And our licensees decide to proceed. One of the items that I've mentioned in the past, and I think it's even noted in today's minutes is to make sure that our, our employees. Who will be. At the property are really trained. You know, in terms of how to wear their masks, how to, and I just want to be assured that. If Monday is a go for our employees that they're all set. And I'm hearing you say it's we're a little bit in limbo. Let's be great. Right. And I know that tomorrow is a holiday. So I just, I am. Reinforcing really a comment I made in the past is that it's really important to have that cross training. Right. Yeah. Another point that we should be aware of is that we have also been notified the licensees training that they are giving their employees to, for their safety protocols, our employees have been taking that as well. So that's. Here. Okay. Yeah. And this, this applies to both our gaming agents and our, our racing employees that they're all ready to go on the six. And I, we also have our state police, the gaming enforcement unit and the local police that are part of that unit. They have been working all along, but they're obviously with an opening, there will be more activity. So everybody is, is in the loop as far as what these protocols are. Thank you for verifying that. Any commissioners. Yeah, Karen. I, I just remember, um, you know, a couple of conversations from the prior meetings that the licensees themselves would, would need. Um, you know, a couple of weeks in some cases to, um, To open based on a number of things. Um, you know, including in the, including the guidelines. Um, so assuming that the governor were to, um, To give a go ahead on the phase three, uh, do we know that, um, All or any of the licensees would be in a position to then open up or they still need. There may be some time that there may be some time that they need. And that's why they're sort of the governor's piece. And then the licensees have to make their own decisions about Opening safely with the protocols in place so that, uh, It's not rushed and there aren't mistakes made. So the licensees will also be making their own determination. So it may not be everything opens up that first day. They will be making their own determinations. We've had some preliminary discussions where those dates are. I don't really want, uh, to speak for them in case they, they make some changes. I don't want to make an announcement on their behalf. Uh, but that may, it may be somewhat of a staggered approach. Uh, as far as opening the casinos, the licensees have to make some business decisions and also safety for their own employees and what makes sense. And onboarding. Uh, because I think we've all. Been through a lot, you know, we've been a lockdown since middle of March. And reopening these is a big deal. Uh, and it's what we've done in Massachusetts has been amazing. And you look at what's going on in the other parts of the country. And we've done a good job as far as reducing the numbers. I think everyone is thinking about that, that we want to do this the right way. And the licensees are also thinking that way as well. Other questions for Karen on this point. I know we can circle back to the important discussion too. If you think of something as we go through today's agenda. Any further questions for Karen, just on that. Right now. All right, then what? Then we'll go ahead with an item. But again, we may think of something as the meeting proceeds. Okay. Thank you. So. Yeah. Turn over to. To Dr. Leipam. Good morning, Alex. Good morning, everybody. So, um, the, um, I'll give you a couple of questions. I'll give you a little bit of background on the account. Wager and a little bit of the history in 1978. Interstate horse racing act. Authorized interstate simulcasting, which meant that you could be in a race track. In Massachusetts and bed on races in New York. In 2000, it was amended to include. Advanced deposit wagering, basically telephone and other electronic forms of wagering. Um, in states where that type of betting would be legal. So that was in 2000 and in 2001, Massachusetts actually passed laws and regulations. So that it was legal in Massachusetts. Then. Um, Suffolk partnered with. TVG to offer it. And that was online. And then the other licensees at the time, um, Rainham, Fox, Gro and Wonderland, um, introduced, uh, telephone betting. So, um, they all had, uh, different versions of account wagering, um, advanced deposit wagering. Um, now, um, Rainham still has the, um, phone betting there. Um, it's called dial to bet. Um, obviously we've moved on from, uh, Foxboro to Plain Ridge and Plain Ridge had their own, um, in house, uh, account wagering.  And that's, um, online. Um, Suffolk has partnered with, um, several different groups. Um, TVG, which now includes, um, FanDuel to give them a wider, um, audience base. Um, they also, uh, contract with Twin Spires and Ira Betts, um, an express bet. Um, so, you know, we've had, um, online wagering in Massachusetts for, uh, quite a while since 2001. And, um, it's been, you know, regulated really without any, um, things like geofencing, defining the boundaries, um, or geolocation where you can actually determine where a better is placing their bets. Um, allows for, um, different takeouts, um, depending on where the person is so that it may be, um, more advantageous, um, to, uh, somebody, um, who's actually betting in the, um, building, so to say, at one of our tracks versus, um, maybe in their house. So it's very, um, it can be very specific. That's, that's the thing. Um, we do have obviously, um, regulations that cover that. Um, it comes under 205 CMR. Um, six, starting with 620 general account wagering. Um, that's under our paramutrials. Um, and it's specified for, um, how, how the money can be deposited and goes through a number of different, um, steps that regulate it. Um, I'll turn it over to, um, CAD now and our financial analyst, and he can describe a little bit about, um, reconciling that he does to, um, regulate the money that comes in. And, uh, before I do that, um, just to step back a minute. Um, with the shutdown due to the COVID, uh, we were fortunate with this account wagering, um, that this was able to, um, continue. Um, we had to stop simulcasting because that involved people actually going into our buildings in Massachusetts. And, um, you know, so we couldn't do that. And also we had to delay, um, our live racing, but with the, um, online, um, wagering, we were fortunate enough that that could continue to, um, proceed. So we have had some revenue coming in from that. And, uh, now I'll turn it over to Ted. Thank you, Alex. Good morning. Manager. Commission and everyone on the call. Um, so as Alex mentioned, although the race tracks and simulcasting sites have been closed, there have been some, um, I am still working with the licensees and our internal colleagues, um, to provide reconciliation and billing. So I am happy to report that the process. And very smooth. So thank you very much. Um, so as Alex mentioned, although the race tracks and simulcasting sites have been closed to the patrons, wagering on racing has continued through our ABW providers. Um, I am still working with the licensees and our internal colleagues on the call. Um, so as Alex mentioned, I am still working with the licensees and simulcasting sites. Um, so I'm very, very smooth. So thank you very much to our licensees and the colleagues that I, I work with. Um, so I'm just going to kind of go into some of the numbers here to date. And, um, So when we do look at them, um, starting pre pandemic, I guess, the word. Um, January and February, uh, we did a combined handle of 32 and that was versus 30 million, um, last year. So there was actually an increase than the first two months. And then, um, So basically, uh, March was, uh, where we did see, um, a small downtick in the handle. Uh, that was down 2 million. And so that was 16. So all in all, uh, for the first quarter, um, it was basically flat. Um, we, um, We did 25, um, and then when we look at May, um, that's where we saw an increase and we went from 25 million. Um, which was about. 10 million more than what we did in 2019. Um, and then in terms of the actual commission that we received from that. Um, so, so far a year to date, we, um, have a build out for commissions on the wagers, 343,000. And that is versus, um, 341,000, um, of the same period last year. So, um, really only. Only $2,000 less than where we were on track from last year. Um, so the attribution for that is basically even though the library saying and simulcasting at the tracks, um, were halted in the middle of March. Um, we saw, um, the ADW way during increase by over 50%. Um, and so in total, um, so far a year to date, the handle is at 91 million. Um, versus last year, um, where it was, um, that right around 90, 90 million. So, um, I think where we saw the big difference again is, is with the ADW wagering. And so the six providers actually provided 75 million or about 80%. Um, of, of the total handle so far a year. Uh, this year, whereas last year it was split 50, 50 between live racing, simulcast and the ADW providers. Um, and then in terms of, uh, the, uh, cap and promo funds right now, the, uh, the plain rage cap fund is at 550,000. Uh, the Suffolk capital improvement fund is at, uh, 3 million. The plain rage promotional fund is at 140,000. And the Suffolk promotional fund is at 150,000. Um, and then just kind of a quick note also on, on sports betting. Um, so the same trend is actually happening. Um, they're also, um, it's about 20%. Um, of the wagers that are coming from the brick and mortar sports book, uh, versus online and mobile ADW providers similar to racing that provide 80% of, um, the sporting events. And as Alex mentioned, fan dual did team up with, uh, TBG. So we, we have started to see a little, um, uptick in TBG's numbers because it's, um, and, uh, that's, that's all I have. Thank you. That's really helpful. And I like that you made the, uh, connection to the sports betting world. Of course, in Massachusetts, we don't have legalized sports betting, but the trend is showing that where there are options to be online during this pandemic, they, um, even with reduced sports. Opportunities. The online is active. Of course, some of the sports books have now returned in the last month or so. Other jurisdictions. But the mobile, the mobile option is active. I have a question, um, for, for Alex or Chad. Uh, thank you for that update. A question and perhaps a comment after that. Um, so, um, is there a way to know, and, um, just in general, not, not, not anywhere precisely, whether some of these activity, um, of ADW is from new accounts, people who decided were usually going to the track. And then decided to get an account, a new account on ADW. Um, in order to replace their activity at the track and now from home, or he seed existing accounts that, um, that now have a higher level of activity because people are at home. Yeah. So, um, I think, um, to, for the most part, I, I do think that it's, um, increased. Accounts, uh, that were set up, um, one of them, uh, coming over from, uh, some of the, the, the, um, people that were signed into Fandle are now able to race through TVG's, um, portal. So I think that's part of it. Um, and I would also assume that, um, uh, you know, those, those folks that do like to, to wager, um, and they did some of it on the track, although they still may have had an account. Um, there was only one way to do that. And that's through the account. Mr. Tuttle, I see that you came on board. Was that purposeful to, um, to make a comment? I just wanted to make sure you didn't want to add in or. Uh, no, it was only, um, in, in, uh, potential of being called upon. Um, Thank you. Thank you. Just wanted to make sure. Um, yeah, thank you. I, you know, let me follow up on that because, um, uh, I think what's, what's, what's really alluded to here is, um, The notion that we effectively we had when it came only to course racing. An online, um, you know, since, you know, option really, uh, for a few years now, um, I also would like to point out that it's a cashless wagering effectively, something that is now being or should be considered in light of all of these current context as maybe being, uh, necessary to consider for, for casinos and other forms of gaming. Um, it can be done in the same, in a very similar way in which the account is pre-funded. Nobody uses credit. Um, and just like the 80 W's. And, uh, and it minimizes for the high touch nature that now becomes a concern. Ironically, uh, in this, in this pandemic. So, um, I know it's not something that casinos are currently, uh, allowed to do, um, you know, um, in, in certainly Massachusetts and in very, in the majority of other states. But I wonder if this would be, um, a trend that or a model that could be replicated. For other forms of gaming. Thank you. Commissioner. That's, uh, Really important observation. One of the reasons why I had asked, uh, Alex for this update. Is I don't believe that, um, it's widely known that there's mobile betting going on in Massachusetts from our, the comfort of our couch on our cell phones. And I like that Alex, you pointed out that there's phone betting, but mobile online betting is occurring and has been occurring since 2001. Or horse racing. And horse racing was, you know, And it's, and it's been able to be done in the, in a careful way with respect to geo fencing and knowing your client. And then of course, um, a chat is pointing out just during this snapshot. Uh, During the pandemic, helpful statistics in terms of where, uh, whether the play was impacted, uh, where there wasn't, uh, Brick and mortar opportunities. So I really, I, I truly appreciate that update and look forward to hearing more details. Commissioners, any other comments for Alex and chat on this update? Just a high level update, but one that we really needed to be informed and to keep track of at this time. All right. Thanks. Moving on to the next slide. