I'm sorry, I'm just a few minutes late, turning to a couple last minute things. We are holding our meeting, of course, virtually. So I'll do a roll call to start our day. Good morning, Commissioner O'Brien. Good morning, I am here. Good morning, Commissioner Hill. Good morning, I'm here. Great, and good morning, Commissioner Skinner. Good morning, I'm here. Excellent, and Commissioner Maynard. Good morning, Madam Chair, I am here. Excellent, okay, we have three sets of minutes to get through, Mr. Secretary. We do. So Madam Chair, I move that the Commission approve the minutes from the March 14, 2022 public meeting and the April 28, 2022 public meeting and the July 12, 2022 public meeting that are included in the Commissioner's packet, subject to any necessary corrections for typographical errors or other non-material matters. I think we have different quorums for those. Yeah, we might need to separate them. We might need to break them up. Like March 14, I think he's the Chair, you and I. And then April is also Commissioner Skinner and then April and July, Commissioner Skinner as well. I think, I guess Commissioner Skinner, yeah. Yeah, she was April and July. So I guess the first, we just need to do March separately and then we can do the other two. Yeah. So let me put that down in my notes. Thank you for that. Commissioner O'Brien. Sorry, Commissioner Hill, we might need to do all three of them separately because I'll need to abstain from the vote on the April 28. Minutes given that I was not present for the entirety of the meeting. OK, if that's what we want to do, that's fine with me. Unless you vote on the extent that you were there, Commissioner Skinner or whatever, however you want to do it, from you were there for part of it. Yeah, I mean, if that's an option, I can go that route. Yeah. Yeah. OK. I'm sure Khan could reflect that properly. So let's do the March 14. So Madam Chair, I move that the Commission approve the minutes from the March 14, 2022 public meeting that are included in the commissioner's packet subject to any necessary corrections for typographical errors or other non-material matters. Second. Any questions or edits? OK. Mr. O'Brien. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. And no, this is March 14th. You weren't quite here yet. Yeah, March 14th is pre-everybody vote. That was just the three of us. No problem. I abstain. You were very close to being here then. It was just the three of us. And we were happy that we were three. I read them, which is what was confusing. So yeah, that's right. OK. So your vote will be for the record. I abstain. OK. Thank you, Commissioner Maynard. I abstain. OK, Michael. Yes, thank you. And Commissioner Skinner, would you like me to continue doing them singly or the next one together? Singly or me? Yes, please. Yep, perfect. So Madam Chair, I move that the commission approve the minutes from the April 28th, 2022 public meeting that are included in the commissioner's packet subject to any necessary corrections for typographical errors or other non-material matters. Second. I have one edit or question. I'm not sure if Mark Vandalinden is on. And I don't have them in front of me. But I just wondered if there was an inversion in the word Mark on, I think it's page 16 of our packet, where there's something about the word change from problem to harm. I wondered if it were that they were switched around. It sounded as though the word harm was changed to problem. On page 16. OK, let me pull that up, Madam Chair. I'm going to read it to you because it's going to be easier for me to pull it up for you then. But I just happened to note that because I know it's so critical to you. Let's see, Mark. I should have the long packet. So I didn't want to print it out. It was on page 16, but I might have. Yeah, no, I see. I am. I see it. You're right. No, it's page. It is what, right? No, I think you're right. I think that it should be harm. Harm is a more commonly used term now as opposed to problem. We talk about gambling related harm rather than problem gambling because it's more inclusive. Then can you just find it on our packet? Because now, of course, I'm having trouble. I thought it was, oh, I know it's because I'm on page 15 on page 16. OK. So did everybody find that? The trade state that Commissioner O'Brien asked the why the word problem was used to replace harm. And it should state that the word harm was used to replace problem. Yeah. OK. So that was one quick edit. And Derek, a note because reading our minutes is so critical. I have been delayed on the indirect spend letter that you've prepared. And I need to get you to really ping me on that. OK, Derek, please. Timeliness now. It's much different than it was in April. And you did such a great job on that. So the set of minutes reminded me of that. Yes, I'll review that with Commissioner Skinner because I know she had some comments too. And then we'll get a final version over you. OK, and excellent. And we'll reach out to Anna. Thank you so much. Yes. And Judy and I will make sure that is changed. The harm to problem to harm. Yeah. Yeah, that's a good one for the record, I think. Commissioner Hill, thank you. Yeah. Good catch. So in terms of that change, then I will, if there are no other edits, I'll take a vote. Commissioner O'Brien. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi for so much of the meeting as I was present. OK. And to Commissioner Maynard. I abstain. OK, and I vote yes. Thank you for that edit. Excellent. OK, and then. One more. I believe, too, that it's a good set of minutes. Everyone has a reminder. It includes the good summary of our discussion on the that was the independent monitor appeared at that meeting. So just a good reminder that if you we have a future agenda item on that. So thank you. Right. And then. Next set. Yeah, Madam Chair, I move that the Commission approved the minutes from the July 12, 2022 public meeting that are included in the commissioner's packet subject to any necessary corrections for typographical errors or other non-material matters. Second. Any questions or edits? OK. Commissioner O'Brien. Hi. Commissioner Hill. Hi. Commissioner Skinner. Hi. Commissioner Maynard. I abstain. And I vote yes. Very good. Thank you. Well done, the legal team. All right. So moving on now to the administrative update. Good morning, Executive Director Wells. How are you? I'm great. Thank you. Good morning, Chair. Good morning, members of the Commission. Before we jump into Mr. Bann's update, I just wanted to mention the public meeting room and give you an update on what's going on there. As you know, our streaming equipment in the public room meeting room has not been operational for some time. We've been fortunate to be able to convene these meetings virtually, and that has been helpful. But I know many of us are looking forward to having these meetings take place back in the office. To ensure our avian streaming equipment is functional and adequate to handle our needs, our team has brought in Charles River Media Group. They're a vendor we've worked with in the past to assist broadcast meetings with broadcasting meetings, and we've been working with them to build out the meeting room. The team from Charles River will be in the office on Tuesday to begin this build out. Once this system is up and running, we'll have the time to test our capacity, our plan is to begin convening our public meetings in person. Commissioners and MD staff participating will be in the public meeting room, and those outside stakeholders taking part in the meetings will be asked to join in person as well. It should feel a lot like it used to with the participants in the room, but we are allowing for capacity for virtual participation and for extraordinary circumstances. Someone can't make it to the meeting of commissioners on available things like that. There are going to be limitations to the circumstances where a party can't make it to the office, so you should just be aware of that. In this case, those participating remotely will only join in their particular section of the meeting. We'll continue to stream our meetings on YouTube and our website, and those will remain the best option for the public to watch our proceedings. Well, I'm checking with legal respect to the COVID policy and having people in the building, so we'll confirm on that, but it looks as if we may be able to just have people work, or participate remotely on that for the time being, but I'll give you more of a confirmation on that closer to the date where we'll actually be having the meetings in the office. Anybody have any questions on that? All right, so with that, I will... Sorry, Karen, I have one. So when you say limitations on who's participating, is that non-commissioner participants will have limitations? No, it's more that we have, right, but we have a limited number of laptops that'll allow for remote connection, so we can't have a variety of people participating meeting remotely simultaneously. That's where we may have people go in a note. Obviously, commissioners would take priority because they need to be at the meetings, but we're trying to limit the remote participation, A, to give you the feel and have that experience back where you're together, but we only have a limited number of laptops. And so can it be loaded on all the commissioners' laptops, or is this more when you anticipate you're gonna have to request an advance? Yeah, so it's, yes, I think it would be an advance. These are specific laptops for this system that were better being purchased, so it's not just your laptop can connect. Is that correct, Mills? I wanna make sure, if Mills is on it, he can confirm that. Yeah, that's correct.  You'll be in person, the cameras that are connected to our production system will be, what is broadcasting to our YouTube channel and to our website. Okay, so it could be that a commissioner would have to go old school and phone in if it happens morning of or day of. No, we would make priority for a commissioner to be able to participate remotely. There are options for that. Okay. There's also, as long as the law remains the same, allowing this kind of virtual meeting, if there's an extraordinary circumstance where there is a number of people that need to participate remotely, you could always do one of these meetings. I think the intent is to go back to in-person meetings. You're all together, you're seeing each other, discussing matters and staff is in there having that same experience. And Karen, just to follow up, hybrid is an option. It's just not an ideal option, but it is an option and it's something that we will be prepared to deploy. Right. And I mentioned to staff, we want staff in the room for the commissioners, so the expectations they will be in there. I'm just thinking we are, sadly, still in the quarantining protocols. So I hate to get into that circumstance where we're losing the ability for somewhat of quarantine, but still participating. So more to come on this, we'll give you an update once that equipment's installed. Hopefully on Tuesday, they'll be able to complete that. We'll do some testing. We don't want to have a public meeting as the first experience with it. So we'll do some testing and commissioners be able to see how that feels. So it'll be hopefully a lot like it used to be when we're all in the room, okay? Any other questions on that? Okay, I'll turn it over to Bruce Baird. I believe he just has a very brief update today. Yeah, I have a chair of commissioners. I have a small update today. I'll start with the MGM. They continue to hold job fairs. They're replacing all their older style slot machines with the latest technology. They're converting all the slot machines in the poker room to poker slot. So the whole room will be a poker style poker room, including the slot machines. They're also this weekend hosting a Halloween costume contest in the Commonwealth bar. PPC has a big drawing. It's a big draw bank on October 29th, where there's all kinds of prizes and contests for the public. Encore yesterday filmed the NESN's ultimate betting show. It's a 30 minute show that will be aired later on. And that was done at the Wing Bet Sports Bar yesterday. Any questions? I suppose that's a big deal for them to be replacing all their slots machines. Yeah, yes, it is. It's not something totally uncommon in this, but you'll want to have the latest and greatest to be able to attract the customers. So that's what they're going to do right now. In terms of your work, that keeps you good and busy. Yes, yes, it does. Well, thank you for that. Thank you to your team, Director Lillios. Thank you. But that's interesting. And I appreciate the switch to the poker. Yeah. It's changed smart. Okay, thank you. Welcome. The next item for the COVID, pardon me for the administrative update is a request. We're looking to update the COVID policy for the agency to be in line with the CDC guidelines. We'll turn it over to Dave and Tripti. Tripti handling this one? Yes. Hi. Good morning, Madam Chair and commissioners. In early 2022, the CDC changed the quarantine and isolation policy requirements to reduce the number of days and quarantine from 10 to five. The MGC working group got together and we felt that we would like to take a conservative approach and maintain the 10 days. And that's what the commission approved at the time. And at this point, the MGC, well, we always required it when we had folks come back to the office, that all MGC employees are vaccinated, all guests are vaccinated. And we have a reliable reporting system to ensure employees are kept safe and we have a proper notification process underway. So what we're looking to do is or what I've requested is that we adopt the CDC's COVID-19 guidelines in an effort to ensure that we can have adequate staffing and still maintain the appropriate safety precautions. So at this point, we're asked employees to stay home for 10 days and isolate. And the CDC requires five days and the additional five days would be with a high quality mask for a total of 10 days. So we're gonna need a vote on this and the recommendation then overall truth is for us to fall into CDC guidance, correct? Correct. I've been actually a proponent of this since January because I've always felt that our folks over at the properties have to follow those guidelines and that additional protections for us didn't feel right to me. So this would put us into, and also it matches science. So the HR team, thank you for reconvening on this matter. I think it's good timing, Karen. I know that everybody should be getting their boosters, right? Karen, for good help. But you are looking for just this, it's really just a shift, a slight shift. I just to put it in context too, at the time that the CDC first amended and we were in conflict, it was primarily because of staffing challenges the places we're having, which is why we stayed with the more conservative measures. We've now shifted where it's more widespread and not just a staffing amendment in terms of the isolation protocols. So I'm comfortable now doing it. I was not back when this came up in the winter, but I'm comfortable with it now. Thank you for adding that in, that's right, Aileen. And the one thing I will add is at one point, there were various requirements by CDC with whether you had the booster if and there was a lot of ands with it at the time, where we have a very clear direction now and the CDC also has a tool online so we can apply the consistent approach given the situation and symptoms and being close contacts and various things like that. So Trupty, that's where I need some more information. Sure. How do these revised measures, according to the CDC guidelines, how do they play into the vaccination requirements and the booster? I understand we are still requiring our staff to be vaccinated, but not so much boosted. Same thing with visitors. So