Good morning, I am Ulamideh Adyemi and this is the news brief. Pastor Muhammad Bari has held his government for reducing the incidences of banditry kidnapping, robbery and other criminal activities. Bari called for the sustenance of the game so far made in the area of security, electoral process, economy amongst orders. And what may be termed as final broadcast to Nigerians, the president pleaded with politicians still at the tribunal to accept the verdict of the court in order to keep the nation away from all forms of disunity and rank up. Our democracy for the best for allows and encourages seeking radius for perceived injustices and evidence and candidates and political parties that do not agree with the results to go to court. In respect to the outcome of the various cases, I urge all fighters involved to accept the decision of our court and join hands to build a better Nigeria. I salute the dejectedness and resilience of all the presidential candidates and their political parties for believing in our judicial system by taking their grievances with the election results to court. In the call of the campaigns, we had argued and disagreed on how to make Nigeria better, but we never disagreed or had any doubts that Nigeria has to be better. The outgoing president, who said he had been returning to Dara in Katana State, is uncountry apologised for the painful economic policies that cost suffering. Nigeria's economy has become more resilient due to the various strategies put in place to ensure that our economy remains afloat during cases of global economic downturns. In the course of re-benthing the economy, we made some difficult choices, most of which yielded the desired results. Some of the measures led to temporary pain and suffering for which I sincerely apologise to my fellow countrymen, but the measures were taken for the overall good of the country. It was my endeavour of the need to ensure adequate infrastructure to drive economy growth. We completed age-long projects and processes notably among which are the Fertilium Industry Act, completion of some power projects, completion of Second Niger Bridge and very important words linking cities and states. Hello, hope you enjoyed the news. Please do subscribe to our YouTube channel and don't forget to hit the notification button so you get notified about fresh news updates.


Welcome to dealing with materials data, we are looking at collection analysis and interpretation of data. We are in the module on data processing and in this session we will discuss robust estimates. The estimation of standard deviation and standard error that we have been discussing so far is sensitive to outliers. It is because we are calculating the mean squared deviation and if some data point is really far away from the mean that is going to dominate the analysis. One way to avoid this problem is to remove from analysis the data that is deviating significantly. We have discussed what it means to say some data deviates significantly. So if it is more than 3 sigma or 3.5 sigma for example, but you should always clearly indicate that you are removing such data and we have discussed this earlier. And it is always a better idea not to remove data from analysis. So it is better if we can actually come up with an estimation method where we do not have to remove outliers for example. And second problem is that if the data is not normally distributed the assumption that we made about normal and students t chi squared etc are not valid. So we want to have estimates for means and spread of data etc which are sort of agnostic to the type of distribution and with outliers playing very nominal role or very less role in determining the quantities. So these methods are based on ranking order of the data and they are actually methods which can be used to make sure that outliers do not play a significant role and it does not really matter what the type of distribution is. So one estimate, so rank based estimate for example, the estimated mean of a distribution is basically average of the observations. Suppose if you assume that your distribution is symmetric but it is not normal you can use median instead of mean because mean is sensitive to outliers but median is not. So you can use median and median also has this property that about median if you go on either side the number of positive and negative deviations are the same. So you can obtain median by using the sign of the deviations for example. Now you can also give confidence intervals which are sign based. Let us consider our conductivity measurement as an example. So how do we calculate confidence interval for this case which is based on the sign based confidence interval. We calculate the median and we generate the signs positive or negative about this median and we calculate the binomial probability for so many positives and so many negatives or successes and failures pluses and minuses. It could be a robust method but it could be quite inaccurate also. So we will do this analysis and see how it works out for our conductivity data. So we have the data conductivity data and we are going to get the median and we have also sorted the data in increasing order and the median is 101.3. So now what we are going to do we are going to count. So what this is doing is that there are 20 data points. So we start this j with a value of 0 and we go and calculate this conductivity value minus median if it is greater than 0 we say that j increases by 1. So basically it tells you how many data points are greater than median and of course you can also do less than and that will give the exact opposite. So let us do this and what is the j value you can see j is 7 and if you did the other way j should be 13 because that gives you the number of times it is. So in this case you do not see because there are conductivity values which are exactly equal to the median value itself. It is neither greater than nor less than but equal to. So in the case where it is greater than 0 so we found j is to be 7. So now we calculate the binomial probability distribution for so many. So this 2 accounts for the fact that it is factorial 20 j factorial j factorial 20 minus j you can also have factorial 20 by factorial 20 minus j factorial j. So that is for 2 and 2 to the power minus 20 because for each case it is either plus or minus so there is 0.5 probability and there are 20 of them so 1 by 2 to the power 20 is what this value is. So this gives you something like 0.15 so in other words the probability that the median lies in this range is about 15 percent. As you can see it is not very accurate there are better estimates and you can get better numbers from those estimates. But this is a very robust estimate because it does not assume anything about the underlying probability distribution and so such rank based estimates in many cases are also very useful. So we will continue there is one more robust estimate which is based on bootstrap method and that will bring us to the end of this module on simple data processing. We will continue with more involved data processing in terms of regression and fitting and so on. But before we do that we will look at bootstrap method as the last method for this kind of estimation. Thank you.