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. Moving ahead. Uh, as for, uh, item three B madam chair, I wanted to give the commissioners just an update on, uh, some regulatory action with respect to the casinos. That commission has carved out, uh, special authority for the executive director, uh, to be able to approve the, uh, the, uh, the, uh, the, uh, the goals that the request of the licensees, uh, deemed appropriate. That authority is, uh, at 205 CMR 138. So we did receive some requests. Uh, and I wanted to update you on determinations, uh, by, uh, the team and approved by me, the, um, If there's a denial of any request, uh, I'm going to have a, uh, assistant director band chime in on, on a few of these, just because he has the gaming expertise and there is some interest in some of this, how the, you know, how the casinos work. Uh, the first one has to do with pit bosses. Um, and I'll let, uh, Assistant director band in a minute, just give you an explanation what the pit boss role is. But bottom line is that there was a request that instead of, uh, having a maximum supervision load of 24 tables, that that be increased to 30 tables so that a pit boss, uh, can in fact during this time period, supervised 30 tables, uh, given that, um, the present facts and circumstances and what's going on, particularly where the tables now are going to have fewer people at the tables. And that there is a supervisor responsibility by the fourth person as well, uh, as the dealer, uh, that, uh, that, uh, that, uh, request is deemed appropriate and did not impact the, uh, controls over the casino. So I'll just turn it over to Mr. Band to just give you a little bit of, uh, flavor of what the pit boss does and how that, uh, works at the casino. There. You need to just, um, Bruce, you just need to unmute. Can you. I had to unmute myself. Uh, the pit boss is the, uh, uh, head supervisor in the pit, in charge of all the four people, uh, we felt that, uh, uh, by letting him supervise more tables, it didn't lessen the supervision over the table games as the four people or the direct supervisors over the tables. And, uh, uh, this pit boss itself makes the decisions that, uh, the four people themselves, uh, couldn't make and that, uh, by doing this, we, we didn't lessen that, that supervise you. Okay. Do you want to take questions in between Karen? How? I think that, I think that makes sense. Yeah. Any questions on that? Okay. Hearing none. Uh, the next issue with, with respect to surveillance and security staffing, uh, Plain Ridge. Parkasina had requested a variance, uh, with respect to minimum staffing numbers. Uh, that was, uh, uh, uh, approved in part and denied in part. I won't go into too much detail on that for obvious reasons, but the, um, the bottom line is that we can only, uh, approve a change if it doesn't lessen the applicable administrative or physical control of the property. So there are administrative, uh, rules with respect to that. And we made a determination on that. So, um, I don't know if there's any questions on that with respect to the staffing, but in casinos, there are minimum requirements for security and surveillance, uh, personnel to make sure that everything is handled properly at the casinos and the casino submit internal controls as to their minimum staffing. Is there any, uh, are there any questions from the commissioners on that? And I would just add that we have the benefit of, uh, uh, some briefing from you on that. So exactly. Um, Exactly. Uh, the third issue, uh, maybe of interest, uh, to the public is respect to progressive jackpots and some variances. They requested based on the pandemic conditions and the closing and then the opening of the casino. So I'm going to have, uh, Mr. Bann just start out with just a, an explanation of a progressive jackpot and what it means and, and how it's, uh, and how it's funded and the special rules and the, um, the variances that were requested. Progressive jackpots are, are slot machines that the, uh, the jackpot on the slot machine grows, uh, higher and higher as play accumulates. Uh, it's funded initially by putting, uh, the casino puts what's called a seed amount on there. And that's usually to make the jackpot a little more enticing for the paper that would like $2,000 to start. Uh, and then, uh, the jackpot will grow by whatever percentage that machine is set at three to 5% as it goes. Uh, we don't allow that, that machine to leave the floor for more than 10 days. If they're redesigning a, a, uh, a slot zone or, uh, you know, for some reason they have to take it off the floor for, for work. Uh, we had two requests in, in here. The, uh, a seed amount money is actually the casinos money and the. Percentage is the patrons money essentially. That's why we don't allow the machine to leave for a length of time. We got two requests. The, uh, one of the casinos asks, uh, because if you're, you're going to remove the jackpot, you have to post that for, for, uh, 10 days saying we're going to remove the jackpot to a machine that's similar and, uh, has similar characteristics to the machine that it was on to let the patrons and public know that that's going to be transferred that's going to be transferred. Uh, one of the casinos asked to forego that 10 day posting and to transfer those jackpots to similar, uh, uh, machines. The other two asked to forego the, uh, uh, removal for 10 days thing and be able to remove those jackpots for up to 60 days before they transfer those jackpots. And that's essentially what they're doing. So, um, any questions? Commissioner Zaniga. Yes. Thank you. I was just unmuting. So, um, how is the notice on their normal circumstances when, when they're operating 24 seven, how is that notice of the move given for the public to know that, you know, the game, let's say that they let the progressive they'd like to play might not be there when they come back. It's a signage on the machine itself. So, um, it's a signage on the machine itself. So, um, I'm just going to post in saying that this jackpots going to be transferred. Uh, to another machine.  I'm, is there, is there a way to know what, what do they propose to do in terms of signage? And I understand that there's been a long period of course, of inactivity. Yes. The player who's looking for the jackpot, perhaps the, the, the progressive. Um, I believe there's going to be some signage in the casino. Uh, there are numerous, uh, progressives in each casino. Then it would almost be impossible to post it on all, all the machines in there. Uh, that would be a lot of machines to post it on. So I, I assume they would put some signage around the casino, saying those machines that aren't currently active on the four will be, uh, you know, activated at a later date. Okay. Bruce, um, can you just remind me the reasons that a licensee might, uh, pull a machine out of service that is offering a progressive slot? Uh, you sometimes for, uh, some software update or work on the machine itself or the slot zone itself is, uh, being reconfigured. Uh, you know, that whole slot zone, you know, like the, the, the, the, the corporate replacement, uh, it could be numerous, uh, things like that. Thank you. So that those, uh, those who are the requests that, uh, were granted and with the exception of, uh, the, uh, denied impart on the security and surveillance piece. So as more of these may or may not come in, I will keep the commission updated on what's going on, just so you have a sense of, uh, any significant issues going on at the casinos that they can they can be made aware of that through this venue. So any any other questions on that? No, I just come on to confirm that Encore just didn't happen to ask for that further relief. If I wanted it, it would have been extended to them, correct? That is correct. Just just a comment that I think you know the regulations as envisioned are working well. You know if you know they need to include variances for unforeseen events and clearly we have one of us what one of these events before us and that the licensees if they are not satisfied with with your initial termination can always come back and make their case in front of the five of us and we can have a discussion about that. So I'm glad that it's that it's working and that you're also applying what looks to me as very reasonable you know waiver extensions as as you see necessary. It was not essential that they report this to us because of the fact that it can be appealed but given that where we are and given the public interest we thought it was was helpful for everyone to understand fully the process and in the substance. So thank you to everyone and I know that Todd was really instrumental in comprising the thorough report. So thank you Todd. Absolutely was. Thank you. Okay so that's it for item 3b Madam Chair. Thank you. Okay so is that the end of the meeting Karen? I thought so. I put aside my agenda here we are. Moving on then to item number four now we're going to be looking at the racing division and the review of the standards. Thank you very much Alex. Oh thank you. I first of all I wanted to thank Civo Tull and Chris McElaine from Plain Ridge and Penn, Chip Tuttle from Suffolk, Sue Rodriguez and George Carney for Rainham and then Bob McHugh, Alice Tisbert and Frank Antonacci from the Harness Horseman's Association for working on these plans so that we can plan on having a safe and sustainable reopening and opening of our facilities. It was a big project and there were multiple changes. I think we have pretty good plans in place right now. Starting with the Plain Ridge one I did get a request this morning to add one change and we all agree Plain Ridge myself and the Harness Horseman that it does make sense. So if I can read it to the commissioners and perhaps we can add that to the document if the commissioners agree to it. It's on page four of the Plain Ridge plan near the bottom and it talks about no winter circle ceremony shall take place and then it talks about horses would go right back to the paddock. We'd like to add in that the photographer can take a wind picture. That procedure would be able to be done with physical distancing. We would only allow the driver who is driving the horse to be in the picture. The initial concerns when tracks were reopening was that you didn't want a big group of owners and grooms and trainers in the winter circle picture together and also they usually travel from the barn area up to the winter circle on a golf cart and you didn't want a bunch of people climbing on a golf cart together. With the way we're figuring out doing it we can give the photographer he can get back to work and the horseman can get still get a wind picture with their horses and we think we can do it in a safe way. So the wording I'd like to add is that the photographer will attempt to take a wind picture without the driver getting off the sulky there and I think that would be in in accordance with the COVID protocols. Are there any questions on that issue? Alex, it's obviously not being taken in the in the winter circle. Can you just help give me a better idea as to where the picture gets taken? They still probably will swing by the winter circle. They have to come by there anyway and that may be the best place for them to stop and do it. We'll let them figure that out but I probably will be done right there anyway. Okay, thank you. I see this is this is a reasonable request to add. I see no issue with this at all. The way the agreement was put together with following the protocols is just outline. So just to clarify I want to make sure that we're speaking about the same thing. We all, Commissioner Cameron were you just commenting on the bat change? Yes, that one change that Alex outlined it would like our... Thank you. With respect to the winning circle. Yes, correct. Okay, excellent. Can I just have one thing Madam Chair? Yes. So this came up just earlier this morning before the meeting. I really don't have a problem with the driver coming off the seat of the bike. There's still plenty of social distancing and sometimes the courses get a little rambunctious and walk backwards or sideways. I think when you were in the winter circle one time it came pretty close to you at that point in times but it would be helpful if the driver could get off at different times. So they can stay on but I wouldn't... This came up so late this morning as I was thinking about it after I spoke to Alex. I don't have a problem with the drivers getting off if she wasn't. Thank you. Yeah, I'm fine with that. I don't think it's the... Whether they remain in the cart or not it's about congregation of many people that is at issue here and just writing it to that effect would be just fine by me. The intent is to not have any owners or trainers or anybody come down and join us. Yes. We can amend that then to have it say the photographer will attempt to take a wind picture with the driver only. Does that seem reasonable or does that give adequate flexibility, Steve? Is it too precise? I just want to make sure. No, that's exactly right. Not to restrict the driver to the seat is fine and with the driver only that means no one else. Everyone's comfortable. Yes. Commissioner Zaniga said, you know, people aren't going out there congratulating each other and shaking hands because they want to race, right? There will be another time in the future where that can resume so everybody can hold in on that celebration. But I think also it's good to acknowledge the moment for the driver and the owners. So the original restriction of simply no none of that acknowledgement was also perhaps. No, exactly. This strikes the right balance and I understand other people would want to typically go in and celebrate but there'll be time for that in the future. I like the idea of having the photographer be there too. I just wanted to make sure there wasn't anyone else that you would want to provide for to be in the winning circle here. We're all comfortable with it strictly. Alex, how would you like to proceed in terms of our Karen? How would you like to proceed in terms of going through the changes of the document? As far as the approval process, I mean, I think that maybe pulling up the screen. The document has as Alex pointed out that's been revised since the last time we saw it to reflect input from many and we've received red line version. So we've had the benefit of seeing the changes. I just want to before we proceed with just, you know, any kind of a vote. I want to make sure that if there are any changes that commissioners saw in the red lines that they wish to discuss anything that caught their attention today, we've had an additional change. Okay. What I'm suggesting maybe I'll go through just by heading and we go through heading and just just to make it a little easier for the commissioners to see if they have any notes on that that they would like to address before voting on the document in the entirety. The first subject is general guidelines. So that starts on page one and goes into page two. Are there any questions or concerns for Director Lightbaum on those areas? Or any any issues? Okay. The next issue is the next step heading is the access to racing areas. So that has started on page two and goes into page three. Are there any questions about that or any areas where we could clarify for the commissioners so they're comfortable? Okay. Next area is the ship ins and the barn area that starts on page three and goes on to page four. There's a number of each there's a number of requirements there. I'll just give the commissioners a minute to just check that to make sure that they don't have any concerns. Karen, this is, I mean, I didn't have any concerns, but I did communicate with Alex I had a question about how some other jurisdictions might have been controlling or making recommendations about horses coming in or people coming in across state lines. And she clarified something for me that I know Alex that this is a good time to