what is the CDC guidance there? So in each instance, you would put the criteria into the system. So example, if someone tested positive on, let me say today, one of the symptoms and then there is a component where you would not put the information around boosting or not. It's whether they've been vaccinated or whether they, when they tested positive, what's the day five and what are the precautions that would need to move forward from there? And whether or not the individual was boosted does that determine the length of time they should quarantine? No. No. Okay. Other questions that I can help folks with? Do we have a motion? Well, I just wonder in light of Trupty your answer to my question, and I know it's not on the table for today, whether we should be revisiting the vaccination requirement at some point. I mean, just given their, I understand general discussion about this at the state level where certain state agencies are offering the opportunity for individuals who are terminated for not being vaccinated to return to work. So again, I know this isn't what we are presented with today, but perhaps it makes sense for the COVID policy committee to take that up. The one thing I will add on that topic is with the state requirements at the time when we were working with the working group, the state was not mandating the booster requirements, but they were requiring the vaccination requirement. And that's something that the MGC adopted. And we worked with staff across the agency to ensure that component for the MGC. And yes. Mr. Skinner, just so I understand, you would like to revisit the exact question would be what? Well, I'm just with the CDC guidance in general. I'm wondering if it makes sense to review other components of that outside of just the quarantine component. And with regard to the vaccine mandate that we have, yes, in particular, but anything else that might apply. So are you saying, because I missed the point that we should include boosters, are you saying we should reverse the vaccine mandate? No, I just think given the change in the CDC guidance overall, since the beginning of the pandemic, I would just ask for a more comprehensive review of the CDC guidance to determine whether there are any other areas where we should be revising commission policy as a result. Yeah, so I thought that it says, we recommend that the commission adopt the CDC COVID-19 guidelines as a requirement. I thought that what you would do is you pointed out this particular issue, but that overall our policies would be consistent with CDC guidance. Perhaps. I mean, perhaps. But what I think is before us today is reducing the quarantine time. I didn't think that to be the case. Am I, I thought that you were actually, it was going to be a broader request today, Director Wilds, am I wrong? My understanding is that generally in the prior meeting we had the commission adopted the CDC guidance with the exception of this quarantine requirement. So the request today is that you fully adopt the CDC guidance. I think that could make it a lot easier for other people understanding what we're doing. And then there's one consistent thing, both CDC and the MGC. And all our employees- That keeps the vaccination requirement in place. Correct. Right. That would keep the vaccination. And our employees who work the floor of the casinos are now online. Correct. And racing. And racing, yeah. And racing, yes. Dr. Leipan, I almost said that earlier, but I wanted to make sure I was right. Good. Exactly. Okay, then that is understood. Does that helpful? I'm just gonna- I wanted to make sure, I was wondering if you had a different proposal. Okay, good. So do I have a motion then? Madam Chair, I would move that the commission adopt the CDC's COVID-19 guidelines with respect to isolation and precautions for people with COVID-19 and further move that the commission rescind any portion or portions of its existing COVID-19 policy that conflict with the CDC's COVID-19 guidelines with respect to isolation and precautions for people with COVID-19. So can I make a motion to amend slightly, which would be not only people with COVID-19, but those who have had known exposure to COVID-19? Because I think it addresses both quarantine period. I accept the amendment. Does it include overall COVID-19 compliance commissioner Maynard? My understanding was, is that commissioner Brian was wanting to bring the CDC's policy across the board. Would you just re-state your motion? My apologies. So you want me to reread the motion with commissioner O'Brien's inclusion. But the amendment, thank you so much. I move that the commission adopt the CDC's COVID-19 guidelines with respect to isolation and precautions for people with COVID-19, as well as those with known exposures and further move that the commission rescind any portion and portion of its existing COVID-19 policy that conflict with the CDC's COVID-19 guidelines with respect to isolation and precautions for people with COVID-19 and those with known exposures. I would second that. Could I make and suggest another amendment that it's consistent with CDC overall, including with respect to isolation, blah, blah, blah. That's not very nice to say, blah, blah, blah. But do you see? I accept the amendment. Forget the blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Just so that we have a COVID policy that is consistent with CDC. Is that an understandable amendment? Commissioners, I believe it is excellent. Okay. Any further edits that are more graceful than mine? Okay. Commissioner O'Brien. Do we need a further second now that you've amended it or are we good to go? Okay. Second as amended. Thank you. And then I vote aye. Thank you. Commissioner Hill. Aye. Mr. Skinner. Aye. Mr. Maynard. Aye. And I vote yes. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Okay, the next item in the administrative update Good work. Thank you. Next item in the administrative update that Dr. Lightfilen is going to give us an update on this higher stakes. Good morning. We had a great Monday. They were calling it the million dollar Monday. That's the most as far as my knowledge goes. It's been given out in a single day in Massachusetts ever for horse racing. We worked at Department of Agriculture Resources and consulted them. Recommended that we scan the temperatures of every horse that came in on Sire State days. So we worked with Plain Ridge Park, Casino's employees and our own. A big shout out to John Gilbert and Sammy Wick who got like over a hundred horses scanned each Sire State day. That was a good undertaking to ensure the health of all the horses involved. Our Sire Stakes races, we take blood gas tests on every single horse. Normally we take two out of a race in Sire Stakes. We take all of them. And on finals day, that's eight races that are full field. So our veterinarian, Dr. Risa Sheehan and her assistant, Sheri Gilbert for the day tested over 66 horses instead of just what would have been normally 20. So again, a shout out to them. And they had eight races with the different divisions. And the winners were spread out among 16 different owners, eight different trainers, six different breeders and five different drivers. So it was nice to see the money being spread out among different people. Certainly some people have more than one horse participating in the event. So some of them had, you know, seconds and thirds as well. But it was great to see the winning money just spread out among multiple people. There's three legs leading up to it. And in those three legs, they gave out $1.5 million in first money. And then on the finals day, they gave out a million, 125,000 per race, which again is just outstanding. So it was a good day. Tim Bajorski, who is the publicist for the Standard Bread Owners of Massachusetts has done a nice job on their website. If anybody wants to see more information, there's points on each horse and how much money they earned and all that. So anybody looking for more information, I would direct them to the SOM site. And as usual, we had great cooperation with the participants, the SOM and Plain Ridge Parficino on that day. So it was a great day all around. Questions for Dr. Leibman. Great day. The weather wasn't perfect, but really good for the horses. Right, the horses didn't mind it at all. Little rain's okay. Yeah, really good. Not so wet that it was presented safety issues. They just ran fast, huh? That's good. That's good. So Dr. Leibman noted the good work of the association. So maybe, I know that you'll coordinate with Mills to maybe highlight that link to their website. That would be great. Yep, that would be great. Excellent, thank you. All right, anything further? None of that. We're ready, I can proceed to the sports wagering process updates. I see Mark Vanderlin is coming on. Are you going to add something? Yeah, I think I'm on the agenda. You're on next, right next. Okay, I thought you were adding on to Dr. Leibman. Yeah, no, no. There you go. Yeah. My apologies. I thought legal was going to be right up there, but I forgot we put you, we snuck you right in the beginning. We have a couple of things. So Mark's just going to give an update on the studies that are noted in 23M. There we go. Thanks Mark. Good morning again and thank you for helping on the minutes. Yes, this is really an important, it is an important update. I guess I thought we might be including it an update, but it really does belong in sports wagering. So thank you, Director Vanderlin. Certainly. So the Act to Regulate Sports Wagering extends our commitment to gaming research by aligning 23N, and actually there's a typo here. Section 23, with chapter 23K, the expanded Gaming Act, section 71. In both these sections, the MGC is directed to develop an annual research agenda to understand the social and economic effects of sports wagering in the Commonwealth and obtain scientific information relative to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, epidemiology, and etiology of cancer. There is further detail in chapter 23N, section 23. And it specifically directs that the annual sports wagering agenda do a number of things. One, an assessment of whether problem sports wagering is comorbid with problem gambling. An assessment as to whether the individual participating in sports wagering are different than those who are participating in other forms of gaming or gambling. And an assessment of the impact of sports wagering on youth under the age of 25. So interestingly, we haven't formally adopted this section of the sports wagering research agenda yet as we're working off of our fiscal year 23 Gaming Research Agenda. But we are able to, and we'll soon be able to say a number of things about these specific sections. As you may know, we're conducting or just wrapped up data collection for the follow-up general population survey. Follow-up meaning that the original chapter 23K, section 71, called for baseline general population survey before casinos opened. So we're at this point now with three casinos opened up, we're doing the follow-up general population survey. And we have included a number of questions around sports wagering that should answer these very important questions so we can get a better understanding of sports wagering in Massachusetts. And so while this is technically considered the follow-up, this is a baseline in terms of our understanding of sports wagering before it's launched in the Commonwealth. That final report is expected to us later in the spring. It's part of our research agenda for this year. So it should, it will be delivered before that July 1st. I just wanted to give you an update on that. I had a really good conversation with Dr. Bolberg earlier this week, after I had already submitted this memo. So now moving on to the two studies that are the MGC is to begin immediately. And I wanted to just give you an update on the status of those. So there's two of them. Chapter 23 in section 20 is a study examining the feasibility of allowing retail locations in the Commonwealth to operate sports wagering. We have developed a scoping document for this section 20 requirement. I've recruited a couple of our research consultants that we have on hand to provide feedback and both of those research consultants gave me feedback on that scoping document. Per Treasurer Goldberg's request during the September 8th, 2022 meeting, this study will consider the effects on lottery because as she actually pointed out, many of the potential retail locations would likely offer both lottery projects as well as sports wagering kiosks. The scoping document will inform the development of a competitive RFR, which I expect to release by the end of December. As required by statute, we'll make sure that a report, a status update on this is delivered to the legislature by December 31st, 2022. Before I go any further, are there any questions about that study or the status of that study? Mark, I have a question. Actually, it's just a comment. I believe Treasurer Goldberg's request went a little bit beyond what you've noted in your memo. I think her office is actually asking to participate in sort of the preparation, et cetera, for the study. So I don't have the request in front of me, but if you could just review that to ensure that we've captured the request in its entirety that week. I thought she wanted to participate in the study. I don't think she would have known that we were even putting out an RFR for that, Commissioner Skinner, does everyone, we could go back and check. I think Director Vanillen, you would certainly have Treasurer's office participating in the study, right? And regardless, I'm happy to include the Treasurer's office as well in the crafting of that, of the RFR. So regardless of what she said, that's good, as long as it doesn't delay just somehow, that's all I wasn't sure where you were in our status. So Commissioner Skinner raised a good point, but she definitely would like their office to be involved in it. Commissioner Skinner, does that- It does, it does. And I think I said she wanted her office to participate in the preparation for the study, et cetera. And so actually participating in the study was included in that. Yeah, I thought you meant like professional, for this RFR, I was like, I don't sure if she really needs, she wants to be involved in that, so much of it, that's a good point. But yeah, absolutely, you're right, Commissioner Skinner. Madam Chair, I have a question, if not a comment as well. Mark, can you explain to us how we would be interacting with retail operations, restaurant owners, things of that sort. They also wanna be part of this discussion. And in fact, as soon as the bill was passed and signed into law, I think for the next day or two, I got a lot of calls from the retail operations, like are we allowed to apply for these licenses? We now know they're not, but the study was something that they cared deeply about and wanted to be insured, they would be part of the process moving forward in regards to the study. Yeah, thank you, Commissioner Hill. That is considered in the scoping document. So I don't, as I talk about various methods that could be approached, I think that we'd be talking about multi-modal approach to this. So it would certainly include key inform and interviews, collection of primary, secondary data, different types of government reports. There's a number of ways that we recommend that the applicants consider collecting data. And that very point was on my mind as I was considering that. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions from Mark on this first study? Good job, Mark. Great, okay. So there's a second study as well. It would be section 25 of the Act Regulating Sports Wadring and it's a study, a research study on the participation of minority business enterprises, women business enterprises, veteran business enterprises in the sports wagering industry in the Commonwealth. So this isn't quite as far along, but I have begun working on the scoping document and similar to the section 20 study, I'll pull in and recruit the assistance of at least two of our research consultants to provide feedback. And because this study requires a sports wagering industry be live in the state, I don't advise that the RFR be released until later in 23 or date has determined by the commission. In other words, I think that it's important for the industry to be active and kind of find its stride before we would launch this specific study. So I will have a scoping document ready and a report prepared for the legislature as well by December 31st, 2020. Questions on this study? I have a comment, Madam Chair, not a question. Yes, commission. I just wanna make sure, and I've told Mark this offline but I want it also in this meeting that as we move forward with this, it's very important to me and I know the other commissioners have expressed this publicly for there to be representation and for there to actually be minority folks at the table, women-owned folks at the table. We were just, this commission alone was recognized in the EOS Foundation Report for having fantastic gender balance and diversity on this commission. And so I wanna make sure that that extends out to this report. And it's something that I just wanna monitor along the way and I hope that those that are listening are interested in being a part of this. Can I just extend on that? I've stressed to Director Vandal-Linden because I'm hearing you say that they participate in the study but perhaps I know that many share my feelings on this too that whoever is doing the study is diverse and can represent these interested parties and stakeholders. So the research team needs to reflect this issue. So noted, and as we develop that competitive RFR we can certainly emphasize the importance of this aspect of it. Yeah, thank you so much. I could also add on this point, it is noted that this study doesn't take place until sports wagering is live in the Commonwealth. I can't imagine that the lawmakers in the government thought that that meant that MBEs, WBEs should not be involved in sports wagering for at least a year and not involved. And that's why in our application we have a separate section on diversity. And we welcome every applicant to be innovative in getting WBEs, MBEs, vets involved at the table through joint ventures as partners. There's the traditional supply chain. That's one approach, but it doesn't necessarily really advance the interest of these entities. We can also think about partnering in terms of once they get a license how do they get out across the Commonwealth to these establishments that can't operate under the structure of the law, but surely could promote an online operator's license. I know others might want to add on that, so I'll stop now, but I think that this is an opportunity. There's a year, it's about a year before we can address this through the study, but we are addressing these issues through our application process. Missioners, do you want to add on? I think that's a really good point, and I hadn't really considered this until you just mentioned that, that as we scope this document, it should consider how it's addressed up front through the application process and what the effect of that is as we look at this study. So thank you. And I'll make sure that that's somehow captured in there. Yeah, yeah. So anybody want to add on that? Because I know we all have thoughts Commissioner Skinner, I think you might want to add. Madam Chair, I just want to say thank you for your comments. That's exactly what I had been meaning to emphasize, the fact that we can't wait until the study is done just to be looking at this issue. So I appreciate your comments once again, and Mark, I appreciate your efforts to ensure that we are considering diversity on the front end. Excellent, thank you. Anyone else want to add in? Okay, yeah, there's real opportunity here for anyone who gets to throw his privilege of a license to provide gaming in Massachusetts. So we look forward to reading the application on that piece. All right. Yes, good morning. Good morning. How are you? Doing very well. How would the commission from my role collaborating with Mark? And I'll meet with Mark to try to see how I from my world I can help support that effort. And I have to understand it better, I have to be honest, but also my diversity standpoint be involved. So I'm listening, it's not that it's on deaf ears. I just wanted to make you know that I do want to be involved. You've raised a good point and Director Wells, this is an opportunity for a whole bunch of cross departmental conversations. The commission will works with Mark kind of through his process, but I think Director Vandalman has just heard your question clearly. So I think you're going to knock on your door, or at least a phone call today. And Director Wells, can you, you know, just let's reflect on this question that Chief Maltrow has raised today. Thank you so much, David. Thank you. Okay, any other questions on this study? I have one overarching question and it relates to perhaps a comment that Director Wells may be addressing later. Mark, if you could remind the commissioners, we do have the, we have the studies. There's also the research agenda piece. And even as I look at your summaries and I went back and looked at the statutory language last night, these studies presume social and economic impact on the communities. I guess I'm just wondering if you can describe to us in your world, ultimately, not just with respect to these two studies, how will you be following up with respect to sports wagering on the social and economic impacts of sports wagering? Yeah, well, so that's more broadly captured through section 23 of 23N that talks about that. And then in the lines, if you take a look at 23K, section 71 and 23N, section 23, you'll see that a lot of that language carries forward and it's explicit in stating that, you know, largely following the same sort of process as we currently do through section 71. So I really appreciate that. I do think that the research, so just a research agenda, it's an overall research program for the commission to measure and to understand the social effects of gaming in the Commonwealth. And so certainly we will consider that through the sports wagering research agenda as we roll it together with the overall research program, we have some interesting lines of research that I think allow us to dive a little bit deeper into specific areas. So you're very familiar with the community-engaged research and we take some of that same methodology that's far more qualitative to try to understand effects of sports wagering in the Commonwealth. So it'll be not easy, nothing is easy, but we can certainly, as we consider advancing the community-engaged research or community-driven research, try to understand and roll the sports wagering into that line of research. As I mentioned upfront, I think having some baseline data about what are people betting on now in terms of sports wagering and who is doing it and what are their ages, I think that that will be really important to know. An area that I think that we really do need to focus on that we aren't currently doing right now related sports wagering is underage. So our follow-up general population survey will focus on individuals. I can't remember if it's 18 or 21, but I think that we need to take a look at persons under the age of 21, under the age of 18 and what their participation in sports wagering is and what is the social effects of that. And so as we move forward into our fiscal year 23 agenda, I wanna keep all of that in mind. Michelle, Brian? No, so that's an area that I am glad to hear Mark say. And also open in doing that, that daily fantasy sports as part of that will be defined sports wagering under 23N. I know it's different a little bit than DFS, but I would want all of that behavior to be considered when you're looking at the behaviors because that I think is, I don't think the market really separates it in terms of the behaviors, the way the statutes do. Okay. Yeah. And because online sports wagering will have effects across the commonwealth and not just, you know, even more regionalized because of the nature of brick and mortar casino facilities, it's going to be particularly important for any operator to really be engaged for the communities to help on these kinds of issues. You know, I think that that's what you've relied on in many ways, was we started to responsible with gaming, what we've relied on IAB and others in terms of minor participation, but it's all part of your responsible gaming program too, right, Mark? Yeah, okay. Thanks, that's really helpful and I think kind of critical for future discussion. So more on the agenda later. Thank you so much for giving us that background today. And thank you, Commissioner O'Brien. I hadn't considered my daily fantasy sports wasn't on my agenda, it certainly is on my radar now. So thank you. Well, you know, so what was your exact question for that, Commissioner O'Brien? Just as he said, as they move forward and they do underage studies in terms of patterns of behavior, that it be all inclusive in terms of the gambling behavior, not just sports wagering is defined in 23N, but that it encompass the DFS behavior too. Because I think it's hard. Yeah, yeah. So I think there is a little bit of an important distinction because I know Mark, for instance, you include lottery play and things that are outside of our regulatory authority. We would just want to be careful because I know it's under the AG's authority but it's also not considered gambling, per se, because it's still based versus, so just a distinction in that, but you know, perhaps it's still as applicable to your work. Yeah, it is. And just, I know there's a full agenda. There was a piece in 23N, section 23 that I thought was interesting where it specifically calls out an assessment of whether individuals participating in sports wagering are different than those who participate in other forms of gaming or gambling. And I was kind of caught up on that term gaming and gambling. And I think that we, I want to think carefully about how we approach that to make sure that we're addressing what the intent is here. Yeah, yeah, I agree with that. Yeah. Okay, anything further on Mark's really comprehensive report? Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. All right, I'll set Mark. Thank you so much. Okay, Karen, next. Oh, next item on the agenda, I wanted to review with you the public comments we received regarding the sports wagering application itself. We received comments from Vanduul and Penn National. Vanduul, I think it makes sense to review some of those first. We did meet internally on these issues and included Commissioner Maynard, because he had been involved with the application and went through. So we have some recommendations on how to address the comments. But with your indulgence, I would like to start with Vanduul because the first item they mentioned with respect to the public record section on the application, initially the application indicates that there would be a guide with respect to what would be presumptively withheld from public disclosure. The comments from Vanduul indicated they were very interested in that and were hoping to get that guide as soon as possible. We have had internal discussions about what to do with public records. Given that we have a public records request for the scoping surveys, I would expect we'll get public records request for the applications given the history with the casino applications. So we discussed there is this model and there's some advantages to this model because of the expediency. And then the other potential option we discussed if we could alter this requirement or a requirement or putting out this guide and we could request that the applicants submit a redacted version of their application pursuant to the public records law and the exceptions in 23N where matters are detrimental to their business interests or trade secrets could be withheld from public disclosure. So I thought it would be helpful to at least flag this issue. Councillor Grossman may have some other comments on this. We could go either way. There are advantages and disadvantages. We're just looking for some guidance here on how we would proceed with this if we could modify the application or put a comment out on how we would like to address this and certainly open other suggestions in dealing with public records requests. That would Todd anything further on that? I would, no, I think that's very helpful. I would just add, you'll all recall that there is that provision in chapter 23N that talks about public records. So it's just important to recall that as part of this conversation. And it provides that all the applications for operator licenses shall be public records provided that trade secrets, competitively sensitive or other proprietary information provided in the course of an application for an operator license under chapter 23N, the disclosure of which would place the applicant at a competitive disadvantage may be withheld from disclosure. So to the extent the commission is of the opinion that any particular material or information fits into that exemption, we can withhold it under the public records law. So this is what we would consider to be a statutory exemption to the public records law. It's specific to applications for sports wagering operator licenses. So I just wanted to add that into the mix. And it's really noteworthy here and it's noteworthy for another future conversation today that this exception applies in the course of an application. So this is a one-time ask. And then from my perspective, unless I'm told otherwise, it's one time. And then the public records law applies because it's really only in the course of an application. That's the language in both 23K and 23N. So I don't know if we need to do a big presumptive guide if we can just say, you know what? These are the three categories that you can get some relief. Public records law provides this or we're comfortable doing the review on the other stuff, Todd. But it is very, very hard for us to try to guess what their trade secrets are, right, Director Wells? So we could suggest that they provide a redacted version and then at least Cary and team looks at just those redactions as opposed to the entire application. Just one version, but the other version, I'm just not as familiar, I'm not as familiar, sorry, with either process. I think we're just trying to look for solutions. So I don't know if folks have other ideas for solutions to help on this front. So that we can be timely in getting these out. Because we don't want this to become a year long production because it really is just about the application. So that's a good point, Madam Chair, and I would just add there, so there are a couple of options, right? One is the one that the chair just alluded to, which is that we could just take in all the scoping surveys and then all the applications and we can, if we get a request for them, we can go through them one by one and figure out what materials may be exempt. That will take a long time, I can tell you right now. And so to the extent that we wanna get these out promptly, so folks can look at what is before us, that's not really a great option. We can do that, and we do that with a lot of different things, but here it may not be what everyone envisions. The other two ways that come to mind are the one the chair also just referenced, which is in as well as referenced, which is that we ask each applicant to flag for us which parts of their submissions they consider to meet this statutory exemption and any other exemption to the public records law, because that does still apply in this case. This