Hi, my name is Lancy Downs and I am a Policy Analyst with the Partnership to Advance Youth Apprenticeship, or PIA, an initiative housed within the Center on Education and Labor at New America. This video is part of our Youth Apprenticeship 101 series, a collection of videos our team put together to answer frequently asked questions about youth apprenticeship. To view other installments in this series, please scroll down to this video's description which includes a link to the entire Youth Apprenticeship 101 series. And with that, let's dive into the topic for today's video, which is PIA's guiding principles for high-quality youth apprenticeship. By connecting students' learning needs with industry's talent needs, youth apprenticeship can be a powerful strategy for building a more inclusive American economy. To do this effectively, youth apprenticeship programs must provide a high-quality experience to both the young people who participate and to the employers who hire them. That's why PIA developed a set of five guiding principles for high-quality youth apprenticeship. Informed by experience and research, these principles define the characteristics required to successfully serve the many stakeholders in youth apprenticeship, including employers, educators, and above all, learners. PIA structured these five principles to be both practical and aspirational. Practically they provide clear guidance to industry, education, and community leaders as well as to state and local policy makers. As these partners work together to design youth apprenticeship programs, these principles can serve as a common starting point. At the same time, the principles set a high bar for program design, outcomes, and continuous improvement. In this video, we will explain each principle and why it matters for your youth apprenticeship program. Let's get started with the first one. PIA's first principle states that youth apprenticeships should be career-oriented. This means that learning is structured around knowledge, skills, and competencies that lead to careers with family-supporting wages. This principle is all about the value of your youth apprenticeship program. Youth apprenticeship programs should lead young people to a career that provides economic mobility. To make this possible, the program needs to teach students the knowledge, skills, and competencies that a particular industry values. This in turn requires the involvement of employers working directly alongside educators. Together, they should develop, sequence, and assess student learning in order to provide a coherent experience that better prepares students for the future. The second principle says that youth apprenticeship programs should be equitable. In equitable youth apprenticeships, learning is accessible to every student with targeted supports for those students adversely impacted by long-standing inequities in our education system and labor market. When designed well, youth apprenticeship can advance equity by increasing access to valuable, affordable, post-secondary credentials, and to paid work experience opportunities that are especially important for under-resourced youth. Paid work experience can help young people build social capital they might not otherwise be able to develop. These professional relationships and networks are often key to career advancement. Equity considerations are relevant in every single area of program design, and they deeply impact program outcomes. The equity principle requires all stakeholders in a youth apprenticeship partnership to recognize the inequities embedded in our education and workforce systems, to use data to unearth those disparities, and to design and develop interventions to address these inequities through youth apprenticeship. This includes, but is not limited to, student recruitment, career advising, on-the-job mentorship, and wraparound supports. Our third principle is portability. Portable youth apprenticeships, learning leads to post-secondary credentials and transferable college credit that expand options for students. In other words, participation in youth apprenticeship should expand rather than limit a young person's post-secondary opportunities. This is why youth apprenticeship is sometimes referred to as an options multiplier. To ensure apprentices reap the benefits of youth apprenticeship as an options multiplier, learning should be documented and recognized in the education system as credit, and by industry in the form of credentials where appropriate. In the education system, academic credit earned during an apprenticeship should be applicable towards an associate's or bachelor's degree, and also transferable to other post-secondary institutions. On the industry side, developing in-demand transferable skills through youth apprenticeship should be validated by an industry-recognized credential. I also want to note an important link between this portability principle and the equity principle we discussed earlier. For youth apprenticeship to advance equity for students adversely impacted by long-standing inequities in our education system and labor market, these credits and certifications should also be affordable for apprentices. Our fourth principle is adaptability. Adaptability in youth apprenticeship means that learning is designed collaboratively to be recognized and valued across an industry or sector. This principle is focused on businesses coming together to achieve common goals for the greater good of the industry. Youth apprenticeship is both an investment by an employer and future talent and an investment by students in their future selves. To protect these investments, employers across the sector must collaborate to ensure that the knowledge, skills, and competencies students acquire are not narrowly tied to any single employer, but instead are broadly valued across employers in an industry, sector, or region. This helps apprentices by ensuring that their skills have wider value. If they move to a different employer in the industry where they apprentice, for example, the skills and competencies they gain will be relevant to and valued by their new employer. Research has shown that this kind of collaboration among employers yields benefits for industry as well. When employers can reach consensus around the core skills workers need to succeed in entry-level roles and to advance in the field, they are able to build a more robust pool of talent trained in the skills they need. By working together to define skills, competencies, and on-the-job