just summarize what you explained to me. Sure. Some tracks are restricting horses to horses that are actually stable on their own grounds. They had a date by which those horses needed to be in and they may have extended it to some of the training facilities that were nearby them. Some of them restricted it to just horses that were in their state. There's different, you know, controls that way on it. For Plain Ridge, it is this year, especially with the COVID it will be a totally ship in facility. So we will be getting horses from, you know, the New England States and also New York and New Jersey. Those are frequent ones. We may get some eventually from a little further away with the governor's I'm not sure how to describe it, whether it was a recommendation on having people who came from other states quarantine for 14 days with that being lifted. That clears up some of the questions that we had, knowing that a lot of our participants would be coming from out of state. So that was nice that that coincided with this plan. And Plain Ridge may and see well tool may expand on this if he wants, but they may write races and put like a preference for Massachusetts horses in in some of the races to encourage and to allow space for those horses at Plain Ridge. So that's another way they can kind of have some restrictions on who's coming in. But again, we welcome the people that are coming in from the other states, because we definitely need to draw horse population. Any commissioners have any questions or comments on that? I do. Dr. Leipam, you just mentioned, you know, you were talking about horses coming in from other states. Um, and I did hear you say we welcome them, but I didn't quite understand the restricted racing meaning. So they'll try to have Massachusetts horses so that there's you're ensuring enough distancing. Is that what we're hearing? Is that what I'm hearing? You say well, we're we will part of the policy is that we're going to expand from just having horses in that paddock barn. Yeah, they'll be stable out in the general stable area as well to promote distancing. And so that and that'll be, you know, key with people coming from different states and everything. Okay. Thank you. Just to follow up on that on that question, but the notion of writing the races, the cards in a way that that benefit Massachusetts horses is not necessarily to mitigate the notion of a lot of travel, but really to get some of the benefits to go to Massachusetts people, right? Right, correct. Because they may not have had the opportunity due to the COVID to go to these other states, which they might have done in the past. Right. Now, just just out of curiosity, what is the typical, I don't know, nation, but back and forth, or the people coming from out of state, you know, on a regular season, and what do we now expect maybe to happen with with the with the reality of less travel all around? Maybe it's a question for Steve and I don't, you know, I know there's a there's a prediction of the future element to my question that may be hard to answer. But what what what do we see in terms of degree of travel that may be different this year, Steve? Well, I'd like to comment on two issues that came up. First, you know, writing races for Massachusetts trained or owned horses. Specifically, we're giving Massachusetts owned horses and trained horses preference, not so much writing the races exclusively for them, but just give them preference. And we've done this a lot in the past to your point to keep to generate revenue from Massachusetts people. One thing that we see here is that as we fell behind in the pandemic and New York and New Jersey were ahead of us at their spikes and then we followed them and we're behind. Those states reopened and those horses are now out there racing and in very top condition, whereas the local horses and Massachusetts horses, as Alex pointed out, have not been able to travel to the other states because the quarantine issues that are now being lifted. And so they're behind a little bit. So these horses that are going to be qualifying next week are really just having their first, you know, real test in seven months. And a lot of the races that are written are for have reflect on past earnings. So these horses that ended up in November on their past earnings are still showing those past earnings. And now we have diminished purses in the states that have reopened. And these horses have many starts under their belt. So they've earned less money. So the conditioning so the condition system would be offset to a high disadvantage to the horses that have been sitting idle here in Massachusetts. So we're very aware of that. And we're and you know, we will take care of that, you know, kind of in our own way the way that we have in the past. But one thing that my race secretary and I have discussed that length is maybe a step one or phase one of the opening where we don't take any horses from those jurisdictions where they have two or three or four or five starts. And they've been they're now in a lower category because the purses are not the same that they that they were before the pandemic all across the country. So we're very aware of that fact. That's number one on the travel issue. We have always been a high capacity shipping facility where 60 to 70% of the horses ship into the facility to race. Now that doesn't mean that they all come from out of state. But they do come from farms across Massachusetts. And we have a high volume of main people that come down because that's where the other racetracks are in the wind. I think we will see a little bit more travel to be perfectly honest, I think we will see a little bit more travel as the season progresses from Maine because they will after July 10th, there will be no racing in the near future in Maine. Scarborough Downs will be closing on the 10th. And so Bangor probably won't open for quite some time after that. And so we will have people that kind of stayed or stayed in Maine to race at at Scarborough in Bangor. And also a number of the fairs have also canceled out their racing dates. So we will see an influx a little bit more travel from the state of Maine, but not sure how much we'll see from New York or New Jersey. So sorry for the lengthy, lengthy answer, but that's that's kind of no, that's that's very insightful. I think you made me think of another another element of these. What in general, are we going to see in terms of average versus there's a decrease now in terms of racing days for obvious reasons? And you know, a first agreement of the past, how what are we likely to see that might actually contribute or diminish the possibility of attracting horses from other states? So our purse count is not in bad shape. We ended last year with almost a million dollars to carry over for a number of reasons. One of the reasons was the the diminished handle, if you will slot handle here at Plain Ridge, which affects a higher degree of the resource development fund at the 9% takeout. And then also, we were going to be doing a few more days this year. So we carried over 800 and somewhat thousand dollars. So we had a nice jump start. And then January and February were very good months. So and the lag in in the payments coming back from the resource development fund, which I think are now exhausted. So we probably won't see anything coming in until like August or so. So that will, you know, there'll be a there'll be a couple months spread there. But we're in a we're in a place where we can offer the same purses, which is different than other states, at least to start. And then we see, you know, what the capacity issues are with slot revenues and things like that. But we're hoping to keep we'd like to keep it the same. That's being optimistic, I think, I think throughout the course of the season, we might have to adjust. But as I'm looking at it right now, if the numbers come in from the other gaming, and all the and all the avenues where the purse count gains its revenues, I think we might be able to sustain a nice purse account here for the people that have been racing here right along, and limit the interaction from, you know, other trainers that want to take advantage. We don't want to say we don't want them here, but we don't want them here at the expense of our regular trainers, drivers and owners. Yeah, and I think you articulated the reason very well, I can relate I haven't been into the gym in since since before March, but that's a separate story. Being in being in shape is important for all of these outcomes, of course. The question for Mr. Atul, follow up question. You mentioned, or Commissioner Zuniga mentioned race days. Do you have a plan moving forward for race days? And my second question was, you talked about shipments. So for example, our horses are not able to go to Maine to participate, but eventually the main horses and their staff will be available to come down when you think it's appropriate. Is that what I'm hearing? Exactly. Yes. Just to follow up on the race days, though, what what is the plan moving forward? So we plan on picking up our schedule exactly where it is. For the for the days going forward. And see, see where we at, see where we're at, see where our first count is at. And, you know, I know that I know the horsemen have asked to for us to make up some of the days that were lost. Our schedule is pretty tight. As far as that is, as far as that goes, but, you know, we don't want to add days and then have our purses go down because we're adding days and races. So, you know, it looks like there's going to be a healthy supply of horses, which a month ago I didn't think so. But it looks like there's going to be a healthy supply of horses that want to race here with us. So we'll, we'll, we'll work with the horsemen and find out, you know, what the proper balance is for race days going forward. But right now the race days that we're scheduled to race, those are the days that that we intend on going forward with. Great. Thank you. And last follow up to that is you mentioned qualifiers. So if the governor's instruction comes out that the six is the day you are prepared next week for qualifiers following up the following week with actually starting the race days. Is that is that correct? Absolutely. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Steven and Director Lightbound, I'm looking at the the guidelines for the shipments in the Barney area. You talk about spacing of stalls to promote social distancing requirements shall be done whenever practical. It was my understanding that you had more than enough space in the barn so that that wouldn't be a problem. Is that correct or that's, that's correct. As we're preparing out there, and I've had these discussions with Alex, as we're preparing out there, it's almost too much space stalls at 10 feet apart. We're actually skipping a stall in between horses that makes 20 feet apart. One of the things that we're trying we're actually trying to get a little bit closer. Because I was out there the other day, I have two guys working out there. And I know they were in the barn area and I couldn't find them. So I want you know, we want to we want to try and be able to limit the amount of exercise or work responsibilities on Alex's staff as far as the testing is going on my staff as far as monitoring what's going on out there. Because we've made it now a very large area. So we're looking at just bringing it down a little bit. But it's going to be it's going to be about 20 feet social distancing. And so that's a that could that really expand the operation up there. And, you know, our staff is static from, or actually down a few people from before before this all happened. So we're trying to strike that balance as well. To keep it controllable, manageable, but yet serve all the purposes that we need to serve as far as the social distancing and making sure that people are doing what they need to do. Okay. Excuse me, I just want to follow up on your point, Commissioner Stephens, it's a good one, Alex, I think probably to be consistent with the other edits that were made, probably as practical can be taken out, because I do think we have to accomplish those with distance. Sure, we can do that. I think that that might yeah, that will make it all consistent. Thanks, Commissioner Stephens for that. And now you had another question. I'm sorry. No, no, I appreciate Mr. O'Toole's input. And yeah, that's great. It's a it's a good solution. I know that he'll be mindful of it. I know Director Lightbound and her team will be mindful of it. But that change is welcome. It's definitely not going to be perfect. I can tell you that just in, you know, in the time that I've been back and walking around and imaging how things are going to be working, it's definitely going to be different. It's definitely not going to be perfect. So, you know, we're definitely going to need everyone to be, you know, vigilant and and bear with us until we can get, you know, everything straightened out to work in a smooth manner. OK. Thanks, Mr. O'Toole. Just another quick question to follow up on that again. Remind us how you're sharing kind of these new directions and instructions with everybody ahead of the qualifying days, as well as leading up to the race days. I think is that coming? Is that change coming in down the road? Or did you already go by that? Alex. Sorry. I think there were new edits made on the communication plan. Here, I'll call up the doc. Yeah, I'm looking for it right now, Madam Chair. So because Commissioner Stebbins was missing. So you know, it's an important Commissioner Stebbins has made clear it's a really important part of the equation here for the sustainable success of the reopening. Is it page one? Yeah, I think it's in the general guidelines. Yeah, second paragraph. Maybe that's right through that, because I think Mr. Stebbins, you might want to see if there's any details you want to add. No, in fact, I like I like the PPC text caster system you plan to use. Again, this is a great deal of new guidelines and requirements on, you know, trainers and everybody else who's allowed in the barn area. So it's good to say that they're being educated again before they even show up on property. So do you want that to be highlighted outside of general guidelines? Commissioner Stebbins, are you OK where it's placed? I'm OK with where it's placed again. I know Mr. O'Toole and Alex will make sure that there's strong, healthy education to folks coming in to race, that, you know, they're mindful of all these new guidelines. Excellent. And I want to point out, too, that the Harness Horsemen Association has been really good about notifying all their members as well. So they're going to be getting the information from numerous sites. Great. We thank them for their help. Thanks, Alex. One thing just to add is I had a request about five minutes before the meeting today to clarify on page four under barn area about thoroughly cleaning the stalls before they