is just one additional exemption that the legislature and governor offered in this context. And then there was the third way, which the commission discussed a number of weeks ago, and that is the way that it was handled under the RFA-2 process, which is that the commission in the first instance before it received any submissions went through the application and determined which questions presumptively called for the submission of information or documentation that would be exempt under the public records law. And we just signaled for everyone, those are the areas that we would presumptively withhold upon submission. So that was the way it was done last time. So those are the three options that come to mind at the moment. I think any of them are workable. They all have pros and cons, but I think those are the ones that you might consider. Sats? I have a question about option two, Todd. Thank you, Madam Chair. There's still some sort of legal review on what the applicant would submit, correct? So if, for example, an applicant was too cute by half and redacted the entire application and handed it to us, your team would still go through and check that. We'd have to, yes, with option two, we would still have to spend time going through every application. I guess the benefit right off the bat would be that anything that's not flagged as meeting an exemption could presumptively be released as the applicant is telling us that they don't have particular concerns about it. We would still have to go through the areas that they did flag to see if we agreed with their assessment. And then, of course, it's important just to note, ultimately it's the secretary and to some extent the attorney general that makes the final decision as to a court, as to whether it was all done properly, but we are certainly the first reviewer here. And yes, we would have to spend time going through. So option two takes a little less time than option one, but still more time than option three. Thank you. And we're also balancing, remember, we're balancing interests. We're balancing not just our time and the efforts because that's our job, right? We're balancing their issues around privacy and we're also balancing transparency and the requesters' ability to access these materials. It is really between the two and not just between us and prospective licensee. So we can't forget about the requester. One comment I have on that matter, I would suggest that if the commission does go with the option of having them do the first draft of redactions, is that before we do that, as we roll this out, that I meet with all of them to have a sort of face-to-face or virtual meeting, to have them really understand that the expectation is they are not going to do some kind of blanket review that we are expecting these licensees in good faith to look at the public records law, look at 23N and only redact what is appropriate so that we're not going back and doing all this extra work that is completely unnecessary, especially when we're putting out our best efforts to do this efficiently. And we have other work to get going on in order to launch sports wagering. So they need to cooperate with us in this matter. I like that. Yeah. Does anybody disagree with Director Wells doing that? No, my only thought was, is that something that you stream so everybody can see your conversation or is that so we are totally transparent? Maybe. And there's no confusion as to what was said. Yeah. Maybe this doesn't need to be said, but I just, I need clarification. The redact, under option two, the redaction by applicants or licensees, that is when the commission actually receives a public records request, correct? No, I would expect, correct me if I'm wrong, Todd, for all of them with the application, they also submit a redacted. Okay. Because, and they should also submit with that redacted version, the reasoning behind each redaction. So we have an understanding of that going forward. Is that your understanding as well, Todd? Yeah, I think that's exactly right. Okay, thank you. And we have already gotten a request for, again, as Karen mentioned, the scoping surveys. Scoping surveys, yeah. You know. So there's an opportunity, Karen, to go back to them with this procedure for this, to help things going on, correct? Right. The other option for the commission to consider, because the expectation is that we are going to get public records requests for these, is if we do have these redacted versions, we could just post them on the website. And so that anyone looking for it can just find it and we don't have to deal with the request. That's another option. That is the law. The secretary of state urges us for frequently requested records requests to put the documents right online. So that way, everybody would know what's being redacted. No guesses. It would require so much back and forth for us to understand what is truly a trade secret and also fitting with any other language. So do you need a, I don't think we're voting on that, but you're getting, is there a general consensus to support that arrangement right now? See how that goes? Commissioner Maynard nodding his head. Yeah, that's where I stick to. Okay. With some coaching from Director Wells, Commissioner Skinner, how are you feeling about it? Is that, is that the, you're asking if the consensus is around option two? Yes. Yes. Okay, good. Commissioner Hill, how are you feeling about it? Okay, good. We will need to, in the application, it does reference this. We'll have to work with Mills on an amendment to that. And then we'll also post something on the website about this requirement and we'll meet with the licensees as well. We can talk further whether we do this in a public forum or I meet with them or we record it. So it's recorded, there's a few options there. Let me look into that and we'll get back to you. Okay. So just moving forward on the rest of these, I think we're moving a little more quickly on these. Van Dool in their letter also commented on sections C1 and C5. And I have the application here. If you want to see what that is, I can share my screen. But section C1 deals with employment opportunities within the Commonwealth and section C5 deals with community engagement. And the general gist of their comments were that the legislature did not identify economic development or community engagements or considerations for licensure. And their request is that, particularly for category three license applicants, that section would not be applicable. And we should consider removing sections C1 and C5 out of the application in its entirety. Internally we met, we do believe that it is appropriate and we supported the commission's decision to put that as part of the application consulted with general counsel on that as well. Todd, I'll let you speak to that. But I think that overall the suggestion that we take that out was not encouraged or supported. Any questions on that or anyone feel any differently? No, I certainly do not, I do not feel different. I do not feel differently about this. And I feel very strongly that the C1 and C5 should remain in the application. We talked about this at length and the commission feels strongly about these two issues. And we felt strongly enough that we wanted it in the application. So I would be totally against removing that language at this point. Oh, at any point, Clayton. Thank you, Commissioner Skinner, you were going to chime in? Okay, Commissioner O'Brien. Oh, I said my piece. No, I've exactly what Commissioner Hill said. Okay, yeah. And in fact, we've also heard from Mark today that it's pervasive in terms of going forward beyond our application. Commissioner Skinner? Oh, okay. I'm sorry, technical difficulty over here, Madam Chair. That's okay. I take any facial cue or anything and jump on it. So my apologies, it's just these little boxes that I monitor. All right, then I think Karen, you've heard us on that. I'm just going to say, I agree with Commissioner Skinner's thumb up, even if inadvertent. No, it wasn't inadvertent. I was just trying to remove it. So that's what I get for venturing in the laboratory for the first time. Oh, I didn't see the thumbs up, I didn't see it. Okay. So the next session and the section from the Fando comments with respect to section six, pardon me, G3, Financial Stability and Integrity. And we also met with our Chief of the Financial Investigations Division on this issue. They're indicating additional burdens for those requirements. We went through those with her. Those really are necessary and we would like to keep those included. They're only asking for annual liquidity leverage and profitability ratios. We are asking for them to do that analysis and provide it to us. And then in section D, they're really asking about what is your plan if there had to accommodate a steep downturn in revenues? And if you had it before, how would you deal with it? So that is something we are interested in. So the request from the team is that we keep that in the application. Any other opinion? Okay. And then the last two brief comments from Fando had to do, they listed that as clarification of certain application requirements. The first one they referred to section B4. I would say that generally, the clarification on that question, we're looking for how ready are you to flip the switch? How ready are you to move forward? That's something we could put some kind of comment on the website. We're working with Mills for any public comments and any responses so that everyone gets the same answer. But that may be something if there's an interest in clarification, that's my understanding of what we're looking for. Any thoughts on that or are we in agreement that that might be a helpful way to deal with that? Okay. So that's section B4. And then the last part talks about section G3 again. And they're suggesting it's vague with respect to examples or narratives that substantiate the applicant's understanding of and experience with internal controls. Loretta may be able to elaborate further, but generally we're just looking for a summary of their experience with internal controls. What could be, what do they do for an audit committee? How do they keep the minutes? What do they do for any external controls over their finances? This is limited to financial stability and integrity. So we were thinking the question was fine. But I don't know Loretta, if you have any other comments based on that discussion we had with Monica. Yeah, no, and that's pretty much what Monica communicated yesterday that these types of responses we're looking for are things that companies of this nature are likely to have dealt with in terms of their financial reporting and their corporate governance. So we're really just looking for some summary information on compliance structure, audit structure and governance structure. So thank you, Director Lilius. So Karen, what would be the next steps? This would be if there's a consensus, you might, we would amend the application a bit. No, I don't know if we need to amend the application. Probably the simplest thing, if you're amenable, this may be another item where we just put some clarification on the website. So we can have a section where we deal with certain matters and we put the sort of answers to questions as opposed to amending the application. Because I think that could get confusing but just giving some answers. And I can have Loretta and Monica put together just an answer to this question for more clarification. Questions for Karen, because I have one more but just wondered if you might have any. So remind me, Karen, at some point I think our reg imagines that holding a meeting or some kind of bringing together of prospective applicants. Is that right? It's at the juncture of application filing where you would come together or is it before the competitive process? I'll defer to Todd on that one. I'm not sure. Where we allow, we could allow the staff to answer questions or help out. Yeah, so that's absolutely right. It's in 218, which we'll be looking at later on in the meeting. It talks about convening a consultation meeting or coming up with other methods to really give guidance on the application procedures itself. So yes, there is that element is built into the race. So we've given the opportunity to do it to public comment and we receive these two. Should we be thinking about commissioners giving, I'm gonna turn to 218 shortly, giving Karen a green light to bring staff together so that they could meet to sort of air these kinds of clarifying questions. What do you think? If I'm understanding that reg provision correctly. What do you think commissioners? Everybody seems to, Commissioner O'Brien? Well, maybe we have the 218 conversation. Maybe we put a pin in that, have the 218 and circle back before the meeting's over. Yeah, I don't see it's an issue, probably is, but just so that everybody's on the same page after 218. Okay. All right, Karen. So that will be helpful too, as well as good messaging through Mills and Dave. Right. All right. Okay. So thank you to Fando. Yeah, thanks. Because that Penn Entertainment also submitted some comments. These, I had an exchange with North this morning. These are more clarification. So these are a little simpler to deal with. So I'll just run through these. I don't think any of these required some kind of change to the application itself. There may be a few of these that maybe we wanna post something on the website similar to a couple of those items that Fando had flag, but I'll run through these. And a big thank you to Penn National for doing a cheat sheet at the beginning of their comments, which made things a lot easier. So I do appreciate it when applicants do things that make it easier for the regulator. So I wanted to thank them for that. So just running through these quickly. On the item completing the application, they're recommending applicants have additional 30 days to provide additional information if requested. That matters being handled by regulation confirmed with counselor Grossman on that. So I don't think there's any need for any change there. The second item was electronic application format. You know, there are some questions about recommending applicants to make only one signed application form. This is a matter where we may wanna put something on the website. What we're ultimately looking for is a signed and document submitted in a searchable PDF document. So we want to be able to have everything signed so that it's all attested to properly, but we've got to be able to search it. We can't be getting documents in that are not searchable. It's gonna make life very difficult on the backend. So we could put some kind of clarification out on that to make it easier for the applicants. When I run through these, we can go back for any comments and make it easier. The other question they were asking, committing applicants to submit both a redacted and unredacted table of calculations for a certain part of the application. Given our prior discussion about a full redaction that they were gonna be asking them to do that now is subsumed by that other policy matter that the commission already opined on. So I think that one's all set. It wasn't asked about existing NDA with the commission. If that information in the application can be covered by the NDA, the answer to that is no, I can just get back to Penn Entertainment about that question. The next one, there is seeking information about the parent company that applicants with the same parent company may cross-reference information in each other's application. Generally, I think the response to that, the application, it's up to the applicant to present relevant information. We really don't want to get into a back and forth about how that works. If it seems to the applicant that they have relevant information that relates to a parent company, they should go ahead