training requirements, employers create efficiencies in training processes and systems and help themselves retain skilled talent. And final principle is accountability. This means that student, employer, and program outcomes should be monitored using transparent metrics to support continuous improvement. Youth apprenticeship programs are supported by complex, mutually beneficial partnerships that include employers, post-secondary institutions, high schools, community-based organizations, industry associations, and others. With so many different partners involved, it is important that they all share responsibility for ensuring the success and continuous improvement of the program as a whole. Youth apprenticeship programs should collect, monitor, disaggregate, and publicly share data to evaluate the whole picture of apprentice and program performance. Student goals and expected outcomes should be explicitly named in the apprenticeship agreement to ensure accountability between the student, their school, and their employer. This transparency around data, outcomes, and performance helps employers, students, and their families make informed decisions. And it is part of an authentic commitment to equity. The accountability principle ensures that all partners produce strong outcomes for apprentices and employers. And it creates a culture in which each partner feels responsible for their part in ensuring apprentice and employer success. We hope this has been a helpful primer on PIA's five principles for high-quality youth apprenticeship. If you'd like to learn more, the resources linked below this video provide additional information about the principles. And if you'd like to learn more about how youth apprenticeship partnerships function, check out our next video, which covers the roles and responsibilities of different partners in youth apprenticeship. Thank you for watching.


we want to add the rest of the racing commissioners in the national model rules that govern these which are already adopted in a lot of places in the breaks to govern the pick 4 and pick 5 and pick 6 we're only going to use it on either a pick 5 or a pick 6 we're only going to use it on the smaller ones and it will only be one time a day that's going to be a better question so pick 5 and pick 6 would you have them crossover days or they have to be within the same day it's always consecutive races so it's always you could set it up any way that you want the pick 6 could be from 6 to 8 I mean from 2 to 8 but they have to be within the same day it cannot be the last race in one day and then come back the next day to pick the other 4 I suppose you could but it hasn't been done I'm not sure I'd have to look at the breaks to see if you can do it that way that would be one way to guarantee that you're the only one but it's done right now industry-wide we were talking about the fact that it makes sense to do it in the same day because people want to get those bets in and move on to something else they're still captured for future cards and future events if it doesn't get hit that's the jack for us I'm just looking at it from the gambler perspective if I wanted to pick 5 and there's only 3 races left in the day we can't do it unless it carried over into the next day the program is pre-populated with the exact races that we decide it's going to be we stay consistent with that so if you came to Plain Ridge next week and you came to Plain Ridge 3 months from now on that card the pick 5 would be races 4 to 9 it would always be consistent with those races so you don't get to pick and choose the races it's a finite number of races on the 1 card and then everyone bets into that 1 pull for those 5 races okay and I really like the fact that we are conforming with our CI rules because as we know simulcasting the betters will understand these are the same rules that other states other jurisdictions have that's a really important piece well and that adds to the competitiveness if people can find certain bets in other places and not in Plain Ridge there might be a disincentive to come in or to bet in Plain Ridge Mr. Gressman can you just explain the process for how the complicated reg is drafted and reviewed and make sure that it works for Mr. O'Toole's team did you work on the drafting okay thank you attorney Therese drafted it we went to the RCI rules because we have made our RCI our wagers consistent with the RCI rules so we used their language we did get the request though from Mr. O'Toole so we understood what he was looking for we worked with director Lightbaum to make sure that was appropriate as well and so that's how that's how the process has worked thank you so where are we in the process promulgating and that's a unique process and I thought that was your question Madam Chair when it comes to racing so this will start the formal process once we do the hearing we get the comments we'll put it out for comment we'll have a hearing we will come back to the commission to ask for authorization to file it with the legislature it will stay with the legislature for 60 days when we either hear from the legislature or we don't hear and that period runs out we'll come back and ask you for approval to finalize the promulgation alright so we need a motion separately for each for the small business impact as well as the to begin the regulation promulgation process that's correct so Madam Chair I move that the commission approve the version of the amendments in 205 CMR 6.35 pick and pools as included in the packet and authorize the staff to take all steps necessary to begin the regulation promulgation process did we need a motion on the small business impact statement well I was going to do that one second well I think that's the first one the first motion that I've drafted motions the first one is small business second one is the regulation but right now you should do small business right now we do have a motion so we need to are you suggesting that we withdraw the small business impact statement first so I withdraw the motion thank you and I move that the commission approve the small business impact statement for the amendments to 205 CMR 6.35 pick and pools as included in the packet second I'd like to I want to just point of order understand that motion because I'm not sure that's been thoroughly are we all set do we need any further input on that does anybody have any questions on this motion on the small business impact okay based on your review which is why I gave you the motion well I understand I understand