leave. And with the timing, there just wasn't enough time for us all to circle back. So it's not something I think that we need to change right now. I think it's something that Steve I and the horsemen can, you know, go through later on and just add the details for the horsemen so that they're comfortable as to what exactly has been being asked for. I did want to acknowledge that that had been asked for. Is it so that they want to make sure they understand their full responsibilities? Exactly. Yes. I'm fine with that, General. And then you you you help on those details. Commissioners, you feel the same way moving forward? Yeah. Yes. OK, excellent. Do you want it now? I think we left we were moving on to race paddock. That's correct. So page four, we have the race paddock at the bottom of the page. Are there any questions for Dr. Lightbaum on that area? OK, hearing none on the page five. We also have a small section on the racing office. Any changes, questions, anything on that? OK, the next paragraph, the next subheading is the NGC. We also have the NGC offices and licensing. A couple of provisions there. And at the bottom of page five, we have racing officials and employees in the main gaming race track building that begins at the end of page five and goes through the end of the document. So that's the last section. Are there any questions, concerns or any further information required by the commissioners on that section? I have a question on page six after the bullet listings end. Paragraph opens the indoor areas, including simulcasting area with the gaming establishment shall be subject to minimum requirements, etc. So are there any anything more specific we need to do? Numbers, anything like that that need to be talked about today? Commissioner, could you just help me out? I'm just catching up. I'm sorry. Sure. Page six. Yeah. There's a there's a bullet. There's a list of bullet entries. Just after that is a paragraph that starts the indoor areas comma. So those are the minimum requirements that we adopted. Correct. Right. Have we already talked about that? Or was that I know there was some conversation about an area that maybe we needed to get more specific on? You mean in terms of the spectator space or? Yes. OK. Or the simulcasting area. There was some conversation. I know someone briefed me on numbers being able to maintain six feet. I mean, is this Karen, is this or Dr. Leibbrand, is this the point of the document or is that somewhere else that we'll be talking about that? That's taken care of right before that. Where it says at such time that spectators for outdoor viewing are permitted by the executive order. And then it gives some different bullet points. And it talks of the second bullet point is the occupancy level for the outdoor apron area to not exceed 200 people. OK, maybe I must have an outdated version. I want to hold up because that's the number I don't want in front of me. You don't. Because I think that that's just a little bit of a challenge, Alex, because I I have a red line version in front of me on my screen. And I do see that that was an additional edit that you may not have seen. Commissioner Brown, I came in late last night. So and and so again, this is this is when spectators are going to be permitted. So I'm wondering if we should be tabling that. I just wonder. So I haven't had any conversation about numbers. And I just don't know if now in this morning is the number to be actually dedicating ourselves and committing ourselves to a hard number on that till we know and have learned from what's going on in the other openings. That that would be my preference. So I or else maybe we could edit this, Commissioner Brown, to in a place that we could get comfortable with just so that we wouldn't have to revisit this should spectating be allowed sooner than later. So right now, Commissioner Bryan does not have the red line version in front of her, Alex. Isn't an email, Eileen, that I I've brought up. I'm not sure what time the packet that was forwarded to me, the last version that was forwarded to me. So it was actually in an email that I am that Alex said, I'm not sure I don't have the time in front of me, but except with the red line. But it does say at such time that spectators for outdoor viewing are permitted by executive order issued by the governor's part of the commas phase reopening plan, the following limitation shall apply. My fellow commissioners, do you all have that language in front of you? Because it's important for you to have the the final version. Those changes did come in late. And so I'm I've had the advantage of reading the red line version along the way. And then so then the additional change that I'm seeing in blue might be a newest version. And it says first bill, it says what is we have here. Spectators may now gather in groups of more than six people. And then the next one does address occupancy, the occupancy level in the outdoor apron area adjacent to the main building shall not exceed 200 people or any lesser count necessary to ensure that proper social distancing protocol can be achieved. I believe that there was some work done by staff and I don't have the details as to how that that number was achieved. And maybe if we have some insight on that, we could move forward or at least maybe the rest of the the rest of the red line that I'm seeing must have been incorporated into fully into what we have in front of us. So yeah, I do think it merits just airing that discussion publicly because it is a number that and a percentage that's being thrown in that I do think there's discussing today. I think that's right because I don't believe that that 200 was raised publicly, although it may have been correct. No, I think we deferred it the last time. That's right. So what I do think if I'm if I write if we could just take one step at a time, the simulcasting space, which is indoors, is included in the guidance from our minimum standards adopted for gaming. Is that correct that the simulcast space? Yeah, I thought I thought it was the discussed last time as, you know, the six feet between tables, people cannot go around and will not be encouraged to take their drinks with them. All of that kind of thing. That's right. And that that's all part of it. I'm losing my screen here. Secondly, my apologies. Of course, I minimize something and I'm missing everybody right now. So bear with me. OK, so the simulcast space, I think we addressed in our minimum standards. Now on the events, spectators are permitted. I think Loretta, Todd, perhaps you could, Karen and Alex, maybe you could explain the 200. Yeah, we had gotten capacity numbers from Plain Ridge and then and actual numbers. And Steve can address this as well. Normally their numbers are much less than 200, but that's kind of the, you know, capacity or whatever. So Loretta and Todd worked on, you know, that type of language so that we would have it covered for that for that. And I reported the email that I had sent yesterday with a red line version to Eileen. So OK, right. She can. It looks like everything else was added into the version in front of us now. Just that that one bullets. That's good. So the further elaboration on the on the number two hundred that came from some kind of a square footage estimation. What was the process? That as if I may, madam chair, as Dr. Leipa mentioned, that number came from Plain Ridge Park directly. And then effort to and my understanding is their initial calculation is that the number should have been higher, but that it was brought down to 200. In an effort to ensure that we didn't have to revisit that number, we included that additional language that to any lesser count that's necessary to ensure proper social distancing can be achieved. We included that to make sure that if it is some lesser number and 200 is, in fact, too high that we're not stuck with that number, which I mean, to be to be frank, I'm not sure exactly how that number was calculated. And I'm similarly I I didn't believe that there's any such number in the state building code that governs that type of area that we could point to, which is why we did rely on the number that came from Plain Ridge Park. Maybe this is already on the call, who just might be able to explain where they came up with the number that might clear everything up. Mr. Atul, perhaps so. But what I think is difficult here is that there's it's an outdoor space, as you correctly point out, chair. And so I think it's more around the notion of the congregation rather than than the capacity. I mean, there's a reason why there's not an occupancy number, because it's not it's not an occupied building. Well, I've only been there the one time. Can you access the outdoor space directly from the outside or do you have to go through the simulcasting area, right? Both. Right. So I do think there needs to be a discussion about how that flow through gets handled because I don't necessarily think it's going to be static, like shifting. I'm staying outside in the entire outdoor time that I'm here versus inside. So I just think it merits a little further discussion. Yeah. And perhaps I should just chime in first. One thing that it may not be generally understood by the public and and and all is it is clear that right now the outdoor space does not have any grandstand bleachers or seating. Is that we can all agree on that? So it is a that's correct. So, you know, that's an important fact. That's an important fact. Then so then there would be space and I've been there a few times where it can be accessed from different different locations. Is it fair to say it's all any place that any spectator would stand? And I say stand because I'm not sure if even little tables and chairs would be provided in this instance, we can go to that scenario. That is all on some kind of a paved area. Is it an area that is designated for spectating? Is that would that be fair to? It is. It is. And my recollection is that they had at least in the past put in, you know, a hot dog stand, a picnic table or two. I don't know if they have the same. So then I think that maybe we could reverse engineer. There's a certain square footage available to spectators. I also think there's another way. So there's a reverse engineering just in terms of what the square footage is, and then some kind of what's in a reasonable amount in these times to think about the numbers. And we might want to do is table this discussion when somebody does that work and come back to it. Then there's also another way of looking at it. What is our typical attendance? Do you want to use your computer?  And I think that was my question. And if your daughter wants to help us with this question, we would welcome it. 30 seconds, I'm sure she'd say you're good, but. But in terms of maybe what is the general attendance? And if we knew what generally the attendance was, given the square footage, it would seem that maybe 200 is a logical number that could be spread out. And maybe, in fact, it's one that reflects a reality. So I think it's a very fair question that Commissioner O'Brien is raising. You know, what's the basis for 200? Does it make sense if we can't get that right now to continue our review and have somebody look at that before we move on that particular issue just so that we don't have to revisit it? That would be my preference so that they can go move forward with the opening. It's not going to repeat anything now because it's not allowed to be used right now. But they may want to also explore to your point, you know, are they going to be putting some sort of tables out there? What are the, you know, what's allowed in the simulcast area flow through what so they can appropriately manage their capacity from an enforcement perspective? So I do think it merits a little bit further conversation, but I don't think we need to do it at this moment because I don't think it's going to affect their ability to start next week, assuming that it opens next week. Yeah, I would agree with that. I we don't have the information. So it's hard to make a decision when we do not know where the number came from. So I think that we can go ahead without that and then get back to it. After we have, I think that that's just see. OK, so do I hear? I was allowed to get that resolved today. Guys, is there is there a notion of just eliminating the number and then keeping the language that that is social distancing? The social distancing. I think it's because I will go along with that. I think it's as elusive as trying to pick the occupancy in a park, for example. Right. More important is that people exercise the six feet, the masks and right, right. My fear of the number two is, I don't know, there's some. I just think you're also getting at a risk of, again, people shifting between those two spaces and you might get into just capacity issues that then PPC and or I be or dealt with that just we can read it in a way that doesn't cause that problem. I would like that very much rather than have to revisit it. If it's us, the number that's troubling us. I mean, the reality is that they can't have more than six people in a cluster and everybody has to be socially distance. And that alone can be their guidance for occupancy as if spectators are permitted. And then if we need to revisit this, all of these guidelines are dynamic, we could come back to it. But then we've given them some immediate guidance should spectators be allowed. Yeah, I feel more comfortable with that. I agree with that. By the way, it's it's only during the end of the race when there's that congregation. It's not for obvious reasons, but I think that's let's take out the number and keep it to the distance So commissioners, what I hear saying is that the second bullet point should read the occupancy level in the outdoor apron area adjacent to the main building shall ensure that proper social distancing practices can be achieved. Is that acceptable? Yeah, as long as that also includes the idea that no more than six in a group consistent with the guidance that we've been giving, I think that bullet's in there somewhere anyway. Yeah, it is. OK, it's in there. So really, there's a little bit of redundancy. Correct. And if we are, if we need to be more specific, we can revisit. OK, should we any other any other questions on the on that last section? OK, thank you. You're going to make sure to Karen that we have the designations for the pandemic safety offices for both the gaming establishments and the. Yeah, thanks. Thank you. Great work. It takes a village and more. So how would you like to proceed, Alex, at this time before we move on to the simulcasting operation? Should we have the vote that you were seeking? Or should we? Does that make best sense? I think that makes sense. Well, it's fresh. Karen, you're comfortable with that? Yes. All right. Just to make sure, does anybody want to go back on any of these measures now that you've had a chance, maybe to look at the red line version two? All excellent. The red line that came in, I realize that they were just a few last night. It's just really helpful for me to go back and forth. So thank you so much, Alex, really helpful. All right. Do I have a motion? Bruce. Yeah, Madam Chair, I move that the commission approve the plan submitted by Plain Ridge Park Race Course and is amended here today for use in reopening the racing and simulcasting operations when allowed, subject to any applicable orders issued by the governor as part of the Commonwealth's phased reopening plan, including any applicable sector-specific workplace safety standards and subject to any necessary adjustments based on a change in circumstances. Second. Further comments? Thank you again to Mr. O'Toole and to all those who helped Alex in finalizing these standards for our review. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Cameron. Aye. Commissioner Bryan. Aye. Commissioner Zuniga. Aye. And Commissioner Stevens. Aye. And I vote yes. Thank you so much. 5-0, Shah. Thank you. Moving on then to simulcasting operation, Alex. Okay. So the next plan that is up is the one that Suffolk Downs presented. And there were just a few little changes on that to again, to kind of bring things in line with some of the things that the commission was asked for and as far as making it come in line with the casino language as well. Does that make sense to walk through just briefly any of the highlighted changes? Yeah. If you're prepared for that, just a few changes that would have been made, I think. Yeah, let's see here. I believe that the, I had asked for increase, I think, to make sure that the restrooms were going to be aligned with what we were providing. Oh, maybe that was on PPC. That wasn't it. And then this was to make sure masks were mandated. I think if they were encouraged before that change. I have a question. The email that included that came in last night, when it comes to Suffolk, doesn't have any redlining. Do I have the right version? I sent a clean version of each of the documents and then I sent a redline version also. Oh, maybe look for it. And I'm not seeing that here. I can send that. Do you have your redline version? No, no, don't worry, don't worry. The fastest way is probably to have someone who does have the redline to just quickly walk through and tell us what it is. Yeah, that would be helpful. I just send it to NVK and I'll pull it up. So, let's see here. Part of it was, and in all the documents, was just getting the wording about masks all uniform. So it talks about wearing masks that cover the nose and mouth. So that was one of the things on Suffolk. One of the things on the first page that we changed was said, yes, it deserved a table spaced appropriately. And we changed that wording to be spaced six feet apart or otherwise in accordance with the state guidelines. So that if at some point things change, we didn't have to come back. We added in on the, again, on the food and beverages in the dining areas that Suffolk would make reasonable efforts to ensure the customers don't violate that rule. Occupancy, it had limited total occupancy to less than 50%. And they added, well, this might have been in the original document that you saw. It's got the 600, not including the apron and says that it'll be limited to 250. Again, that's Chip had mentioned that. Yes, he did. So that's what we changed back in 18. Then the language about having a pandemic safety advisor was added in. They named who they designated, David Lanzilli, to act as it. And it has the pandemic safety advisor wording in there. And then I believe Commissioner Stebbins had asked for more wording on communications and signage. They added in kind of the standard stuff about informing guests about the COVID-19 and communication plan, website, et cetera. And I think that covers the main highlights. Questions, commissioners? Since we were talking about aprons, remind me the configuration relative to a similar space. I know just in terms of size, several counts is much larger because of the larger track, but Alex or Chip, can you tell us a little bit about how people congregate around that there? Certainly, commissioner, thank you. We're only gonna be utilizing the clubhouse apron which is terraced. It's tiered down to the racetrack surface, but we are using that primarily as an outdoor dining area consistent with the state and the city of Boston's guidelines for outdoor dining. And so that area will be open so people can go in and out. We are putting markers actually sort of on the floor inside and outside the clubhouse so that when people are standing, looking up at television screens and things like that, they are do so at at least six feet apart. And we will only be offering food and beverage service in that outdoor area. There will be no inside food and beverage service. So we've got some tables set up. We're in the process of doing that as well. Some outdoor picnic tables and things like that. We are gonna limit people's occupancy at those tables consistent with the guidelines for restaurants. Thank you. And per the commissions, per our prior discussion with the commission and some additional follow-up with Dr. Lightbone, we are making it clear to patrons that food and drink can be consumed only at those tables and we're gonna take the measures to discourage them from trying to sort of go mobile with anything. I think that this is a good time for me to just chime in on that.  It's already been mentioned. I think it was Mr. O'Toole who said it. It will take vigilance on the part of the licensees, but it will take really the good faith efforts of every patron to at this time, just be really thoughtfully aware of complying with the rules so that we can have a sustained reopening. And it really will take empathy, a collective empathy for each other and for our larger community. So that's what we wish for.  So it's all very, it's not punitive. It's really meaning to be intentionally protective of one another so that we can still have a good time but be safe. Thank you. Any further questions on this one? Should we have a vote on this unless there are further edits? Commissioners, any further edits? Questions? I think that this really achieves what we were looking for from last time and more. So thank you. I have a motion. Yeah, I'll jump in. I move that the commissioner approved the plan submitted by Suffolk Downs for use in reopening their simulcasting operation when allowed, subject to the applicable orders issued by the governor as part of the Commonwealth-based reopening plan, including any applicable sector-specific workplace safety standards, and subject to any necessary adjustments based on a change in circumstances. Second. Thank you. Further edits? Commissioner Cameron. Aye. Commissioner O'Brien. Aye. Commissioner Ziniga. Aye. Commissioner Stebbins. Aye. I vote yes. Five, zero, sharp. Thank you so much. Now we have our friends in random. I don't know who's joining us, but thank you for joining us, but we'll have Alex go over the document and changes, and we thank everybody involved. Okay, so again, we just we're trying to get the wording about masks to be kind of standardized between everything. So we put it, mask covering the nose and mouth under the PPE section. Scroll down here. On the food and beverage service area, we made a couple of different changes to that. Just once again, to have it be clear that when people are eating or drinking, they'll be seated and lower their masks only for eating and drinking and won't be carrying their beverages around the simulcast floor. So we did some different, made some different wording on that part. Let's see. Then we added, fleshed out the communications plan a little bit more. Again, to reflect some of the wording that was in the other plans. Talking about the communication plan website, signs and all that. And then the last item was adding the pandemic safety officer wording. Again, to have it come in line with the casinos and the other simulcast plans. Any questions for Alex on the brain hem proposal, Mr. Carney's proposals. We thank the team for joining us today. If you have any specific questions, Alex, who's available? That should be Sue Rodriguez. Yeah. I'm going to see him. George might be on with her. Mr. Carney. Good morning, Mr. Sue Rodriguez. I have Mr. Carney here with me, representing Raiden Park. Any questions or comments? Just wish you well. Thank you so much. Thank you so much for the work on these guidelines. Any further edits or recommendations on the document? I see no. I see where we're all set, which is a good sign. Thank you so much. Do I have a motion? Madam Chair, I move that the commission approve the plan submitted by Raiden Park Simulcast Center for use in reopening their simulcasting operations when allowed, subject to any applicable orders issued by the governor as part of the Commonwealth Space reopening plan, including any applicable sector specific work place safety standards and subject to any necessary adjustments based on the change in circumstance. Second. Thank you. Hearing no further comments or edits. The roll call, Commissioner Cameron. Aye. Commissioner Bryan. Aye. Commissioner Zuniga. Aye. Commissioner Stevens. Aye. And I vote yes, five, zero. And a big thank you to Alex and team and to all of those who are guests today. We know all of these efforts for allowing us to move forward today. And we wish everyone well for the opening when it's permitted. I do think we did have a little bit of a late start. It is 12, 15. Would people like a short break rather than a lunch break before we proceed or do people want a lunch break of sorts before we proceed? Or should we continue through the next item? Let me suggest just a five minute break because it appears that there's a number of guests for the next item and then just sort of see where that goes. But a break at this time would be a helpful thing. Okay, we'll have a, it is now 12, we'll reconvene at 12, 25, does that make sense? 12, 16, we'll round it up 12, 25. Thank you. Sounds good, thank you. Appreciate everyone's patience. Thank you, Cheryl. We'll get started reconvening after a short break, public meeting number 311 with master's gaming commission. Thank you. While we were on break, I know the governor is having his press conference and he did publicly announce that phase three will begin on Monday. Further guidance will be coming and to the extent that I can provide real time updates, I will. So we'll stick with the matter at hand and continue now with number 4B, Massachusetts Thorough Freeders Association Request to Race Outside Massachusetts. Todd, I think you're gonna take the lead on this one. Good afternoon, attorney Gressman, thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and commissioners. Thank you for turning your attention to this issue. There has been a question raised as to the gaming commission's specific role as it relates to thoroughbred horse racing outside of the Commonwealth and specifically as to the use of breeders funds for those purposes. You may recall historically, the commission has reviewed this issue and has historically approved of the use of such funds. And before we take too deep a dive, I just wanna acknowledge that attorney Kathleen Regan and Dr. Anthony Ziza from the Thoroughbred Breeders Association are on the call with us to answer any specific questions that may arise. And certainly Dr. Lightbaum is tremendously knowledgeable in this arena as well. And I'd be happy to run through the legal elements if that would be of use, but ultimately the question is whether the commission needs to approve the use of the breeders funds in out of state races. And it's my understanding that there are a number of locations outside the Commonwealth that the breeders would like to race and make use of these funds. One of them is at a location in Canada and I'm sure they can get into a little more detail, but there is some detail in the packet relative to those plans as well that you may have had an opportunity to look at. I would just mention, I'm happy to go through this in detail if that would be helpful. But just by way of broad overview, the issue here is actually governed by chapter 128 of the general laws, section 2G. And that chapter is of course in the section under the auspices of the Department of Agricultural Resources. It's not under the auspices of the Gaming Commission. This section is however the only legal authority that I'm aware of that discusses the manner in which the breeders have to spend their funds. Under chapter 23K, section 60, which of course you're familiar with, the Racehorse Development Fund says that, that section says that 16% of the funds are directed to breeding purposes, but there's no language in section 60 that talks about how the monies are supposed to be spent. And so I should acknowledge as we move forward at the outset here that section 2G of chapter 128 is holistically something less than totally clear. So we might wanna start by taking a look at some of the areas where there is some clarity and navigate our way from there. As I mentioned, yes. Yeah, I think that would be great. Maybe you were getting to that, but it's 128D, did you say? No, it's just 128. So to be more precise, of course, the Gaming Commission has oversight of 128A and 128C. And those are some of the areas we just, we're really referencing. 128C governs simulcasting in the Commonwealth. 