and submit it. The next item with respect to B3, the description of the sports wage rate platform for item B3, little b, really we're just looking for an overview of a summary of their operations. I don't know if you want to, and at any point, let me know if you want to see the question itself. But I think we could either put something on the website or it could just get back to Penn Entertainment. But generally, we're just looking for a summary for little b, and then for little e, B3, little e, really we're looking just for who are you connected with. The question is, let's say B3, little e, current integration for sports wage or any experience in their platform, the current integration in use with other wagering operators. So we'd like to know if you're connected with another operator, we just want to know that. So I think that's self-evident. I can confirm that with Penn Entertainment. The next item is under B4, sports wagering expertise. That's the same question that Bando flagged and that's the basic answer to the question or the question is how ready are you to flip the switch? So given that we're posting that on the website, I think that makes sense. That'll answer Penn Entertainment's question as well. The next item is again C1, which it's Bando reference. These are employment opportunities within the Commonwealth, although they had sort of a different approach. They're basically seeking confirmation as to the extent of information that we would be provided. I think for that particular question, we discussed this internally. We're looking for the information about new jobs as a result of the license. We're not necessarily looking about jobs that you already have someone in another state or another jurisdiction is doing work with respect to Massachusetts. This is about job creation and the benefit to the Commonwealth. So that's really what we're looking for. That may be something to put on the website if you want or it can just get back to Penn Entertainment. Is there any feedback on that or are we in an agreement with the understanding that we're really trying to understand how is this going to benefit the Commonwealth for jobs? Okay, so maybe I would just add Karen that any time we can put something on the website for clarification, we should, you know. Jobs as a result. Okay. Thank you. The other question they had with respect to C2, projected revenue. You know, they have this recommendation of the commission requiring a description of the good faith efforts to maximize revenue to the Commonwealth. Internally, we met on this question. The consensus of the group was to just keep it the way it is. It is self-explanatory. It doesn't need the qualifier of the good faith effort. It is what it is. So this is, and if you wanted to share my screen, anyone, please let me know. But this is C2F, which says description of methods to ensure that revenues are maximized within the Commonwealth. I don't know if we need to add good faith, but because it is what it is there. Does anyone think we need to adjust that? Oh, Kathy, I'm muted. I think we're okay. Okay. All right. The next item is D2. It's scrolling on my screen here. And this is under the diversity, equity, and inclusion. They're asking about basically their spend beyond necessarily what's in Massachusetts is my understanding within their corporate governance and their corporate commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion. Our response to that was they're certainly free to add that and that may be weighed. So I don't know if we need to add anything here, but we would be open to receiving that information. But this question does talk about this particular license. Any questions on that? I have a question. When you looked at it yesterday, because I'm trying to remember exactly how the application broke down, do you think that Penn National is viewing that category narrowly to spend alone? Or they're very familiar with, of course, with hiring goals and spend, but are they also thinking about the broader implications we have with respect to diversity and partnering and all of that? I just wanna make sure that an answer on this might not suggest too narrow of an interpretation of that section. Right. I mean, the comment says, as many mobile sports wagering offers implement supplier, diversity, equity, and inclusion goals on a national scale, Penn recommends adding clarity section D2 to ensure the commission receives all relevant information in response to this requirement. So I think what they're saying is, and Derek may be able to help me out with this, they're asking, is this not limited to Massachusetts? Can we include information that goes beyond Massachusetts? And I think the answer was, yes, you're free to add that it may be weighed because it's outside of Massachusetts. Just on spend. Anything on that? Yeah. All right. Now you captured our conversation from yesterday, Karen. We did not limit, we did not say just Massachusetts, minority women, veteran businesses, or your goals. We said, if you're adding something, then that's probably gonna add to your, especially if you do it on a national level, then it's gonna add to your capacity at a national level and you should reflect that in the discussion. But this is all part of writing a good narrative and the better responses will encapsulate that and those that didn't think, but the question is wide open. So I would suggest that you write it to get the maximum benefit and show all the good things you're doing. All right, so just to my question, they really were just asking in that particular section just about their spend and they're proud of their national goals to get it. But they don't see that just being the sole piece under diversity. Fair, okay, excellent. Thank you. And then some of these questions have a similar clarification request. So under E2 Advertising and Promotional Plans, just overall they're indicating that some of this may not apply to certain categories of operators and in any event, and we may wanna clarify that on the website. If there is a question and they don't have any applicable information, they can just respond not applicable to this application and they can just do that. I don't think we need to change our form to say if applicable, we can just indicate something is not applicable, just indicate that on the application itself. And they can use, any applicant can use their best judgment. For example, these advertising plans, one of the questions was advertising plans, can they reference an advertising plan for another type of gaming but say how it could be used in sports wagering? Of course you can, that's what Derek's talking about in drafting a good application and presenting their best information for the commission to consider. So I can add something on the website about if not applicable, please indicate. And I think that should cover these questions. So we've got that, and they also have that for F2, the Know Your Customer, F and F3, Technical Expertise and Reliability, an F1 overall. And then there was F1D, this didn't end up making it to the spreadsheet. This question was, how will the applicant report the information received from the system to the commission? And then they're at the added or how did the commission otherwise have access to the information? They can just enter how the applicant will report the information received from the system to the commission if there is another access grant either by, for example, GeoCoupleye or something like that. They can just submit that on the application. I think that even they were the only ones that asked that question, I can speak to them directly on that. And then the last item was under G2, suitability, individual qualifier integrity and Loretta is on this as well. Our understanding on that was that the Investigations and Enforcement Bureau will let them know who would need to be qualified under the scoping process. So they'll be informed about that. This may be mixing the occupational licensure with the operator licensure. I don't know Loretta if you had a comment on that but I think the scoping process we should take care of this question. I think so in the instance that there is a key executive who is licensed for the property and that person has also been elevated to a qualifier status for purposes of the sports wagering operator license. We would not ask for a new submission of the multi-jurisdictional form. I don't think that's going to happen but if they submitted the same form and they've been subject to ongoing suitability we wouldn't ask them to resubmit the form now. But I do think there's some mixing with the occupational piece. Bottom line, we won't be asking the same people to submit the same information if they've submitted it for another type of licensure qualification before. Does that help? Okay, so that's the general summary and I do know that North is listening to this meeting so I can connect with them if there's any further questions but those are the comments received on the application so I actually think we're in very good shape. We can put some clarifiers on the website. We can put out this request for redacted version to address the public records you press but otherwise I think we are all set. Anything else on that? And we thank both entities for their comments. Correct, commissioners? Yep, very thoughtful. Then the next item on the agenda, Madam Chair and commissioners is divisional updates. You've already heard from Mark that he is working on the studies and going forward with that. He's also been working with, he's gonna be working with GLI on integrating responsible gaming measures into the regulations and requirements. I'll start with Loretta just to give an update on what's going on with the IED and then I'll turn it over to Todd for just an update with the legal. Sure, thanks. Thanks, Karen. I did want to update on the status of the scoping for the operator surveys that were submitted by the 17th. So we received 24 of the online operator scoping survey responses and the licensing division has reviewed all of them. And the team with the help of a couple IED team members has scoped all of them. In some instances we did have to reach out to the operators for some clarifications and wanna thank them for making themselves available and shedding light on some areas. So the scoping process has identified the individuals and entities that have to submit to the qualification process for each operator and the licensing division will be sending the designation letters to the operators by tomorrow. They'll be sent by email from our licensing chief, Kara O'Brien. And in the email I'd like to go through because I know people are listening, I'd like to go through what she will be identifying. She will identify the individuals and entities and she will identify each of the forms that the different qualifiers have to fill out and the forms will be attached to her email. We'll also make sure that all of the forms are on the website. The entities will be required to fill out the business entity disclosure form. The individuals will be required to fill out the multi-jurisdictional personal history disclosure form. If the individual has submitted that form to another regulator within the past year we will accept that form from them. They don't have to fill out a new one if it's dated within the past year. Individuals also have to fill out the Massachusetts supplemental form. There also is a certification regarding suitability that the commission has discussed in the past and that will be codified in a regulation that appears before you today. There's also a certification regarding the payment to federal and state taxes. There is an institutional investor waiver form if any of the entities that have been designated with certain ownership interests, if they qualify as institutional investors the applicants can ask for a waiver. Kara's email also gives supplemental instructions to two questions on the BED, questions number 27 and 30B. So we'd ask for the applicants to pay close attention to that as well. And of course these are all in addition to the general application form which was just discussed. The email will talk about how to submit the application via a secure website and directs that the application be submitted in one packet, not piecemeal. That is our usual practice and we have found that that overall leads to efficiencies. Kara's email will give instructions on fingerprint cards. If folks need fingerprint cards, it'll tell them how to request them. And she'll also give instructions on how to submit the non-refundable $200,000 fee. The deadline for the submissions is November 21st. We do invite applicants to submit earlier if they're completed because we will be performing the completeness reviews and transmitting the applications for preliminary investigation on a rolling basis. So if you have them, there's no reason from our perspective not to submit them earlier. There is also a directive from Kara on the email regarding vendors. We've been getting lots of inquiries from vendors. So I want to address the vendor situation at this point. Kara's email asks the operators to identify the vendors that they will need to go live. The three casinos have already identified their vendors. They do not have to repeat that. We need this information from the category three online operators as well. This is the first step in the vendor process because we want to focus our resources on vendors that will actually be doing business with the operators rather than vendors that just might want to do business with the operators. After we get these lists from the various operators, the licensing division will contact the vendors with further instructions and details on this process. It will involve the scoping survey. Many of the vendors have submitted the scoping survey already for those who have not, licensing division will be in touch with them about doing it. The regulation on vendors that was promulgated and has been filed with the secretary's office does allow for a process that will accommodate the launch dates anticipated by the commission. So our further communication with the vendors will be in line with those dates. And I can update more next week on that vendor process. But just generally we're here to support all the parties to the process. And the licensing division is working very hard to continue to identify how to support each constituency. So I hope this helps clarify where we're at on the scoping of the mobile operators and starting to kick off the vendor process. Loretta, are the applicants informed in writing about submitting either BED or the multi-jurisdictional from another jurisdiction within the last year that that will be acceptable? I can't remember. I do review the communication. I'll connect with Kara right after. I think she's watching. So if it's not, we'll make sure that it is. Okay, all right. I'd just like to comment that I really want to compliment Director Lilios and her whole team. These scoping surveys were just received last week and they just went through all of them and they have all the materials ready to go. That is an astronomical feat and they are doing a tremendous, tremendous job. I could not be more impressed by Loretta and her whole team not only the organization, but the execution. So that's incredible Loretta. So really that's- Karen, thank you so much. I really appreciate that. And I really want to give kudos to Dave McKay, to Kara, to Heather and to Monica because they just, they cranked it out. So- Yep, they really did. I think. Very impressive. Phenomenal job to all. Phenomenal job to all Loretta. And with Kara just joining the team, her experience has really, is carrying her through nicely. Director Lilios, so she knew she had a big first step. Absolutely. Yeah, so thank you to Chief O'Brien. I'll turn it over to Todd, although you'll see from the agenda that in the multitude of regulations that are before you today and they're coming down the pike, that in addition, the legal team is also doing astronomical work and keeping on target and on plan hairs. But I'll turn it over to Todd if there's any other additional updates or what's coming down the pike for the commission. Madam Chair. Before we go to Todd, I want to personally say thank you to Loretta and her team. I know this was a very, very big ask that came from the commission. And I can't tell you how impressed I have been seeing the work that's gone on over the last week. I do stop in and say hello whenever possible when I'm in and they have been busy as beavers. And I just want you to know how appreciative we all are at what is going on. We know it's a big ask. Thanks, Commissioner, thank you. I'm just so impressed and I couldn't go forward without saying thank you. Thank you. Well, we know we have to sustain this for several months ahead. So I don't want to get too ahead of ourselves, but, you know, Understood. So, you know, we're still we're hoping we didn't peak. We do. We know we didn't peak. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. And Commissioner Skinner and Commissioner Maynard and Commissioner O'Brien, I know that you join all of us and in congratulating the good work, but it's it's great that it has served as the tool that we kind of imagined for by being right in this way. Director Wells and Director Lillioso. And I think that the what you've accomplished was was exceeded our expectations, but I bet it's a great feeling for your entire team. So thank you. And I think really clear delivery. Everyone's on notice with Director Lillioso. And of course, this is recorded so they can go back and listen to our comments today, too. All right.  Yeah, I know this might be a good entree into the coming topics, although I don't want to get ahead of ourselves here. But yeah, so, of course, our focus continues to be on the regulations. It appears to me that the trains are running on schedule. We're continuing to gain steam here. The framework is continuing to take shape. The application regulation, of course, has been approved by the commission. We're going to be momentarily looking at the evaluation process for that application for the award of the licenses. That's obviously a huge step forward. The licensing framework itself you'll be looking at shortly as well. That's a critical piece of the process, including things like temporary licensure, suitability, the conditions and the fees associated with the awards of the licenses. So that will start, the review of that will begin today. In the near future, the tech standards are starting to take shape. You'll help drafts before you in relatively short order. Those will be in the pipeline, including things like the review of GLI 33, the change order program, the approval of certain technology and all of those regs are coming your way shortly. In the near future, following behind that again are the internal control standards. You'll start to take a look at those regulations. And then ultimately, of course, the sports wagering centric regulations will be coming your way as well. But as of right now, we're running on schedule as we head home. So that's just by way of updates and Madam Chair and commissioners, if and when you're ready, we can jump into the actual regulations. So Katrina is unavailable today. So I'll have her give an update on IT when she is available at the next meeting. And then I know Derek's giving, he's on the agenda later about the project manager update. So kudos to the whole finance department working with other folks within the agency, tremendous job on that. And he had given an update on some of the workings and the finance division. They're really on top of everything there. So I don't know if there's any additional updates, Derek, if you want to chime in if there's additional updates, but I think that your team is all set, correct? Yeah, the team is churning away and allowing me to be present on all these meetings. So it's very good that I got a great team behind me. And as you'll see, we've got our three regs, basically four year consideration out there. You know, we had the first one that came out on taxation. Now we have the assessment, as well as the fees for the application. And we're done with our regs after this, working on setting up all the appropriations, setting up all the revenue sources, bank accounts that'll be needed when the money starts to come in. And that is a large coordination between Doug and John and their teams with the comptroller's office and the treasurer's office. So all that will be ready when the first money comes in. And then we're working on allocated amounts and overhead rates to put onto the direct bills that will be coming out. So that will be coming at a future meeting. Thank you. Thank you, Derek. So that concludes the sports measuring process updates. There'll be any other questions, but otherwise I just want to say thank you to the entire MVC team and the tremendous work they're doing right now. Excellent. Any questions for any member of the team that presented? Or for Director Wells, of course. Hey, commissioners, do you need to take a break before we start with the regulatory practice? Because I think lunch will be a little bit later. Carrie, if you don't mind, we'll reconvene then at noon. Commissioners, does that sound good? A short break right now. Okay, thank you, everyone. I think, Dave, we can take down the screen. Thank you. All right, I'll set it up. I'll set it up. Thank you so much, Dave. All right, we're going to turn now to my screen again. Turn to legal. Morning again. Good afternoon now, John. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and commissioners. So you have in your packet today a set of six draft regulations that we've been referring to as the sports wagering operator licensing framework regulations. We'll get to 218 as well, but you'll see the section five sort of split into a few sections, but of course, feel free to sort of take the discussion on these as you'd like. This set under A includes 205-CMR 212, which relates to additional information that may be requested of applicants by the commission and the continuing duty of applicants and qualifiers to provide certain information to the commission. It includes 214, which relates to application and investigation fees. 215, which relates to suitability, determination, standards and procedures. 219, which relates to temporary licensing procedures. 220, which relates to licensed conditions. And 221, which relates to licensing fees. So I'm gonna turn it over to Meena Macarius and Paul Commoners from Anderson and Krieger to walk through these in a bit more detail for us today. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Meena. Good afternoon, Paul. Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Thank you for having us. And I just want to start the outset and say as we did last time, excuse me, can everybody hear me? My camera seems to be lagged, okay. That this is like last time a joint effort of the in-house legal team, the ANK team in large parts, as a lot of this has to do with suitability, the IEB. So not only was the IEB busy scoping and doing all that work, they were also helping with these regs. So very much appreciated that and the finance folks as well with respect, as you heard Derek say it a few moments ago. So what we were hoping to do is just a roll call quick because we're using the virtual. I couldn't hear you Madam Chair. What'd you say? Could you do a quick roll call because we're using the virtual? Oh, okay. Sure, yeah. No, I'm here. Mr. Hill. Here. Mr. Skinner. I'm here. Mr. Maynard, my apologies. But thank you for the prompt. I'm here. All right. Thank you and Meena and you are here still. Thank you so much. I'm still here. Yeah, no problem. Thank you. No, that's, I appreciate that. So the, I think the way we want to just go through these today, there are, as Kerry pointed out, six different regs, but this is, I think it makes sense to talk about them collectively first sort of how they all fit together. And then Paul commoners and I will take, split these up essentially to talk in a little bit more detail about each. And I think it'd be ideal if we could get through the, at least the first overall piece and then take questions by Reagan. Obviously Todd, Kerry, Loretta and Karen and others may have input as well, but we'll sort of try to guide you through it. Meena. Yes. Can I ask that once we get into the regulations individually that you capture in your discussion the difference, the substantive differences between the 100 series regulations and these 200 series, thank you. No, absolutely. And actually, Commissioner Skinner, I'll be doing some of that in the overview as well, because I think that's key to how we thought about these and how they're set up. So as we've discussed in the past, the overall framework here is intended to mirror largely the RFA to process under the 100 series under which the commission relied on full and complete applications from applicants and cooperation from applicants in order to be able to determine which applicants were best suited to receive gaming licenses under 23K. The biggest distinction as we've talked about in the past is that here you have a suitability process folded into the determination process as opposed to a standalone RFA one process. And the other two big distinctions are obviously time. You have, are doing this on a different timeline and that there are distinctions and categories that were not present between the tethered and untethered, the category one and two, et cetera, as well as a need to reflect the statutory language regarding temporary licensing and makes sense of that. And so we'll move on. Under 23K, suitability was required as a first step. Correct, yeah. So that is the big distinction. So suitability is folded into here as opposed to not. So that's where you have your biggest distinction. Not time so much. It's suitability was the requirement for 23K at the very beginning. Correct, right, correct. So the regs proceed and Carrie gave the very, the titles for it, they start off with 212. 212 probably mirrors the 100 series most closely. Commissioner Skinner 212 is intended to set this stage for the level of cooperation needed, the requirement that there'd be complete applications, that there'd be responses to information, et cetera. This is sort of a standard. We had considered actually just amending the 112 regulation, but it felt important enough as part of the licensing process to put here. And there are a couple of, it was less cumbersome than constantly referring to 23 and within 112, which has obviously do with gaming. That proceeds next with 214. The order doesn't necessarily reflect the chronology, obviously, but 214 is the application fee and mirrors 114. We'll get into more detail about exactly how it works, but it describes the application fees required under section 7A of 23N. It also has a similar process as under the 100 series to require covering the application fees, application costs, excuse me, to review applications by the commission and actually refers back to the 100 series regs in terms of some of the way those costs are tracked, accounted for, et cetera, so that there isn't an invention of a holding process for that. 215, you'll hear quite a bit about today, is a suitability portion. So in some ways that mirrors the entirety, as the chair just mentioned of the RFA-1 process. However, it sets up a couple of different things. And when we get to this, Paul will describe in more detail, but it accounts for the two forms of suitability review that may be conducted here, preliminary suitability review, as well as the later full suitability, or durable suitability review, and ties closely to the temporary licensing process, as well as a licensing process for different categories. I wanna touch on, you've heard a lot and talked a lot about 218, that's integral to this whole package, and that's coming back before you, although not as a new reg, but with the revisions. That is a licensing process framework, how you'll review, how you'll select among applicants, in the case of on tether category three, et cetera. Then we get to 219. 219 doesn't really have an analog in the 100 series reg, it is where we address the connection to temporary licensing. As we talked about last time in the context of 218, the way that the temporary licensing process is carried out here is as using the language in section six of the statute as currently written to provide a way to allow for licensure pending completion of the remainder of suitability review, essentially a provisional licensure pending that completion of review. And so that's, and again, when we get into the details of it, you'll see a little bit more about how those two fit together, but that's the key to it. 220 also came up in our discussion of 218. That is the conditions of licensure in mirrors 120. The big distinction between the 100 series and the 200 series is that in the 100 series, a lot of the conditions came from external processes or sort of statutorily mandate process, such as host community agreements, surrounding community agreements, impacted live entertainment venues, the MEPA process for physical building of facilities, et cetera. Some of those things may still have some relevance with respect to the physical licensure. On the whole, though, most of the conditions here are likely to reflect issues that come up during licensing and especially in the development of other rules and regulations. The key condition that's captured in 220, and this came up a couple of times, I think last time, is that licensure does not permit operation immediately. Licensure is a first step to operation followed by an operation certificate, which is what that will then determine when applicants can go live. That allows for a few things, obviously the testing and checking of equipment and methods, ensuring that everything is done appropriately. It also allows for the management of a uniform go live date, if that is where the commission continues to be for particular categories. So the operation certificate is very important. The certificate itself is not covered under 220 or what's gonna go in the certificate. I mentioned it just so you know this, it's not in front of you. The proposed sort of the thought right now is that will be section 251, mirroring 151 for the operation certificate. The bones of that are developed. Part of the reason it's not part of this set is we want to get a little bit further along in the development of the operational regs or on technology and safety and security, et cetera, to have a better idea of what should be reflected in the operation certificate regs or not before bringing that to you. So that's just something to keep in mind why it's not here. And then finally, 221 is the application, excuse me, the licensing fee, which mirrors 121. And just like 121, it largely restates the statutory fees, in this case giving meaning to how the $1 million temporary license fee coordinates with the $5 million fee as well and reflects back a bit to the hundred series of how that's paid, et cetera. So that again, mechanically there are distinctions and that one again, appreciative of finances, help in drafting and reviewing that. So that's the broad overview. Any questions I guess at this level or would we do want to just proceed or any other things Todd or Lorette or anybody else want to add? All right. In that case, I believe I will take the first one here or the first two if I'm not mistaken, Paul. Yeah. So let's go through 212 and 214. That's on our page. 71 of your packet is where 212 starts, I believe. Anybody else have that? Okay. So as I mentioned, 212 largely mirrors 112. It is intended to state explicitly the requirements of