well it doesn't impact small businesses because it impacts language more than anything else that's right no questions on that Mr. Grossman do you have anything to add no that's great thank you um no further questions those in favor aye those opposed I'm going to abstain on that thank you I just don't feel completely comfortable understanding the small business impact piece I feel more comfortable on the next one so thank you just a product of me being relatively new so for one thank you I will make the second motion and move that the commission approve the version of the amendments 205 CMR 6.35 in pools as included in the packet and authorizes staff to take all steps necessary to begin the regulation promulgation process second any further questions on that okay those in favor aye opposed thank you next we have item 8a and we have deputy general counsel Grossman here to present on that those amendments good afternoon they are now a series of three proposed changes to three separate sections of the regulations one of them madam chair actually does impact small businesses so we can get into that in a little more detail when we get there the first and the third item that we will discuss though we will submit do not have any impact on small businesses as they really just pertain to the operation of the casino itself and to the third one relative to patrons as well neither of which are small businesses so really weren't the focus of that section of the law that requires the commission to consider impacts on small businesses before making regulations with that said the first proposal pertains to progressive controllers scott helwig has joined me up here to help explain to you what a progressive controller is if that is helpful here but I would just kick it off by noting that the proposal here is intended to clarify the existing requirements as they pertain to the physical security of progressive controllers that are that relate to certain slot machines within the casino we do have an existing regulation that addresses this there have been some questions about the application of that section so in an effort to clarify that we have collaborated on this language that we have before you here today you'll note that the new language addresses directly external I'm sorry integrated progressive controllers that the existing language does not address and that was the source of some of the questions that we were receiving so it's our suggestion that the new language though similar to the existing language just really clarifies the rule related to the security of progressive controllers if there are no questions we can certainly move this just through the process allow all of the gaming licensees to comment on it I believe Mr. Hellwig has already shared this language with the gaming licensees there really wasn't too much of a response Mr. Grossman when you say there was questions were those questions from licensees that were just unclear Madam Chairman yeah that was the initial questions from the properties was just the clarification of whether how they handled internal or integrated progressive controllers because there was language about external controllers so they just wanted some clarification on how to address internal controllers so those were the questions that were coming from the property you believe this new language really does provide and you've already discussed it with our licensees yes and they have commented back that it is much clearer to them now and a lot more easy to understand I had a question about the stricken language when you have whenever the progressive controller and or bank controller has been accessed written notification shall be provided to the commission and in the replacement language it talks about you can't access without first giving written notice to the commission but is anything being lost by accidental or no malfeasance leading to access was that supposed to be a notification of some sort of breach that's disappearing in our vision no no they should actually be contacting the IAB every time they do go to access a progressive controller so maybe we can look at that language and if we need to clarify it a little bit it seems like they're not quite apples to apples the stricken with the replacement one was one was after and the other one is a priority or correct my question is is there some sort of additional mandate to give written notification if there's some sort of either breach or inadvertence the other one just says you shall not without asking first but what if there's some other access how was that you're saying it sort of understood they give notice but it's not clear well this would be only the beginning we could always clarify that in between the promulgation we can because we will be looking for comments and we can make that changes part of any changes we make for comments we can begin the process and take that into consideration yes we can is there an issue with taking that stricken sentence and adding it in at this point as we move forward or would we just make note that my question is part of the formal comment process that needs to be addressed to the next stage I think we are being asked to vote on the version in front of us but I think you've raised a point that perhaps many of us understand should we amend it now to reflect Commissioner O'Brien's and Toyota do you need time to digest that I think we can do it either way it's oftentimes easier to take all comments at once and make all of the changes so you as a commission can see what those changes are but we can certainly make your change now and do other changes later after the comment period whichever you prefer I think the difference is that we are being asked to vote on this version and I think maybe there could be a process to say vote on this version as amended as opposed to viewing Commissioner O'Brien's comment as a comment obviously a comment here what I could do is move forward on this with that strict language and the closing sentence and then we can just go forward with comment from there and it does create a problem right and the reason why I like that is that at least the public will be commenting on the version that we actually vote on does that make sense if that doesn't cause a change what are we done if there are any other questions or perhaps suggestions I think Mr. Grossman do you have a suggestion on where we would insert the language I would suggest we just strike the last sentence in the red and replace it with the sentence that addresses it above