128A governs live racing in the Commonwealth. But chapter 128 is not specific to racing at all. In fact, again, as I said, it's not even under the Gaming Commission's auspices. It's under the Department of Agricultural Resources. In section 2 in particular lays out the powers and duties of the Department of Agricultural Resources. Most of the sections in section 2 have nothing to do with horse racing or gaming or anything like that. There are really just two sections within that section that do pertain to areas that we are specifically interested in and one pertains to thoroughbred breeders and one pertains to standard bred breeders. And it's section 2G that pertains to the thoroughbred breeders and that's the section that's at issue right now. And just as a footnote, section G, and I believe it's section J, which governs the standard bred breeders, are slightly different. They're similar, but they're slightly different. And part of the reasons for the differences, and there's actually a letter in the packet from Attorney Kevin Considine on behalf of the thoroughbred breeders that runs through some of the history of these statutes which date back many, many years. There was one change in particular that is noteworthy and I'll get into that momentarily. It talks about use of the funds for purposes of racing outside the Commonwealth. That language doesn't appear in the standard bred section. So it stands to reason as he asserts that that was inserted when it became clear that thoroughbred racing in the Commonwealth would become perhaps more sparse given the situation with Suffolk Downs. So the law was amended to allow for that. And when was that, Wendy, that happened? I wanna say 2015, is that right, Dr. Leibbrandt? Yes, that's correct. And it just, that so happens to be the first year that the gaming commission looked at this issue. And I did go back and look at the commission's review of this matter and it doesn't appear that you ever really specifically took a look at the statute with this level of detail. So this is really the first time we're doing that. And if it's helpful, we can go into a little bit about what the statute says to help you navigate this decision-making process. Of course, happy to field any questions as we go along. But as I said, paragraph G mostly pertains to just I'm sorry, paragraph G pertains to the Thoroughbred Breeders Association and the promotion of breeding in the Commonwealth. It specifically says that the Department of Agricultural Resources has the power to promote, develop and encourage through the mass Thoroughbred breeding program the breeding of Thoroughbred courses in the Commonwealth by offering cash prizes to the breeders of such horses. So that's what paragraph G says that the Department of Agricultural Resources has the power and duty to do. The statute then identifies the way that this should be accomplished. And it says specifically that the mass Thoroughbred Breeders quote, shall from time to time in consultation with the chairman of the racing commission and the program manager for the department for the equine division of the Department of Agricultural set certain percentages and bonuses related to purses. So that's what the statute says. And when we are trying to determine whether the commission is required to approve of such expenditures, that is the focal point at least initially of our inquiry is that piece of the law that says essentially just that they're supposed to consult with the chair of the racing commission. So there's no place that explicitly requires commission approval at this point. There is language though as I mentioned that is most commonly pointed to as governing the use of the breeders funds at racetracks outside the Commonwealth. And that language provides that the breeders shall in consultation with the chair and the program manager set the percentage for a cash prize for the purse monies won by said Thoroughbred horse in any unrestricted or restricted paramutual running horse race held within or outside the Commonwealth to the owner of a mass bred horse. There is no definition, direction or limitation anywhere in the statute as to how that term outside the Commonwealth language should be construed. But it's our understanding that that is the language the outside the Commonwealth language that was added in 2015 to coincide with essentially the gaming commission's decision to award the license in region A as it did. So while to this point in section G there's no requirement that the gaming commission approve explicitly the use of any funds there is more to this section that needs to be looked at before any decisions can be made. And that's the first sentence of the second paragraph of 2G which does have some interesting language that's worthy of note. It says that the mass Thoroughbred Breeders Association is further authorized to pay cash purses for stakes races to be limited to Massachusetts bred Thoroughbred race horses from the Massachusetts Thoroughbred breeding program at licensed paramutual race tracks authorized by the state racing commission. So there's a couple of pieces of language in that last quote that should be looked at. And the first is the use of the word further. The second is that phrase at licensed paramutual race meanings authorized by the state racing commission. And so as you're working through this I would suggest that by the use of the word further the statute indicates that the language should be read as being in addition to the previous language meaning that it's in addition to the previous three ways that the statute says that the breeders can spend their money. And they're adding this fourth way. So that's the second paragraph the first sentence adds a fourth way in which the breeders may spend their money. And that's where that language relative to licensed paramutual race meetings authorized by the state racing commission comes in. But the question then becomes and as I said, this is all something less than 100% clear but as you're navigating it, of course it's our obligation to try to read things in a harmonious kind of way to assign meaning to all of the respective language included in the statute. But when you're considering what licensed meeting a licensed meeting authorized by the commission really means you can think about it in two ways. It could either mean that it's licensed the meeting itself is licensed in another jurisdiction but that the commission has to separately authorize it or you could read it to say that once the commission licenses the meeting that it is authorized. So you read it all together. And I would submit to you that that second approach does result in a harmonious read of the entire section and would not in that event require the commission to approve of the expenditure of funds for racing outside of the Commonwealth. And there's a couple of reasons I think that are important to keep in mind as you're weighing the appropriate way to interpret this statute. The first thing is that there's really no clear standard that we can apply to determine whether you would authorize the expenditure of funds out of state. Presumably we would apply the language at the beginning of this section that says that the intent is to promote, develop and encourage the breeding of thoroughbreds in the Commonwealth. But that is somewhat detached from this second paragraph. So there is some language we could hang our hats on if we were to do that, but it's not directly aligned. Secondly, I think it's just noteworthy and I welcome anyone to weigh in if I misspeak here but I don't believe the gaming commission approves of any other use of breeders expenditures in advance. So this would be the one area that is singled out for that purpose. And finally, there are some checks on the expenditures of breeders funds for these purposes. There are two checks in particular that are notable. The first is section G itself says that the state auditor shall audit the books of the mass thoroughbred breeders association to ensure compliance with this section as often as the state auditor determines necessary. And it's my understanding that the auditor has in the past and I can't speak to how often that is but has audited the books in the past. And secondly, and perhaps even more importantly, of course is that the gaming commission by way of the Horus Racing Committee is in charge and oversees the split of the distribution of funds from the race horse development fund. That 16% of the funds that go to breeders is looked at. Periodically, it's actually looked at annually though it's not required to be. And the commission does maintain ultimate control as to what the split of the funds will be. And certainly the manner in which the funds are expended is something that will and should be taken into consideration when determining how the funds are distributed and allocated. That is all just to say that there are certain checks on the expenditure of these funds. And so that's the issue that's before the commission at the moment is how best to interpret section 2G. And again, just to reiterate, the commission has in the past looked at these requests and has approved them under this particular section. As I look at it now though, it's not explicitly clear that the commission must approve the expenditure of these funds in advance of their use. So that's my overview of this issue. Happy to engage in any discussion now or answer any specific questions. That would be helpful. Yeah, Attorney Grossman, I had a clarification. You said that the breeders were looking at numerous tracks to hold these events. I don't, I think you use the word many. The only one that I'm familiar with is the one potential plan to race out of the country in Canada. So I don't know that that's accurate that there are multiple tracks that may host mass spread races. You know, Commissioner Cameron, if I may, it looks like maybe either Attorney Reagan or Dr. Ziezer being a better position to address that point. I may have misspoken and I apologize. No, no, no, no need to apologize. I just, I'm only, I'm making sure I have all the latest information. And my information is such that the only proposal is to race in Canada. Okay, I'll let Dr. Zizzi speak, he broke it out. Okay. So in the letter that we wrote to you and I should be in the packet, it states that we have the two options at the moment, including Fort Erie, which is an hour and a half from Finger Lakes just over the border. And then also Belterra Park, which is in Ohio and has, unfortunately it's an eight-hour ship. So there's some advantages and disadvantages of both, but Attorney Grossman is absolutely correct. We do have, we do have two at the moment and I'm not limiting it to that. If there are other... But Mr. Zizzi, do you have any plans? Do you have a plan that we could look at as to what kinds of races, when they would be held? What, you know, we just don't seem to have any information about that. Well, we do have a plan. I don't think that we need to lay out a plan of specific races. Apple to share something that the board is working on, but those races aren't going to be prepared months and months in advance. And we don't feel that's the right approach for us at the moment, given the sense of uncertainty. So I'm happy to provide, or the board is happy to provide something for you to give you. But Mr. Zizzi, so this is a change because in the past, you have submitted a plan for the commission to approve with races out of state. And we looked at that plan and we approved that plan in particular, the Finger Lakes opportunities. And we were happy to do that after kind of assuring ourselves that this was an appropriate use of the Commonwealth's money. So I'm just, I'm asking the question, why are you deviating this year from your requests in past year to have the commission approve those? Yeah, absolutely. That's a great question. So the reason that there's a deviation this year is because several different reasons actually. So one is that situations on the ground are changing and uncertain. And by providing a list of races in years past, we did that out of courtesy. We came to the gaming commission out of respect and courtesy because that was the request for us. Our legal counsel has stated clearly in a letter that he wrote, has always felt that we did not need to do that, but we did it because we wanted to be good partners and we wanted to provide whatever information we could. In that time, since we've done that, there have been multiple things that have happened, including it allows, it prevents actually from some changes that may need to happen on the ground. And we need to be nimble, particularly now, where we don't have a place to race in Massachusetts either. So with this question of the authority coming up, it certainly didn't make sense to present a list of races or possible races that you would approve or not approve because we're at this point wanting to discuss the issue of whether that approval is even necessary. So I think the letter from our attorney, as well as our proposal to you says that we don't think that that's the case, but we're happy to work with Alex and all of the commission to keep you up to date and consult with you as needed and as often as needed to make sure that you're in the loop and whatever we do and whatever races that we offer. Well, this has been an issue in the past, Mr. Zezer, because all of the horsemen are not in agreement that this is a good use of the Commonwealth money. So we're trying to balance all of those interests. As you know, you've been part of these discussions and these approvals for years. So I think you're aware that those are the things we've been balancing over the years. Yeah, no, I absolutely am aware and I'm sensitive to that. I think that the information that we gathered recently showing that almost 90% of all of our money comes back to mass breeders and owners is unbelievably supportive of the fact that what we have done in the last four years has really served Massachusetts in the best way that it can. And then in addition to that, I think that it's the board's responsibility, I don't think, I know it's the board's actually, the breeder's board's responsibility to determine the direction that we go. So I don't think we'll ever get 100% agreement in anything we do, but what I love is that when we went back and looked and presented it to you as well, it really does show that we have, we basically have had over 300 payments each year to multiple different people. We have had over 90% of our money returned to Massachusetts. So I think that the facts speak for themselves and this is the way that the board wants to proceed at this point. Okay, go ahead, Commissioner Zuniga. I'm sorry, can I, I'd like to go back to the legal question, the one of authority. I thought Todd, what I think is at the core here. I, a couple of questions, but let me start with the broader one. We are the trustees of the Race Forest Development Fund. And as trustees, we are implicitly charged to make sure that the payments are done to meet a lot of the intent of the statute. That was not part of the analysis that you went through, Todd. Can you speak a little bit about that? Because I think authority may work, maybe authority is at the core of also being the trustees of the fund. It's complicated and this has come up in other contexts as well. Certainly, to the extent the commission is the trustee of the Race Forest Development Fund, you have a duty of, a fiduciary duty of care to ensure that monies are distributed from the fund in accordance with the statute. And in this case, I would submit, at least in the first instance that you do that and that your duty stems from section 60 in chapter 23K, which talks about how the money shall be distributed from the fund itself and how it has to be based upon a recommendation of the Horse Racing Committee, which of course you ensure, and what have you. So section 60 is really the core of where your fiduciary duty stems from. This is a little more complicated. I would submit because the manner in which the expenditures have to be made fall in a body of law that is not under your direct auspices and that's notable for me. And so that's why I wanted to make clear that it's not entirely clear what the right answer to this question is. I don't, you wouldn't necessarily be, you wouldn't be wrong to assert a fiduciary duty, but it's less than clear that that's connected to section 60, whereas if section 60 kind of spelled all this out, I would say absolutely, that is something that you should consider. And by the way, and I appreciate