applicants, licensees, qualifiers, and this is broader than just the operator license, all of employee licensees, vendor licensees, et cetera. Their duties to cooperate and or provide additional information to the commission. I don't want to dwell too far too long on this one, but essentially it puts everyone on notice that there may be requests for additional information from the commission, not just during the licensing process, but to clarify issues that come up for once operator is operating. It importantly, 212.04 in front of you on page 71 provides a continuing duty of notification, especially for anything that might affect suitability that's consistent with gaming and very important for the IAB's ability to ensure that suitability is maintained, not just achieved at the outset. That's followed up in 05 with particulars of things that have to be reported. Those come directly from the regulations, I believe 112 and 115 of what has to be reported to the commission, including suspensions or revocations from other jurisdictions, arrests of qualifiers, complaints, et cetera. So the whole list is carried there. That's what that list of 5A through N, excuse me, are meant to carry over from the 100 series. Can I just ask you, when we talk about timeliness of the response through this, right? Is it business days or calendar days? I believe unless it's 10, so normally I would think it would be calendar, but I just wanna make sure there's no, I believe it's calendar. The reason I am just pausing for a second is I do recall that somewhere in the 100 series regs, the commission has a construction provision and I believe that unless it's otherwise stated it's calendar days, but I would have to just confirm that. And then is that the 200 or do we need to say that in the 200s? That should carry over. One of the things I know we've talked about with Kerry is some portions of, we're also going through the hundreds to make updates. That will probably be one for the construction piece that would have to be updated just to make sure it carries over to all regs in 205CMR generally. As you know, we're also updating, we're also creating a 202, which carries definitions and would also have some of these. So if necessary, we could do that as well. Okay, thanks. I don't know if you were gonna jump in there too on that piece, but. No, I think that's fine. I believe it's under seven days as business days, over seven as calendar days, but we will make sure that's fine. And then the remainder of 212, 212.6 is essentially what happens if you don't do these things. And that again follows the 112. It provides for enforcement mechanisms by the commission. And this is, although the requests or the asks might be coming from a commission employee or bureau, et cetera, the ultimate enforcement comes from the commission in line with other conversations we've had on this topic. So that's really it for 12, as I said, pretty straightforward. And hopefully, I think it gives you the framework and you just, for that enforcement, please. Questions, commissioners? You know, I have one nitpicky thing that might result in an edit. It's the paragraph five, I. Should we add for cause after the word termination since any separation from an employer, even if it's just a retirement or resignation is considered a termination. So what we care about are terminations for cause. So it might make sense to add that after termination. Do we? Is that right? And you, can you show it again, commissioner? It's five I. Sorry. It's at the- It's in the list of things that applicants are required to perform. And that's just been my understanding of the concept of termination. I could be wrong about that. I wouldn't mind- We have HR folks on to weigh in. Rebecca, Lily, I might have time. I can jump in. So, commissioner Skinner, you're exactly right that the for cause aspect of the termination holds certain significance on the employee licensing aspect. So you're exactly right about that. We do like to know about all- Qualifiers. All separations of qualifiers because that can involve a de-designation. We also like to know about all separations of employees because that can lead to deactivating the license. The reason the for cause, the, you know, any malfeasance is a follow-up that we do. I do think this tracks the gaming reg in this regard. We've been finding it workable. So it's my proposal, you know, I did review it. It's my proposal as well to maintain the language as it is, but you're exactly right that the for cause piece is a significant piece that the licensing division follows up with through the practices in communication with the properties and the operators. Yeah. So thank you for that clarification. Thank you. My other question is to paragraph 5K and it is just what is the significance and maybe Director Lillios can answer this one too. What's the significance of the $250,000 number there? I guess why do we start at $250,000 and not something lower? Sure. Commissioner Skinner, I'll acknowledge that the thing guiding my or our inclusion in it is for consistency with gaming. Commissioner Lillios, I don't know if you recall why the number was set at 250 in the hundred regs, Director Lillios, excuse me, it may have come from also following other jurisdictions at the time, but I don't particularly recall in 2012, 13 when we did this stuff. Just curious. Yeah, me too. Yeah, I'm not entirely sure it may also have to do with SEC reporting is what I suspect. I know we knew at one point, but I can't recall now it's something we could look into and try to get back. And it's been so many years later, so it might be worth looking into, right? So, Todd, were you gonna chime in? Are you thinking you have a recollection, Todd? She's trying to do some quick research. I think Loretta is absolutely right. I think there is significance under the SEC rules of that figure, but I can't say different. If we could confirm, that would be my guess too, probably in its day that it hasn't changed as it shifted. Maybe this, then we could shift over and update it. Unless Paul, are you chiming in? No, okay. Any other questions on this one? Well, just on Commissioner Skinner's earlier point, I think it's fair that she wanted to insert for cause given that it says, or other discipline. So what I'm hearing is that we always wanna know about terminations, whether or not their discipline related or not generally. So the word other is a little bit of a flag for you, Commissioner Skinner, so. Yeah, that's what I heard too, particularly with respect to the qualifiers, which I wasn't thinking about. Yeah, I know we wanna hear if they're terminated, but I understand why you wanted to insert for cause there. Give me, thanks. Okay, moving forward. 214. Okay, thank you. So 214, as I mentioned, is the process for receiving application fees and for additional fees for investigations. Much like 114, it starts by reciting essentially what's in the statute for application fees, which is a $200,000. It makes clear that that application fee is non-refundable. Then the rest of 01 again mirrors the 100 series, except of course that the fees going to the sports wager and control fund. Just one note in case other very keen eyes to pick this up. The sports wager control fund is actually established in Chapter 23N, Section 15. There is a missed reference in the legislation itself where it refers to it as being in Section 14. So if there's some confusion of why it says 15, sometimes in 14, it's actually established in 15 and that was a mistake or typo in the legislation. The additional fees for investigations, there is just again a laying out of a process. And I will note, we continue to have a slight formatting issue that keeps popping up between word versions and we're working to fix it. That six at the beginning of 214.02 will become a one and so on, but the process here is to ensure that this is a self-funded process, just like with gaming, meaning funded by the industry. The actual methods for establishing costs of the commission here and the sort of schedule of costs actually is exactly the same as 114 before both the bureau and finance were comfortable with this approach. And again, otherwise it reflects the process in the hundred series of under gaming. So any questions on that before I turn it over to Paul for to begin the 15 series? Any questions? How's that then? All right, thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners. 205CMR 215 merges 115 and 116 from the 115 hundred series, which are suitability determinations and scoping and determination of who's a qualifier. So I'll start with the, with 2501, which is suitability determinations and then move on to 2502, which is qualifiers. So you'll see at the start, there are two subsections that deal with different standards. Pardon me. Please skip ahead to packet page 81. There were a few amendments following conversations with the IDB to the version of 215 originally placed in the packet. And I'll be working off of the updated red-lined version of the regulation. I'll just go back Paul. All right. Is everyone with me on the red line? Yeah. So a durable finding of suitability under 2501.1 supports the award of a full license. The process, the considerations, the standard of the showing that has to be made by the applicant all track 115 quite closely. There are some tweaks to the language to account for items that are in 23K that are not in 23N. So for example, the language about the nature of the bureau's investigation is somewhat simplified because there were specific statutory factors under 23K that the bureau had to investigate that are not present here. But the structure and the standard of review, the evidence under consideration is all the same. A preliminary finding of suitability under 2501.2 can support the issuance of a temporary license. This is a somewhat narrower set of evidence but the same set of considerations. So this contemplates that the commission's decision would be based primarily on certifications of suitability, sorry, attestations of suitability by the applicant and the qualifier described in subsection A. And an investigation by the IEB covering key materials such as the self-disclosed licensing history, a self-disclosed open litigation and an open source check, which is covered in 215.02B. This does not exclude the commission from considering, this does not exclude the IEB from reporting or the commission from considering other matter that conceivably could come to your attention during this process, but it permits the commission to make a suitability determination sufficient to support a temporary license award on the basis of this more limited review. I'll pause there. Can I go check in with Director Wells and Director Lillian? So are you satisfied with that, Director Wells? Now the only thing I'm looking at, and so we're looking at, I'm just making sure I'm on the same page you are. So it's on page 2501.2, correct, this preliminary finding? Yes. I'm just wondering. Page 82, are you looking at page 81? 76, so it says here, notwithstanding any provision, the commission installed the scratch may determine in accordance that an applicant or qualifier is suitable in accordance with 02, if of a, I'm just wondering if there should be some qualification that applicant or qualifier is, maybe it's something to the effect of preliminarily suitable as opposed to a final finding. So that's what I hear you saying. I don't know if we could add that word just to make it clear because they're not having a full determination of suitability until all these investigations are done. I'm happy to do that. I will also say that the, I think the only other cross-reference to this section is in the provision providing for temporary license awards in two 1807, which refers specifically to what the commission can do if it makes a suitability finding in accordance with 011 and what the commission can do if it makes a suitability finding in accordance with 012. Okay. I haven't carried those words over because I, in part because we hadn't put 215 before the commission yet. We wanted to make sure that the structure and the word choice worked for everyone. But we can definitely carry those through into more places where they're permanent. Great. I'm not clear on where Karen just read from in the regulation. I can share my screen. I'll just show you. All right. It's a scare on two. Can you stop? Hold on. I'm not showing the right screen. Hold on. In the middle of a number of a very dense series of cross-references. I'm looking right here. So this is 215. And it's just because it says in the heading, preliminary finding of suitability. So I think it's all set, but just in an abundance of caution. They may determine an applicant or qualify. It's right here. What says is suitable. I would suggest the old version. This is not the updated version. Right. But it isn't changed. But page. The reference is still the same. 81. Yeah. But I think it allows for a full suitability review, but with the exception that the commission may. Provide for. A suitability review. That's just based on the attestation. Right. Am I reading that wrong? Yeah. I think that with the attestations, they are preliminarily suitable. They are not fully suitable just based on attestations. I think that's my only point, which I think is the intent. But can you make your screen bigger? Yeah. Hold on. And then just tell us again, how you're proposing to change that language. Here. It's section two. So. Right here where it's, I don't know if you can see my cursor. Applicant or qualifier instead of saying is suitable in accordance with this. I would just say is preliminarily suitable. So there's no question. Aligned with the heading. Right. Exactly. Exactly. Okay. And we're happy to carry the word preliminary. We're preliminarily through where it's relevant. And Paul, that is the language that we used in the other, right? It's consistent. In 218. I guess it's like, don't quote me on numbers.  