my inclination is to add the strict sentence because I feel like they do two separate things one is to ask for affirmative permission in advance to whether there is some sort of breach so what I propose to do is make the motions basically amending by adding the sentence whenever progressives have been accessed as the final sentence and then that can go up for comment and if it comes back that they can be reconciled or stricken then we can deal with it at that point okay so simply add that sentence to the end are there further questions on this one again discussed this motion too do we want to have a discussion on the small business impact statement before we vote or do we have do you want to present I would just note I really don't think that this change will impact small businesses in any way if you think about the universe of who this is addressed to it's the staff the casino who would have any involvement with slot machines or progressive devices and the casino itself is not a small business in any way it certainly impacts our staff and we are not a small business in any way I don't really think it in any way impacts the manufacturers of progressive devices but even they wouldn't be considered small businesses or huge multinational corporations so I think you'll see in the draft statement before you we indicate that there's no impact or it doesn't appear that we never say there's never we say it doesn't appear that there's any impact that would be created on any small businesses and I think that's fair in this particular case I don't think this is the type of regulation that that statute was really concerned and can you remind me is this filed with the secretary of state's office? Yes it is, it gets filed along with the notice of our regent and it's published in the national regent that's a requirement that goes with the process excellent and for context that has been our experience with most of the regulations that's absolutely right there are some you know the hearing regs for example to impact small businesses in some cases but that's a lot of the regulations that we promulgate on licensees is just what Mr. Grossman articulated I'm not questioning the impact I was actually wanting to be reminded of the process of filing I haven't really looked at this for probably four years so thank you so it gets filed with the secretary of state's office as part of our formal regulatory process Yes and it gets published in the mass register of hearing so everyone can see what we've said about the small business impact and then just to fast forward at the end of the process after the public hearing when we come back before you to have a look at the final draft language there's what's called an amended small business impact statement where you answer it's seven similar but slightly different questions to see whether your your view of any impact on small businesses has changed throughout the process and again that gets filed with the secretary as well so really the statute is designed just of course so you take a real close look at any impact that a change is going to have on small business which is not to say you can't have any impact on small business you just need to think about it Thank you thanks for the reminder I appreciate it okay so I believe that the legal team is looking for a couple of motions so I don't believe I need to amend as to the small business I can read motion one would be that I move the commission approve the small business impact statement for amendments to 205 CMR 143.02 for the rest of the gaming devices and that statement being including the packet of captioned small business impact statement second any further questions are the assistance and understanding process all those in favor aye opposed 5-0 and Madam Chair I further move that the commission approve the version of the amendments to 205 CMR 143.02 progressive gaming devices as included in the packet but as amended to have the concluding sentence read whenever the progressive controller and or bank controller has been accessed the application shall be provided to the commission and authorize the staff to take all steps necessary to begin the regulation promulgation process second any further questions on that all those in favor opposed 5-0 item number 8B is an amendment to our definition section these are definitions to clarify veteran owned businesses minority businesses commissioners Stevens you may want to speak a little bit to these definitions and the changes we're making sure thank you the as we're all probably familiar with the gaming statute again created priority engagement of our licensees with minority business enterprises women owned business enterprises and veteran business enterprises as we quickly found out there were certification processes in place primarily through the mass supplier developer supplier diversity office for minority and women however there was really no suitable certification for veteran owned enterprises so until our friends at the supplier diversity office came up with a process for certifying the veteran business enterprise we were putting ourselves a little bit at risk by trying to do it internally thankfully now because SDO has come up with the process takes about a month it's free of charge to whoever the BBE is I thought it was a good idea to kind of memorialize this as well as memorialize the certificate certifying agencies or organizations that also do this kind of work because some have been through one certifying agency maybe not another but it does give our licensees and some level of comfort that the numbers they report to us are actual business with MBEs business with BBEs or business with WBEs so kind of memorializing that process and those entities I think is really helpful that's right and I'd be happy to just piggyback on Commissioner Stevan's remarks and just add that where this fits into the process now these definitions actually exist in the regulations in section 138 which is the construction oversight section in order to bridge the gap into operations we are proposing that they be migrated also over to the definitions section which would make them applicable to for example section 139 where we talk about the periodic and annual reports that the gaming licensees have to file relative to the provision of goods and services for example and the amount of dollars contracted with and spent and actually paid to these assorted business enterprises so this will really just somewhat tie up a loose end in the regulations and ensure that we