This Wednesday, state lawmakers will host the first of two legislative hearings probing the Cannabis Control Commission, the embattled agency that oversees Massachusetts’ $7 billion marijuana industry.
It follows a difficult year for the agency, marred by toxic workplace allegations, worries over misplaced funds, and the contentious termination of its one-time chair. Legislators stopped short of forcing the commission into receivership this summer, but criticisms of the CCC remain sharp.
The agency did anoint a new executive director, David Lakeman, on Monday. He previously led the cannabis division at the Illinois Department of Agriculture and before that worked at the CCC as the head of government affairs and an advisory board member.
Now lawmakers are asking experts from across the industry how the CCC’s structure and operations could be improved to help the nascent sector grow — questions that could ultimately lead them to overhaul the five-commissioner body and its rank-of-file employees.
Here’s what you need to know.
How a ‘well-known secret’ in Massachusetts cannabis testing is obscuring what’s in your weedCannabis commission research chief takes medical leave after alleging ‘inappropriate’ and ‘harmful’ behaviors by leadersAmid upheaval, Cannabis Commission jostles over an audit and an acting director
What are the criticisms of the CCC?
Licensees have long called the CCC slow-moving and unresponsive, even as marijuana prices plummet and more cannabis businesses fail. Business owners eager to tackle regulatory hurdles — including vertical integration requirements for the medical marijuana industry and the dispensary license cap — have made so little progress with the commission that they’ve turned to the Legislature for help repeatedly. And issues can linger for years: Licensees and the CCC-affiliated Cannabis Advisory Board flagged lapses in cannabis testing requirements as much as three years ago, yet moldy weed still reaches shelves.
“This lack of action — is it because of staff? Are they distracted by vacancies?” asked one Cannabis Advisory Board member, who asked to remain anonymous due to fear of retribution from the CCC. “Is it because of the leadership?”
The agency has seen unprecedented turnover this year, with the suspension of two directors, the resignation of two others, and the absence of its research chief, who took extended medical leave after speaking out publicly against her higher-ups at the commission.But some licensees said their frustrations predate the vacancies and that the overly-cautious commission often over-regulate businesses or inspect them unfairly.
As Payton Shubrick, a Springfield dispensary owner, told the Globe in August: “Where is the accountability?”
So who is in charge there? And who should be?
The commission is led by an executive director and five appointed commissioners, one of whom serves as the chair. The director is charged with administering state marijuana regulations, while the day-to-day of agency operations falls on the commissioners, who bring varying areas of expertise to the job.
But critics, including state Inspector General Jeff Shapiro, have said that the delineation of responsibilities between the commissioners, chair, and executive director is muddled and has left a vacuum.
Currently only three commissioners — Bruce Stebbins, Nurys Camargo, and Kimberly Roy — are active, meaning that a single “no” vote (or a commissioner’s absence) can bring business to a halt. Former chair Shannon O’Brien was terminated last month, amid allegations of inappropriate workplace behavior and “racially insensitive,” which she plans to dispute in an upcoming lawsuit. The fifth commissioner, Ava Callendar Concepcion, is on medical leave during her pregnancy.
It’s led to chaos in Worcester. The three commissioners have tussled publicly over who would take over the role of chair before rewarding it to Stebbins. And the acting executive director, Debbie Hilton Creek, doubled as the chief people officer in charge of hiring a permanent replacement until Monday, when Lakeman was voted in.
Much ire has also been directed at the three elected officials who appoint the commission: Treasurer Deb Goldberg, Governor Maura Healey, and Attorney General Andrea Campbell. Each selects one commissioner and advisory board members, and votes jointly on the selection of the remaining two commissioners. It’s intended to help the agency operate outside of the jurisdiction of the Legislature or another state department.
But that structure brings its own challenges, said Jim Smith, a cannabis attorney with Smith, Costello & Crawford. “Nobody owns it.”
Now insiders expect some of the heat at the hearings to fall on Goldberg, as the state treasurer chooses the chair of the commission. After hiring, and later ousting, O’Brien, her relationships with the agency higher-ups are in question.
In a statement, Campbell said it is “abundantly clear that the Cannabis Control Commission needs to be reformed and restructured. Like any governing body, it needs permanent leadership and clearly defined roles and responsibilities to function.”
Healey said she “is prepared to work with them and her fellow appointing authorities on the path forward” for the agency.
How did the CCC get here?
The Department of Public Health first regulated the medical industry before the 2016 ballot question that legalized recreational cannabis in Massachusetts. The measure that went before voters would have created an independent three-person agency appointed by the treasurer. But the Legislature later tweaked the commission to include five commissioners, with some appointed by the Governor and Attorney General.
In the past, many commissioners have left the agency before their five-year appointment expired, including the unexpected departure of its inaugural chair, Steve Hoffman.
Shaleen Title, a former commissioner who co-wrote the 2016 ballot language, said it is reasonable to revisit the agency’s structure as the cannabis industry — and the science around it — evolves. More Massachusetts residents consume cannabis now that a decade ago, and the federal government is considering rescheduling marijuana to be among a safer and less addictive class of drugs, a potential step towards federal legalization.
“The CCC has grown dramatically in ways, I think, that neither the legislators nor the commissioners could have anticipated,” Title said. “It’s right to now have a hearing about it.”
A lab technician at MCR Labs in Framingham processess cannabis tests earlier this year.
A lab technician at MCR Labs in Framingham processess cannabis tests earlier this year.
Are all states like this?
Yes, and no. Complaints about lax testing regulations and burdensome requirements for dispensary owners are widespread in states that have legalized cannabis, and Massachusetts was among the first to debut an independent regulatory body, something a few other states have since imitated. But there are ways now that Massachusetts falls behind.
Colorado’s legislature passes a bill every year or so with “tiny tweaks” to cannabis regulations, and Maine offers licensees the option to bring regulatory suggestions directly to the agency in charge. In Massachusetts, laws often take years to change. For example, the CCC decided to get rid of a two-driver rule for delivery companies in December, but has yet to make it official.
Ryan Dominguez, executive director of the Massachusetts Cannabis Coalition, said the CCC is “particularly slow” to do the same, regardless of how they are set up. The marijuana trade organization has not taken an official stance on whether the agency should be restructured, but fears that the focus on who controls what will take away from legislative priorities.
“There’s a lot that can be taken up in terms of the oxygen in the room in terms of the governance structure,” Dominguez said. “What needs to go hand in hand with that is wholesale changes about the actual program.”
And Massachusetts’ key promise — social equity — has not always panned out. The state has long been seen as a leader, the first to create a formalized equity program as a part of legalization. But in the last six years, the state has been slow to dole out money from the Social Equity Trust Fund, and it recently paused programming for the newest social equity cohort due to budgetary reasons.
“Positioning and timing is everything in this market. At this stage now, knowing we have not created an industry that touches on the goals for diversity we set for the industry, how do we attempt to balance that and provide opportunities for people?” asked Amanda Rossitano, a Cannabis Advisory Board member who previously worked for NETA, the first dispensary in the state. “The CCC is key to that.”
H/T: www.bostonglobe.com