I can carry the word preliminary through there as well. 218 currently says refers to suitability. In accordance with this subsection. You can take that screen. Yeah. I'm trying to figure out how to take the screen down. I'm not seeing them. Not sharing your emails with us. Right. Exactly. Sorry, I don't. Pardon me. Findings of suitability in accordance with the subsection. So the meaning is there. If it would clarify matters to carry the word preliminary or preliminarily through. We can certainly do that. Yeah. I think because I asked that question when we talked about 2018 the last time and the answer we got was, Oh, when you see the other 200s, it'll be clear. But the fact that we're still asking the question. I don't know. I don't know why it's not showing up. I don't know where it is. So I'm going to, I'm going to keep. Is there anything else on preliminary? Yeah. Oh, it's behind me. All right. I don't know why it's not showing up. I don't know where it is. So I'm going to, I'm going to keep. Is there anything else on preliminary? Oh, it's behind me. We're just having a technical issue. If you bear with us. Yes. Of course. And then I just want to check in. Thank you. Loretta. And Loretta, did you have anything on that? You also. I like the insertion of the word preliminarily. I do think that the. That concept is captured in the existing regulation, but it drives it home. What we're doing on that point. And that's important to me and my team as well. So I like the idea of inserting the word. Okay. Excellent. All right. Anyone else? Yeah. Loretta, did you have anything on that? Okay. Excellent. All right. Anyone else commissioners. Moving on to subsection three. This is the considerations laid out here. Are. Consistent with what was in 115. And subsection five. Two 15. Oh, oh, one for is based on the grounds for denial or rep suspension or revocation of a license laid out in section nine of chapter 23N. And subsection five simply explains that the process used for suitability determinations under. For sports wagering is going to be consistent with the process that we're going to be doing. So. Consistent, not precisely the same because again, there are odds and ends mandated by chapter 23K that don't apply for chapter 23N. So I feel like there's a catch all. In 23K. That I just, I'm not seeing here. I'm pulling up Loretta or somebody might know what I'm talking about. I'm going back to the wind hearings and I'm thinking about qualifications and suitability. I can't put my finger on it, but. Commissioner Brian, do you mean with respect to who needs to be qualified or, or. No, meaning a finding of suitability or lack thereof. In the statutory language rather than. Yeah. So you're saying because of course the red might not include that statutory language. But what I'm hearing from Paul is that with respect to at least the red. This red follows. In subsection for. 23 with a 23K version precisely, right? This is no right. But of course we don't have suitability laid out in 23N. So I want to make sure anything that stands totally in case doesn't get lost. If it's not in a right. If we can apply it. Right. Yep. So. So we have a 23N and that's the qualifying. The suitability section include anything that. Pardon me. So subsection. I may not be following some something, but subsection four tracks the grounds for revocation of a license under. And section nine. It's the next section. Right. So you're thinking. Oh, no, the unsuitability. That's what you were thinking. I'm talking about suitability, but what which subsection? Sorry, I was looking at 23k. I'm sorry. No, I'm looking at 215. Is it subsection three? I think it's three because we we didn't talk about the new B that was added. We jumped to three. So I think I'm talking about subsection three. So you think that there's some broad language that you'd like to see if we could include it somewhere? All right. Yeah, I'm just so I'm just saying I just want to make sure there's nothing in 23k that didn't necessarily make it into a reg that we're going to lose by only mirroring the 100. And then we'll have to decide if it actually can go. Correct. Because it's a different law. Um, can we would it be OK if we proceeded? Oh, so I guess what I'm looking at is 7b. So I'm looking at 23k section 12b. And it talks about the Bureau. Bureau determines an investigation an applicant has failed to. And then there's a number of criterion or any other reason is determined by the commission as to why it would be injurious to the interests of the Commonwealth in awarding the applicant a gaming license. The Bureau shall cease any further review and recommend the commission denied the application in terms of that's the suitability section. So I guess it may it may vary will be in the 200s and I just haven't seen it. So that's interesting. Chapter 23 and section six assigns the same grounds for denial of a license to the commission and the commission's discretion that section 60. And not to the Bureau and not to the Bureau. Yeah, 23 and a silent on the Bureau. I think we've all noted. Yeah. Right. Yeah. So um, so and and so I guess I'm wondering. Is that does that become an issue for subsection four or is that subsection three in this we want to make sure everything that's in 23 and right. So three looks at what the commission shall evaluate and consider. So it was in there, it would be in there. Yeah. So we should make sure to take that language and put it in as a question. Right. Because it says shall it tell Dean them unsuitable if they are one of the qualifiers and then it doesn't have that catch all in three or four. Each of which appear to put the onus on the commission to act. So subsection six, Paul, do we have it all captured here because that's really critical. Um, section six E, I believe we imported into 205 CMR 218 because section six E appears in the section of the statute dealing with the commission's license award decisions, which is what 218 captures. I don't think that any of the considerations laid out in section 60 are excluded from the commission's consideration by this. I'd love to not have to have the argument though, you know, and just have it in the reg in both places because I'd hate to be in a position of, well, you didn't put it in that one. And I have a vague fuzzy memory of having a conversation about that because there was it used to be a preamble to the regs in the 100s saying, oh, these are the sections of 23 K that we're relying on to promulgate these regs. And they were not all inclusive. But I don't want to necessarily do the opposite and say it as all inclusive because I'm going to miss something. The statute will always roll. So I believe the simplest, the simplest approach would be to go to The cross-reference, the reg. Well, to go to subsection three E, whether the applicant or any qualifier is ineligible to hold a license under a given set of subsections and simply add an MGL chapter 23 in section 6E. Right. I would feel better if it said that. We can certainly make that change. You couldn't remember what subsection 6E. Thanks, Paul. Are there any more questions on 2501 suitability? I have a question, Paul. In 2502.5, the references to 1504 and 1505, are those intentional? Yeah. Should that be 2504? Those are intentional. Those are the regs that set out the process for suitability determinations in the gaming context, and we intend for the process for making suitability determinations in the sports wagering process to be consistent with that process. And Commissioner Skinner, if I could add, when we say process, so the substance is all in 215 of what is being looked at, but the actual procedural framework is in the 115. So if you look at 1504 and 1505, it's effectively what happens when the Bureau's done its process and gives its recommendation to the Commission that makes a suitability review and any rights flowing out of that. And that's why we want to keep those consistent rather than create a new process. You have that language available because we don't know what that says. Sure. I have it in front of me. Unfortunately, 23N is silent on the Bureau, so I just want to make sure that I understand what the process is. Sure. I can walk through that very quickly. Madam Chair, if you would like. It's actually 1504 and 1505 are a grand total of five or six paragraphs. I wouldn't read them, but after the Commission has received the Bureau's report, it shall provide a copy to the applicant or qualifier, and the Commission shall determine whether to initiate a process for a public hearing or a judicatory proceeding. So it gives you some discretion there. And we actually have a new policy on suitability hearings that maybe this is the time for that right to be updated. I wondered if it was the same right, right? We only do suitability hearings in a judicatory hearing. So that's possible that that policy would simply dictate that that's the choice, but I'll leave to. I think it's under reg review or something, right? To update a ton on that process. Yeah. Okay. I wondered if it was that reg. Okay, go ahead ahead. And then it mentions. Reg is a confusing reg gentleman. It really is for us. I mean, it has a lot of a lot of a lot of discussion. Yes. So okay. So theoretically, let's go through it. Assuming a judicatory hearing continuing. So assuming in a judicatory hearing, the rest of 1504 has a paragraph on one of the judicatory proceeding looks like referring back to one or one another for public hearing, which sounds like it won't be relevant in the way that you're moving forward. The, and then 1505 is after that proceeding, after the proceedings in 1504, the adjudicatory proceeding, the commission shall issue a determination of suitability. And it lays out a negative determination, positive determination, and then has language that may not be relevant because there's a partly won't be. It's a host, the host community language regarding want to have a vote after suitability termination is obviously not relevant in 23. Well, I mean, I guess the commission is going to raise a good point to say those, you know, it's really relevant here. So you might want to clean that up a little bit. Right. Commissioner Brian. Yeah. All right. So just one indirect, the lilios are really well informed on that shift it's mainly so that we can do our adjudicatory hearing in public, but we have the option to do anything that is really sensitive in private because we wouldn't want the forum to hinder commissioners ability to comfortably ask critically important questions to suitability findings. If the cases that the commission has decided all suitability findings are going to be in adjudicatory proceedings, I think what may make sense is just very simply importing the language from 1504 that you will do in adjudicatory proceeding with the brief language in 1505 to say that you'll issue a negative or positive determination into the 215 regs rather than referring back. I don't think we were aware that the commission was no longer even considering the public hearing option. So we want to leave it there as a possibility, but if you're no longer using it and don't want to use it, the commission could decide to do these all that way. Obviously, there may be logistically, I don't know which ones easier out defer to commission and commission staff on that. Thank you. Coming up to date, Todd. Yeah, I think as you're pointing out, we do need to do more work on 115 and we certainly want to be clear here as to what the process will be, particularly where the suitability process is part of the review for the award of the licenses. So this certainly does need to be clarified. I suppose at this juncture, we could, it would be helpful to get a sense as to or just be certain that the commission envisions that the suitability review as part of the sportsways, measuring license awards would be conducted in an adjudicatory proceeding or not. So keeping in mind here that there's the preliminary review part, which is a little bit different than the full suitability review that will be conducted after the initial award of the licenses. You may be more comfortable reviewing the preliminary suitability piece in the public hearing, but we would just want to know what the intention is now so we can capture that in the regulation. We obviously don't want to get to that point in the proceeding and then have to figure out what the process is going to look like. But my take from the discussion at this point is that you would like to see all of it done in an adjudicatory proceeding, which we can do, but we would have to write in to the sub fives that that's what the plan is. And I think that we always talked about that there are ways to keep that streamlined so it doesn't become bureaucratically cumbersome, but we reserve the opportunity to be in public. And at any point in time, so the commissioners want to thank you, want to provide, ask the questions that are actually protected questions. We need the opportunity and we don't have that opportunity in any kind of a streamlined fashion to ask those questions. Unless we go into an executive session in an executive session, those questions can only pertain to, I believe, the individual whose facts are being questioned. So if there's a fact that relates to a third party, we are lost at how we can ask the question.  I think we've found it could work pretty efficiently, with an understanding that we have to do a notice, but the notice could be pretty streamlined. And I don't have to read in as much material as you give me, I'm sure. For each one, we could do a consolidated read-in. And maybe that we just figure out a streamlined version. But my recommendation would be to stick with that process. But it is new to the other. Commissioner Hill, were you engaged at that point when we decided? What do you think? I'm still digesting all of this, Madam Chair. Okay. Commissioner O'Brien, before we go to our newer commissioners. No, I mean, I think we hashed a lot of this out over a number of meetings, and I believe Commissioner Skinner may have actually been here as well by the time we ultimately voted. I believe so. And we did agree. And then we went into, yeah, and then we went into a series of them done just that way, a judiciary, a streamlined as we could make it. And on a couple of occasions, went into private deliberations so that we could ask the questions we needed to ask and then come back out. Commissioner Skinner, I remember now, because I see your comment at the time, I won't quote you, you could do that if you want, but how are you feeling then? Do you think, do you imagine it could work in this case? And we would be able to really ask all the questions comfortably? I envision that we would proceed as discussed and decided at one of my earlier meetings. I think it was actually, could have been my first, where we just entered into a to introduce this subject, at least, you know, with the then commission. Thank you. Commissioner Maynard, and forgive me, it feels like it was longer ago, but it wasn't. It was the spring, certainly. Commissioner Maynard. I'm comfortable with deferring to the commission as it's set in the spring in that process. I know that it was sounds like it was well thought out. The only thing I would add, Madam Chair, it's important that everyone envision what this will look like in practice. So when the commission is reviewing the applications, we will have to either pause the review to conduct an adjudicatory proceeding on the suitability or conduct the suitability piece of it before you start reviewing the application so you can make that determination and then use that finding as part of the application review. But it's important just to recognize that there would be two separate proceedings, one adjudicatory and one in a public meeting when you're reviewing the applications. When you think about what we're going to be getting in front of us in Lovato, what we're going to be getting, you understand, you went through this this is that more process than we need when you know what we are looking to preserve. You know, one item that Todd and legal would be in a better position to address is whether there's a distinction between this preliminary suitability piece that's attached to the preliminary temporary license and the full suitability and that by whether conducting an adjudicatory hearing in connection with the preliminary piece could in fact be extending rights that would not otherwise be available in the you know the sort of plenary durable suitability piece. I appreciate that because that's what I'm wondering in the relative suitability portion of the applications we evaluate that. That's not we also had a full report from we're not going to have a full report on suitability at that point from IEB, which is what I understand is that process that you know is just outright. So we have some report from IEB right and this is what you know what this is what I'm confused about because I think Todd said that commissioners would not have a suitability report available at the time it's reviewing the applications and I might have misunderstood that. You'll have for the preliminary suitability you will have a preliminary report from the IEB summarizing some self-disclosed areas on the applications and summarizing an open source check into the applicant and the individual qualifiers. We won't have on so sorry go ahead. No that's okay so we just talked about suitability review in 2502 and there was language added in 2501 sorry not 02, 2501 now I'm confused with the revisions. I'm sorry it's 2501 to be before the commission may determine that an applicant or qualifier is suitable. That is the right paragraph that identifies what I expect the preliminary report to look to look like. Well but that so I didn't envision so that first sentence to me requires a maybe doesn't require we