that this is highly complex because there's cross-reference of multiple statutes as you correctly outlined, as well as history in terms of what was legacy and then what changed because of circumstances like the award of the license on region A. I just want a couple more just sort of going back to your initial remarks. So, section 2G of 128 does talk about the secretary of the Department of Agricultural Resources having the power to ultimately oversee issues like this. Is that the case? Is that a fair statement or is it too general? Well, it says that the thoroughbred breeders have to consult with the chair of the racing commission and the program manager for the Equine Division of the Department of Agriculture. Well, but I seem to take away from your outline that the secretary or the department of Agricultural Resources has some kind of authority in all of these, some kind of say as to whether these breeding programs or races out of state are okay. Is that fair or not accurate? Yes, I certainly think that they do have a role. And I think perhaps a little even clearer than ours in that this is under the section of duties and responsibilities of the Department of Agricultural Resources. And one of the articulated powers and duties is to promote, develop and encourage breeding of thoroughbred horses in the Commonwealth. Okay. So, yes, I think that that is a clearer duty. Do you mean to just to add in, are you saying that they have a more than a consultation role? Do they need to sign off on this? No, I mean, that's not what it says. That's what I just, I wanted to clarify that. Thank you. We're navigating some very difficult language and I don't mean to keep repeating that, but there are no crystal clear answers to all of this, but that's why it's important that we just try to read everything holistically and harmony and I think that's what we're doing, of course. Okay, so I'll just maybe on layman's terms. It looks like the Department of Agricultural Resources has some kind of role. Have they done anything in the past on this issue? And is there anything, any indication of where they stand on this particular issue at the moment? I don't, Dr. Leipmann, do you know the answer to that? No, they haven't weighed in on this particular issue. But they're consulted, are they notified? Are they being consulted or notified or? No, they're part of the program is to register the horses and then they have certain requirements of when they have to be in Massachusetts and all that. So they verify that the horses have been in Massachusetts and do that. So their role has been more to verify what horses are considered mass fed horses. Okay, and finally just on the legal piece, part of the, and I do appreciate that it's very complicated, I've been through this and it's hard for me to keep all the moving pieces and all the history in my head. And just to be clear when you say we've been through this, Mr. Grossman did provide an extensive legal memo. Yeah, I know, and I just want to make sure that everybody understands, all of our team understands that Todd did provide a written analysis as well. Thank you. Yes, and I meant being through this since 2013 or 2014 when this issue started to come about because of, again, the award of the license to a non-track operator. There was in the original study, in the, in the session laws there was a notion of modifying a directive of modifying 128A and 128C by some date that is long past. We've submitted one to, you know, the chapter that would have replaced them because they were, they had been scheduled to sunset in 128D. Would any of all of those principles established there would have touched on this particular issue when modifying 128A and C? Well, I think the answer to your question is no. And I only say that because I just looked at that specific thing when we were looking at the fact that the racing laws were just extended for a year and that language, that bill extends, you know, 10 or 15 different areas of the law. And so one of them I looked at specifically was to see whether this was touched at all and it hasn't been, and it hasn't been included in that. But to your point, the proposed legislation we've submitted, I think I'd have to go back and look, but may give the gaming commission a little clearer authority over this, this specific matter. Well, that's my recollection and I haven't looked at it recently, but that 128D the effort was because there were so many moving pieces, notably what I remember are all the different takeouts and the different percentages and the premiums and all of that had a legacy of, you know, many, many years of modifications, that there was an effort to, in recognition of all this need for modification that there would be this broad authority, and this is where I was going, to come to the gaming commission by necessity, that we would then, you know, resolve it among the five of us on instances like this for everything that might occur at a later time. I think that's exactly right. It was an effort and is an effort to consolidate the authority and clarify the gaming commission's role to promote and enhance and oversee horse racing inside, and as we now know, outside of the Commonwealth, as the case may be. Unfortunately, that hasn't happened, so we're here with... And Todd, could you just reiterate what your recommendation is for today's matter? I guess I read your, and been briefed thoroughly on the request and I don't have and don't bring to the table what was decided in 2013, nor do I see that broad authority extending on this analysis, so I would need further clarification on that to act on it, unless you're comfortable today advising with respect to the analysis you did for us on this matter and writing, because I'm hearing commissioners Zuniga, but I don't really, I haven't looked at that with that overview. And so I don't want, what I'm very concerned about is I would never want the commission to act on something, thinking we have authorization to act on something that we really don't have legal authorization to do. And I know that there's past practice and I understand that, but I also understand, I value precedent, but not to the extent that you continue to do something that might not be accurate. That's why cases in law get looked at all the time so I wanna be really careful here that we acknowledge past practice and if that's the right answer, then we could go forward. If you're suggesting that, yes, it was past practice, but upon reconsideration, you think that perhaps our voting on this would be outside of our authority, I'd like to hear that. I haven't heard yet from commissioner Stevens or commissioner O'Brien on this and then we can circle back to commissioner Cameron and commissioner Zuniga, but from my point of view, that's really, that's the critical decision from my perspective. And I do hear commissioner Cameron saying that there's the idea that how we as public servants spend the commonwealth's funds and when we have that authority to think about that, then I absolutely in agreement, but if it's outside of our authority on this precise issue, then I'm not sure that we can weigh in on it and that's really where I stand. I just wanna understand that precisely. Commissioner O'Brien or commissioner Stevens? I think just to follow up on what commissioner Zuniga pointed out and then his follow up question in terms of our role as trustee of the horse race development fund. Todd, I just wanna, again, I do not have the racing experience that you and commissioner Cameron have and Dr. Leipan, but it would seem to me we do have a fiduciary obligation under the common law as in terms of being trustees for the race horse development fund. When you look at 23K, section 60C sub II C2 and it talks about the commission determining the split. Do you see that as part of us executing the fiduciary responsibilities as trustee in terms of the question of whether we are required to give specific approval prior to the expenditures of this fund as question one. I also wanna try to understand if in reviewing the fact that they do have to show how they've submitted this in these months, going forward, if there is a determination that part of the way we satisfy our fiduciary obligation is in determining the split. Is that a way to reconcile commissioners whose dig is comment that we have a fiduciary responsibility, but maybe under your statutory analysis, there's no prerequirement that we approve expenditures in advance. I think that's exactly right. Commissioner O'Brien, ultimately is my perspective is that there doesn't seem to be clear authority to suggest that we need to pre-approve these expenditures, but that there is oversight over the expenditures. It's not as though we turn a blind eye to this. We do look at it. We just look at it after typically and on a regular basis as well. And when I was forming my opinion as to what this all meant, one of the things, and I think I mentioned, that is notable to me is that we don't, and when I say we, I mean the commission, of course, a pre-approve any other expenditures to determine whether they fit into the category of promoting or developing thoroughbred horse racing. And so this one would be singled out. And while I do think there is a fiduciary duty, and I'm not suggesting that there isn't, I think there's a different way to ensure our fidelity to that. And that is by reviewing it as part of the distribution. But we do approve, we pre-approve the process, the amount of process that go to the thoroughbred and standard breed races, the 80%. That's, but that's a different, that's from the horsemen. This is from the breeders. But it's all connected. And if I can clarify something, Mr. Grossman, the committee, and we're talking a lot about the work of the committee with the split has never looked at, first of all, when the committee was formed, there were no, there was no ability to race out of state. Okay, so there was no issue there whatsoever. All the races were here on the Commonwealth. Secondly, when the law was changed, which we were fully aware of and supportive of because we wanted to provide these opportunities, it was with the understanding that we would make sure that the monies were spent in a fashion that was in keeping with the intention. And when you say that we don't look at, we've looked at health and welfare. We have really looked at those numbers to make sure those dollars are being spent in the appropriate way. So I think there are examples where we do provide oversight to make sure that the monies are being expended in a way that the law intends. And I think what's different here as well is the fact that this law was written so long ago and it's not consolidated. So it is very hard to understand. I don't think it was ever written with the intention of racing out of the country, for example. And just to be clear, again, because it is so complicated, when you say committee, that is a different body than the race and commission. I just want Councilor Grossman could clarify that. Commission, even though it wasn't corrected in the language, the racing commission, the chair of the racing commission is actually, the racing commission is the gaming commission, correct? Correct. That's an example. One of many examples where the law is not up to date with the present, yeah, the 23K and 128K. Totality, you will be able to discern that. It's probably just, sometimes all the general laws aren't precise enough. But under 23K, when the racing committee was formed and the commission can't change that split, by the way, the commission could send it back and say, look, we're not seeing where you got your numbers. Can you take a second look? But it's not accurate that the commission, the gaming commission has the authority to change that split. Right. But that's a little bit of a different, I just am trying to, again, get my head wrapped around exactly the precise issue before us. That, we have talked about that. I know we actually were, I took no formal action on it recently, correct, Gail? But in terms of, we know that we can't vote on it affirmatively. Correct. So I guess my point is I don't, I'm not finding the logic in, we have oversight on the backend, because I don't actually see it that way. I appreciate that. That's really helpful. That's really helpful. So now, looking at the precise issue in front of us, is there, when you did your analysis, you, with respect to, is the, does the commission need to take formal action and approve this precise request to be able to go out of state, out of country? You concluded that it didn't look as though that that requirement was made, provided that there was consultation to the chair of the racing commission, which I understand is the gain in commission, but not a formal vote on it. Although past practice was that, that we did take formal vote. Now I'm just going back to commissioner O'Brien and commissioner Zuniga. Do we feel that, do we still feel that while we have fiduciary obligations, do we actually need to vote affirmatively on this precise issue? And commissioner Stevens, I haven't forgotten you. So I don't know if you want to chime in first, commissioner Stevens on overall, but it looks as though there's this, this idea about the fiduciary duty, somehow as an overlay that would prompt an authorization. And I would like to be able to, I'd like to be able to see that in statute somewhere, that it would actually require our affirmative approval, not because I don't think we necessarily have a big dispute, substantively here, but it does seem like we want to have clarification on process. I suppose it's not clear in statute and that's what brings us here in the first place. But I think there's cross purposes. But I think from my perspective, when I read attorney Grossman's analysis, I thought it was quite clear. It's introducing history that is now, and something broad that's making me think, am I missing something? So. No, I don't think you are. I think it's, let me put it this way. I think that technical analysis is solid and it does point out to the conclusion that maybe we never needed approval, even though it was so nice to get when we agreed with your approval and now that you might not, we don't need it. So the legal analysis might be such, to me, and I know this is not a legal standard, it just does not feel like the intent of the program, of what's in statute. And this goes back to history, one in which the intent has been slowly, year by year, little by little, being eroded. And this is the last erosion, the last iteration to the erosion of the original intent, now taking races outside of country, in which the benefits that were supposed to come down from monies derived by the Commonwealth, two Commonwealth citizens is ever more diluted. So I think that's what I'm struggling with. A little precedent, a technical analysis that maybe points in the direction of once you overlay all of these different statutes, we have to be either recognized that we never had authority