have clear definitions for what we mean by these types of business enterprises in an ongoing fashion. I would just add anecdotally we know some of our licensees are doing business with let's say maybe professed business categories that fit into this however our licensees can't count them until they go through a recognized certification process so I think at the end of this we ought to think about how we communicate that out to everybody we have on our licensed or registered vendor base just so they're aware that they probably can't be counted until they subscribe to the certification. The enforcement application is certainly a big piece of this. Madam Chair just hear earlier comments there's certainly an impact here on small businesses as many of these entities are in fact small businesses. I believe what we've said in the small business impact statement though is that essentially this is an entirely voluntary process it is a process that's essentially set out by the supplier diversity office and by our inclusion of these definitions in the regs we are not ourselves creating any new requirements or burdens or hurdles that don't already exist elsewhere and that we're really just trying to ensure that there's a uniform way that we can account and give credit to certain companies in these types of situations. Just since you brought up the small business impact statement I got two questions or points under question 2 which talks about the state that projected reporting, record keeping and other administrative costs. This third sentence down the proposed definition requires presentation of the commission by a vendor the applicable recognition from an existing government agency process. We have it a little broader because there are non-government agencies that offer that certification so I think we need to amend it to reference them as well. The next line you do say is that there are no costs associated with the actual commission process. Just give me a little clarification of that because some of these outside organizations do charge SDO does not as a service to Massachusetts businesses and if somebody comes to us for licensing or registration there's a cost to the business for doing that as well. So I'm just looking as to what you were suggesting in that short sentence but you could say there is a cost at some different touch points. I think we should clarify that I would start by saying. I would say though that the intent was to say that by including these definitions in the definition section there was really no additional cost involved in this certification process as we already have a certification process but your point is certainly well taken particularly as it applies to outside organizations that you might have to go to for certification. So we will clarify that. It's based on my experience that the reason why they reached out to these other non-governmental agencies was really to streamline the processes for the vets so it's actually helping. But to the extent that they do charge of the again the process helps that that's actually needed. In some of the other organizations who we worked with do charge a fee and offer additional services and resources on top of that which SEO has priorities of what they need to do with that. I think that that hope process has been received with great success but that's a good amendment and then the other one with respect to existing government agency process that's just a quick knit. Do we have to address costs in the small business statement? Is that one of the Yeah, I think that's the actual question. So we don't need to. But do you have recommended language right now that we could act on?  For clarification, Commissioner Stevens we're stating too that the commission in fact imposes any of its own costs. I was looking for some clarification because if you do apply to be registered or licensed vendor, you do. That one I do. I understand. That's not out. I just don't know if what you were referencing was the certification process and what whether the commission puts a price tag. Yeah, it was really the certificate because the fact that you have to pay a fee to become registered as a vendor is not really up for discussion here that's already in place and that is the process. I would say that the commission does not impose any costs. And then to the extent that the certification process has some kind of incidental costs, then we've covered it. Is that what the Secretary of State's office is looking for in terms of with that or do we need to say mention that the SDO may have? Well, I mean just to be clear, the Secretary of State's office doesn't really monitor any of that. I think they should develop the statute that asks the question and I think it's our obligation just to answer the question fairly so people understand what impacts we think they are. So I think it would be fair to clarify that point that this process does not create any new costs, though of course there may be costs associated with becoming certified. I mean if you wanted to amend too much the commissioner's point where it talks about it ends with government agency process you could amend it to say or similar private organization. And then you can conclude that paragraph to say because it says and there are no costs associated with the actual commission process if you added a sentence that says we know however private organizations may charge it free for such designation. Then I think you've addressed sort of the gap that the private organization may charge. I think that's appropriate. So why don't we if we don't have any further questions or discussion for legal shall we move first. So I think it would be fair to clarify that there are no costs associated with the actual commission process. So shall we move first on the small business impact statement. Madam chair I move the commission approve the small business impact statement for the amendments to 205 cmr 102.02 definitions as included in the packet with amendments to number two's words or similar private organization following the phrase government agency process and to further conclude that paragraph with the sentence we note comma however comma that private organizations may charge a fee for such designation period. Second. Any further questions? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? 5-0 please. Do we have any further questions or comments on the actual proposed regulatory change? No? I'll set. All right. Do we have a motion? Madam chair I move the commission approve the version of the amendments to 205 cmr 102.02 definitions as included in the packet and authorized the staff to take all steps necessary to begin the regulation and obligation process. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? 5-0. Okay now we're on 8C. Item number 8C is amendments to the excluded persons regulation and just a little refresher. This is the list that the commission puts people on as opposed to the voluntary excluded list. These are this is the regulation where we have a process whereby the IAB makes a determination as to who may be appropriate to put on this list. They have noticed an opportunity to be heard. We are asking the commission to approve these changes by emergency so that we can have them in place before the opening of Angkor. We have made changes to this regulation in the past and these are just sort of minor changes so that we can make sure it's ready to go. I do have a question. I remember we talked about these in the past and I understand that some of these amendments are too further aligned with our hearing regulations more than anything else. But the one thing I want to ask on the 152.07 the petition to remove the name from the exclusion list the request now goes to the Bureau as opposed to the commission. Why was that necessary? Can you remind me? Well it goes to the Bureau and then the Bureau lets the commission know we have a hearing. So the commission still has the hearing, yes. Because the other way around putting them in the list needed to go to the Bureau for all kinds of other reasons but they didn't have to come to the commission. Well so when the IV makes a determination and I'll let Mr. Roseman correct me here too they send the letter out the person then has the ability to ask for a hearing in front of the commission if they don't ask for a hearing within the specified time they will end up on the list if they do then they'll have a hearing and the commission will decide whether they're on the list or not. Yeah that's on the front end. That's on the front end. This is if someone wants to come off. Yes. I think when we looked at this the last time we wanted to clarify that process for letting people come off. I don't think our process was as clear. So this would be the person themselves requesting to come off. The Bureau would get the request and then there would be a request to the commission for a hearing on the removal. Right now if you read the entire section it's like Bureau needed to be replaced with commission because otherwise the process didn't really make sense. They would come to us to request but it still lay with the Bureau to make the finding the hearing and then I need an aisle comes back to us so it's more of a ministerial correction I think to make the rest of the section make the process follow. And I presume it's aligned with the hearing. And that must be how it is. Well this has the statute has a separate requirement for hearings on this particular issue but yes we've aligned it up as closely as we can given the statutory requirements for it. So the hearing is with the commission. And Attorney Grossman I know you've worked with Attorney Williams on this and that the IEB is in agreement with these changes, correct? Absolutely.  Could you explain that? Sure I think the theory would be that if we're about to start putting people on the list which hasn't really started in earnest yet that it would be most fair for those individuals to know exactly what the process is. And if we wait in potentially there could be a change to the process by which they would go about getting on the list, coming off the list the whole thing, even though they're not really major changes. So that's the reason. So this would allow IEB and the Game and Commission to continue to operate under the emergency regulation but it will still go out in full obligation and it could be changed. Yes so procedurally it would work is that if you were to approve this by emergency it would go into effect immediately. We would then commence the formal promulgation process as we ordinarily would with these others have a public hearing etc etc and then you'll have a chance and people have a chance to comment and you can vote on the final version within 60 to 90 days or whenever it is. So that gives an opportunity to look more carefully if that makes sense. I'll be myself with the explanation that you provided Commission and I think it's appropriate. If I may add context that I did ask Attorney Lilius for there's only 11 people in this list currently and it's mostly people who have been referred to the Bureau from the Attorney General's Office Division they gave me people. It does also appear to add some teeth to if the licensee fails to cooperate knowingly or recklessly. That's already there so it says it again. It's in a different section. It's new to 152.066 It's new where it is and the small impact the small business impact is the same as in which it doesn't affect small business. That's right. It only affects our licensees, the commission and individuals. Any further questions or discussion? We have a motion on the impact statement. I move that the commission Madam Chair, I move that the commission approve the small business impact statement for the amendments to 205 CMR 152 individuals excluded from the gaming establishment as included in the packet. Second. Those in favor? Opposed? 5-0 Do we need to approve on an emergency basis or does this our language cover? The motion has language for the emergency basis. But not for the impact statement. Does that matter? No. Then Madam Chair I would move that the commission approve the amendments to the 205 CMR 152 individuals excluded from a gaming establishment as included in the packet and authorize the staff to file the regulation on an emergency basis pursuant to Chapter 23K Section 5B and further to take the steps necessary to file the regulation with the secretary of the Commonwealth and to proceed with the formal regulation promulgation process. Second. Any further discussion? Questions? All those in favor? Opposed? 