or not, even though I am not quite sure of that conclusion, but coming from the spirit and intent of the legislation and multiple sections with this history, that is, again, one more time being eroded here. And we did, I'm sorry, just a little, I'm sorry, I can't remember. No, and we did have, this was brought before our legal team in the past, in 2015, in which there was a discussion, although not a formal written opinion that we did in fact have the authority, and it was probably wise to use it to make sure that what we're doing were, it's more than just the fiduciary responsibility. I think the industry needs to be regulated as well. And there's so many questions that in my mind cause me, give me pause to just say, hands off now, that's where I'm struggling is, yes, I've always been persuaded by the fiduciary responsibility, but secondly, the need to make sure they're fair, the races are fair, they're written in a way that doesn't exclude people. We've had all these issues we've had to deal with. And I do have pause and just saying, no, we have no role anymore in how these monies are spent. I see that we have, Ms. Reagan is interested in determining, if you could just hold for a few more minutes, Ms. Reagan, I do wanna hear from the commissioners, it's essential for them to express their opinion in this public context. Commissioner Bryan, your sharp legal mind at work. Two points that maybe people who have more historical knowledge on this can talk about. One, I just wanted to make in terms of looking at what was submitted in the packet, there was a representation or an implication in the attorney Constantine's letter, I believe, implying that because there's a statutory reference to auditing books and the part of the, and the association and the auditor that somehow that is to the exclusion of anyone else. And I just wanted to make sure I reject that analysis. I don't think that's in fact the case. No, there was an absence of direct implication of our authority in that section, but I don't think that is to the exclusion of any other basis for authority. I do, I am curious, knowing the history and knowing Commissioner Cameron's comments about the earlier analysis, am I mistaken that the position that was taken by the association in the first instance was, they felt they did need to come and get approval. I know the representation today, I think by Mr. Zezza was that it's just been a courtesy all along, I'm just curious to get some clarification on that history. Did you want that from Commissioner's? Yeah. If there's someone who has the historical knowledge, I'm just curious to know if that is in fact the case, why the change in statutory interpretation come now? From the breeder's perspective, that's not been the case. I don't know about the other parties. And to be fair, I would say that having been a lawyer most of my career, I think different guidance can come up and even if they had said that, I'm not sure I would hold them to not being able to bring forward a different analysis. I think that what the reality is that we do want to know not so much what everybody believed then. It's not a belief and maybe I'm factually incorrect, but I thought it was same counsel at the time. Well, even if it wasn't the same counsel. Now, Alex is not in yet, well, respectfully, I've been an attorney too. And if I change a position going into court, it's usually because the facts changed where the law has changed. I'm not seeing what's changed factually or legally between 15 and now that would change. Fair enough. I will probably just disagree with that, but I did hear Mr. Dr. Ziza, is that correct? Say that they interpret it as change. To answer Commissioner O'Brien's question, was there a formal request? Perhaps it wouldn't be Dr. Leipzig. I don't know if you have that history or not. Mr. Grossman, you were here. Your fellow colleague was advising the commission. Do you remember if there was affirmative requests? I'm not sure if I placed great weight on the precedent, but I of course want to hear from always a historical perspective. Well, here's, I'd be happy to try to address that. A, it was clearly the same lawyers, Kevin Considine, both times. Okay, thank you. B, and I know that because in looking back at the packet from August of 2015, there's a letter in there from him. And I believe, and I apologize, I don't have it right in front of me, but I'm fairly certain it does request approval or authorization, I'm not sure exactly which language to do this. Now, there's no analysis in there as to whether the statute requires that or doesn't require it or anything like that. But I think it's basically a one or two sentence request and it says, we request that you approve this proposal. And if I heard Dr. Caesar correctly, he was suggesting that there is a consultation. I think we all acknowledge as a consultation requirement and perhaps it was a courtesy to say request approval. Today, if I'm correct, they are saying upon further reflection of their review of the statutory provisions that are applicable, they don't see that there's an affirmative requirement from that's due from the commission today. And I think that that's our main question. And I guess we could all say they should have asked, they should have done differently or whatever. I think that we need to put all of that aside because this commission is made up of a different body even. I wasn't there when that was, I might have pointed out. It doesn't say that the approval is required only as consultation because I am saying that right now. I would like to make sure that if we act today and we are authorizing something, it's either couch that it's unclear, but of course we give a blessing to it or we come up with a decision based on a legal analysis. Now we reject what is before us and we deem ourselves obligated and authorized to make a decision. And I think we need to do all of that because we are acting in this case on rights and they would have, I believe, Todd, an ability to appeal if in fact through the correct steps and Commissioner O'Brien I'm not sure if it would be a 30A or what it would be, but in other words this is our, whether we act with proper authorization is a critical question. And so I- Can I speak to that in very concrete terms? So there's disbursements that we make out of the resource development fund, community mitigation fund of which we are trustees all the time. And our CFO always looks to when was this authorized to make the actual disbursement by the heads of the agency that would be the commission. So we've done all of those disbursements in the past under the auspices of being the trustees of the funds. Now I guess what they're presenting here is a fundamental argument that is contrary to our past practice, which is all of those prior approvals worked sort of nice in the past, but we really didn't meet them now that we are gonna be going further out of the country, not just out of the state, which again, I know this is not a legal technical argument, but it just feels to me that the erosion of the intent and the spirit of the whole thing to begin with. Okay, I'm hearing that. I still haven't heard from our fellow commissioner Stembins. I don't wanna put you on the spot, but do you have any insights to help us with respect to history? And then commissioner O'Brien, commissioner Cameron. Yeah, thank you, madam chair. Not much to offer different than what commissioner Zuniga or my colleague commissioner Cameron has pointed out in terms of precedent, but obviously certainly subscribed to the position that it's trustees of this fund and making, having some fiduciary responsibility and oversight of the fund is important. I guess I'm still curious as to this kind of pause or reflection that there needed to be some change in either the authorizations that we'd given previously or kind of this moment in time where we're being asked to prescribe a different set of rules. The different set of rules being, because it's out of the country, is that what we're getting at? Is that? Out of the country or at other tracks? Yeah, all right. Before we go on, attorney Grossman, this is I'm hearing without due respect to my commissioner, fellow commissioner Zuniga, the words legal and technical being inserted back and forth. I would like to adhere to what's legal. So, yeah, I'm looking for further insight before we take any action on this as to an affirmative obligation on our part to act on it. And of course, I'm not in any way passing on the substantive request here. I'm just asking about the, not passing judgment on the fiduciary duties that we have. I'm not passing judgment on their request. I just am wondering about the authorization. Well, I think the one thing that is clear to me is that I think everyone ultimately wants the same thing, which is to ensure that these funds are expended wisely and for the proper purpose. That is ultimately to promote and develop and encourage their breeding in the common. For that, there can be no dispute. The question is that was posed to me was whether what the legal authority or how far it extends for the commission's review of the expenditure of these funds. And under paragraph G, which I do believe is the only section that really applies to this, I don't see any clear express authorization that is required by the breeders prior to making expenditures. Now, they are certainly required to make expenditures consistent with the language of the statute. They're not allowed to just expend it any way they want. Most of it seems clear to me that only a consultation of the chair of the racing commission and now the gaming commission is required. There is that one piece of the statute that opens the door to a potential approval. And that's where the language says that the commission or that they have to be, the race has to be the licensed paramutual race meeting authorized by the state racing commission. And if that is construed to mean that the authorization has to be specific to an out of state track, that would be the one area that I think it would be certainly open under the statute for the commission to decide that it needs to express. And that clause was in the fourth paragraph where it's further. It's a little further down. It's the second paragraph. It starts with further. So you assume that that meant additionally as a separate. Well, that's the way I read it. You know, obviously different interpretations can be assigned and, but that's how I would construe the word further. And if that's the case, and by the way, I think that was presumably the interpretation though it somewhat went unsaid in the past that allowed the commission to weigh in on these decisions, which is why I've never in any way opined that past practice was in any way inappropriate or impermissible or anything like that. But if the question is, does the commission have clear authority to approve, pre-approved of these expenditures, I believe the answer is no. There is no clear authority for that. You can make the case as commissioners Zuniga and Brian and others have pointed out through a fiduciary duty that may overlay this or even an interpretation of parts of the statute. But just reading the plain language, it seems to me that there's no clear authority to pre-approve expenditures. Yeah, this is the crossover again of multiple statutes and different modifications where in, on 23 K, there is section four N, I forget exactly which one that unequivocally says that the broad and power of the commission will be interpreted as broad as necessary to carry out the intent of the law. There's nothing like that on 128, I suppose, which then has us in this place to begin with. Karen, I'm not sure if you're, I don't see your face, but I'm just wondering, do you have a suggestion procedurally where we should proceed? Because it doesn't look as though we have necessarily a consensus on a legal interpretation. I think I commend Attorney Grossman. I thought he did a very nice job on his legal analysis. He's had also grieved me along the way on this matter. I can't say that I understand all of the fully. I'm not sure if any lawyer who even specializes in first racing, and I'm looking at Ms. Reagan would say everything is clear. I've dealt with a lot of those statutes in my time and it would be dangerous to say anything is clear. But I do appreciate what the advice that we're hearing from our interim general counsel. And given that, I would not recommend that we would be able to move ahead today without further legal guidance to say that we're authorized to move ahead. And I see Commissioner O'Brien kind of nodding her head. That doesn't mean that this can't be reviewed, but two suggestions for us to think about. We could ask our interim general counsel to go back and investigate the history further. But I'm not sure what that leaves for our colleagues, Dr. Ziza and the horse racing community because I suspect that they sought consultation with us and guidance with us today. Yes, so I've got a chair, I'll go ahead. Well, let me suggest that no action here is what I would argue is what the MTBA is asking for. So the question becomes the next time that our CFO is asked to transfer funds from the Racehorse Development Fund, takes funds to such account, the Breeders' Account. Are we gonna do that just because they told us? Well, Commissioner Zinnigan, nobody does anything just because they told us. So that's what we're struggling with. I mean, I understand exactly what you're saying and I understand that that would put Mr. Lennon in a difficult situation. So we are trying to get at the heart just because, but with that said, we don't wanna ever because we're in a position of power to assume that we have that power unless it's clear. And so that's what I'm struggling with today. Well, clearly everybody is. Well, I mean, that's what I'm just saying if I speak for myself, yeah. Yeah. So I'm inclined to agree with you, Madam Chair. I'd like, you know, my two questions is we're listening to this, where the timeframe, is there the opportunity to go back? And I don't know if there's some further information or anything that can help guide that because that is the threshold question. And even with the legal guidance and Todd did a great job on that memo, that there's still that tension there on, you know, within the commission trying to figure out what to do. It's not as if the five of you are really coming to an easy conclusion. So substantively, if there is some time, I just don't know what that next piece of information would necessarily be that might change the outcome. But I'm uncomfortable with the commission not having the consensus of on their authority there. That's a tough position to be in. And it may be better to take a break and get into another discussion with some additional information. Can we just see on Dr. Weivel, how does that leave our fellow folks here on the horse racing? And I understand, I appreciate fully commissioners Zuniga saying that that's what they want. Bu