5-0 Thank you. Thank you. Now Commissioner Updates Item number 9. Do we have any today? I have two quick ones. Again I had the chance to go to the gaming school graduation on Saturday which was a lot of fun. I would just suggest that they weren't all necessarily young graduates who were in the crowd. They were people at all points in their life whether it was they had retired from a previous job and were looking for a new challenger opportunity but we had one graduate who showed up legitimately in the full cap and gown outfit to be part of the ceremony so it was rewarding. The other item I've had some continual outreach with the Department of Elder Affairs with respect to the work they do to protect elders across the Commonwealth and obviously we know that elderly population in Massachusetts enjoys going to our casinos so we had a great conversation with folks from Elder Affairs with Mark Vanderlin and myself wanted to talk about things like game sense play my way, the voluntary self exclusion list is things that their network could be aware of as we get ready to open another casino. We also had an opportunity or will have an opportunity to maybe educate our game sense employees on what to do if they see an elderly person in distress calling elderly protective services my hope is if that training goes well it might be something that we could also extend to our gaming agents and the GE unit as well as security at our licensees so first step is for game sense the new game sense team to maybe do a training and maybe do it in time before on board opens. Do you want to talk about your Nevada check? Yes, I do. I went to the gambling and risk taking conference last week that took place in Las Vegas takes place every three years this is the premier really research evaluation conference has been taking place I mentioned 17th times again in the three years it's sponsored by UNLV and it congregates a lot of what people from around the world who are doing research evaluation and other responsible gaming activities there were Massachusetts continues to be featured prominently there our own Mark VanderLinden was part of two sessions Rachel Volver Rob Williams two principal investigators were themselves part of two other sessions as well as the division of addiction Cambridge health alliance they also have a session all talking about what massacres it is doing including also the mass council on responsible Massachusetts council on problem gambling the point being is that our efforts are prominently featured in this conference that again draws from people around the world it's a small community but it's an influential community of researchers and people who do this notably from Europe and Canada and are very interested in responsible gaming and the like one the keynote speaker in this conference was Becky Harris and she talked about she's a former chair of the Nevada gaming control board her speech was interesting and timely my main update here because it was reflection on her tenure which was a little bit more than a year but it was book ended by the developments of wind resorts because she talked about how she was there two days two or three days in her job when the January 21st article in the Wall Street Journal came to be it was a very powerful speech she went through what Nevada has gone through the Nevada gaming control board and if I can do justice and try to summarize it it is a healthy discussion as to whether and how the gaming control board could recommend regulations to the commission to address this notion of sexual harassment on the gaming companies that they regulate there was two schools of thought that she described that there was already enough in the existing statutes and regulations to address these matters like many others and there was others who thought like she did to include regulations into the scheme here the board voted ultimately unanimously to recommend those regulations the way she describes that is that this now puts the onus into the gaming companies to certify to the regulators that they're in compliance with these regulations as opposed to in the past which was one in which the individual would have to come forward and in order for anything to really take effect I should note that despite the vote of the gaming control board to adopt them at the commission level so that's forthcoming I don't know what the outcome will be it will be interesting for us to look at that and I know there's been some discussions here as we wanted to commission on camera and we wanted to look into processes or our own evaluation in general of our gaming licensees and I wanted to again offer that and thank you I've had the opportunity on a couple of occasions to speak to Becky Harris about these matters she gave a full presentation in Copenhagen last year and we have a working group here to take a look at similar matters to see if we in fact need to make changes no decisions have been made yet but it's a robust working group lots of informed opinions and we really felt like we needed to get through our earlier decisions before we move forward so that group will be working again yes correct as well as a number of staff members but thank you I'm aware of her how strongly she feels about the issues and she does have some very interesting points to be made on the subject and I believe either the transcript or a tape of those presentations will be available and I will point them to you whenever we can get our hands on there are other items that I just highlight quickly that bring home mostly because of the work that we've been doing there's people out there looking at technology to improve responsible gaming apps notifications et cetera something that we've done in our own version here with play my way but it's something that we should continue looking at there are people struggling with regional voluntary self exclusion there's a big effort in Europe to try to do that it's something that hard statute directs us to explore as well because of the size and density and geography of gaming in New England and I could relate to those struggles because it has not been entirely successful in our prior efforts to put together a regional voluntary self exclusion list but Europe is looking hard at it and most notably and this dovetails into the game sense program there has been this great very interesting session about the effectiveness of brief interventions there is some really hopeful evidence that they provide a marginal benefit there's real opportunity related to the cumulative effect of those brief interventions and the whole point is that they are also very cost effective and that's really goes to the core of the game sense program so I could really as well identify well with them so overall a great conference again I will try to get marked to perhaps summarize or make available the most notable sessions in case anybody is interested Mr Cameron do you have an update? Do I have a motion? to adjourn? Second. Those in favor? Aye. Post 5-0 thank you