WSLCB - Board Meeting
(January 6, 2021)

Here are some observations from the Wednesday January 6th Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) Board Meeting.

My top 3 takeaways:

• Policy and Rules Manager Kathy Hoffman described the creation of an Interpretive and Policy Statement Program to clarify agency opinions (audio - 10m) 
  • Hoffman first described elements of the interpretive and policy statement program during a November 2020 webinar before sharing more details at the December 2020 WSLCB Alcohol Advisory Council meeting.
  • Hoffman kicked off her presentation by saying the program precipitated “significant changes to the way we approach policy development in the last several months.” She said the new process was “launched internally this week” and had been “guided” by the independent enforcement review conducted by Hillard Heintze in 2019, “but even before that we recognized the need for consistency in interpretation of laws and rules.” Starting in July 2020, Hoffman worked on “designing the operational structure and framework for an interpretive and policy statement program” which included “a broader policy development process,” new forms and web pages, staff training, and procedures.
  • One challenge had been “establishing an initial threshold” for determining “what issues warranted an interpretive policy statement or guidance document.” She explained an “internal request form” had been developed for that purpose and resulting opinions would eventually be published in “an online database of interpretive and policy statements available to both internal and external stakeholders.”
    • “Interpretive statements” lack the “force and effect of law,” Hoffman noted. These documents were intended to “convey LCB’s interpretation of law and regulation as it existed at the time the statement was issued.” She added they were “not case or fact-specific and are not reviewed by internal stakeholders.” 
    • Policy statements differ in that they “are vetted with our stakeholders” during a review process, Hoffman said, and deal with “the entire organization and are really intended to set direction” for the agency’s planning and intent for the future.
  • Hoffman said staff could request either kind of statement by completing a form which asked for “specific information such as a concise issue statement...finer details,” supporting materials, and “anything else that gives us a big picture understanding of the issue.” Forms would be reviewed by the WSLCB division in which they originated, she told attendees, before being forwarded to her staff for “an extensive and exhaustive analysis” by the agency “and subject matter experts where needed.” The next stage was “review and additional discussion” by board members, Hoffman remarked. If they approved a statement, it was filed with the Washington State Office of the Code Reviser (WA OCR) and posted online. She identified the process as conforming to the state’s Administrative Procedures Act (APA) under RCW 34.05.230.
  • Hoffman said WSLCB was taking a “phased in approach” and wanted licensees to continue contacting and raising questions with Enforcement Officers and agency staff “as they normally would.” She viewed the program as one which could “enhance and strengthen” the relationship between the agency and licensees “by increasing consistent responses to frequent rule and statute interpretation.” Hoffman noted that staff training on the statements would be held on January 14th and 21st. She allowed that the agency would evaluate and make changes to the process if needed based on factors like “the volume of requests received, whether a timeline is working---right now we’ve determined we’re going to try for a 60 day turnaround on these---and then other measures.” Whether it was “a question about a statute or rule interpretation or what the agency’s general policy is,” the program could make WSLCB opinions “available to everyone,” she said.
  • Concluding, Hoffman shared ways people could respond to the statements. She noted the APA allowed for “converting” statements into rulemaking petitions and individuals could challenge statements through the Joint Administrative Rules Review Committee (JARRC). The Board expressed support for Hoffman’s work.

• Policy and Rules Coordinator Casey Schaufler asked the Board to extend emergency rules prohibiting vitamin E acetate and adopt final rules for location compliance certificates.
  • Emergency Rulemaking Updates - Prohibition of Vitamin E Acetate (audio - 3m). Schaufler presented four emergency rules prohibiting vitamin E acetate which the Board last extended in September 2020. He said they would expire on January 14th without further action by the Board and were “unchanged in substance and content” from prior versions. With board approval the emergency rules would stay in effect “for an additional 120 days from the filing date,” he said. The Board voted to extend the emergency rules, again.
  • Location Compliance Certificates (Rulemaking Project, audio - 3m). Schaufler reviewed the rulemaking project which began in July 2020, stating that under RCW 69.50.331(8)(e) WSLCB was required to “create a certificate of compliance for marijuana business premises” which must be issued when a licensee “meets the statutory buffer zone at the time the application was filed.” He said the certificate would allow a licensee to operate “notwithstanding a later occurring otherwise disqualifying factor” and was not a cannabis license itself. The rule would amend WAC 314-55-020(6) so that the agency could issue the certificate when applicable and “allows applicants granted a license prior to the future adoption of this rule to operate their business without being affected by a future disqualifying distance factor,” Schaufler explained. The rule had no associated costs or “regulatory burden on applicants or licensees” and did not “otherwise alter” the license application, he added. There was one comment supporting the rule, Schaufler told the Board, and members voted to adopt the final rules without remarks.

• The first public comments in 2021 included a Seattlite’s campaign to shutter retail stores, a call for patients to receive the same consideration already given to prevention interests, and a new resident ready to research ways to improve cannabis quality in the state.
  • Ellen Taft, Seattle resident (audio - 3m). Taft asked the Board “to use RCW 69.50.331 to close Uncle Ike’s and the Ruckus Pot Shop along the corner of 15th Avenue E and East Republican [Street] because of the chronic, illegal activity by their patrons outside of the premises of those shops.” She said the situation had been documented in “the crime statistics etcetera” and that she’d presented the information to the Seattle Police Department alleging the stores’ customers were why “crime has gone up in the neighborhood.” Taft reported that her repeated letters to Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan asking for the establishments to be closed had been ignored, as had outreach from herself and several business owners to members of the City Council. She urged the agency “to respond directly to our complaints.”
    • Taft previously complained about cannabis businesses allowing crime and asked people to report public consumption of cannabis to WSLCB and police on the Capitol Hill Seattle Blog.
  • Gregory Foster, Cannabis Observer Founder (audio - 5m). 
    • Foster began by acknowledging Board Chair Jane Rushford’s retirement, thanking her for “six years of service to the citizens of Washington State.” He noted the Interpretive and Policy Statement Program was another result of Hoffman’s work at WSLCB and mentioned Enforcement and Education Chief Justin Nordhorn’s transition to a new post as the agency’s first Policy and External Affairs Director. Foster said Nordhorn’s new role would entail oversight of a new stakeholder communications team on “the development of new laws and policies and their interpretations” and he inferred the group would promote “stakeholder engagement with the agency.”
    • Foster suggested WSLCB “already has an example of how this new team’s members can function in the guise of its Public Health Education Liaison [Sara Cooley Broschart].” He described the position as a “unique role” that was “not typical of cannabis regulatory authorities.” Foster articulated that her position was responsible for representing “evolving health perspectives within the agency” and collaborating with government entities on public health interests. He also noted Broschart “represents the perspectives of state and community prevention advocates” and helped “organize that stakeholder group.”
    • Foster advised that the new “outreach team” be empowered to facilitate “advocacy to the organization from particular groups” like prevention advocates, licensees, and medical cannabis patients. This would keep Broschart’s work centered on “staying informed about contemporary public health research, and communicating with federal, state, and local government public health organizations,” he said. The other possibility was for Broschart to “spend an equal amount of time and effort organizing and coordinating patient advocates as part of her responsibilities.”
  • Michael Doherty (audio - 3m). Doherty said the quality of the state’s cannabis needed “some touching up” as he had encountered “synthetic weed at one of your clubs” with stem fibers “like white plastic.” He insisted that with more “smaller mom and pop shops it raises the quality a great deal” and diminishes consumer interest in “the fake stuff.” Doherty felt that with larger scale production “money tends to go in other people’s pockets” and he alleged that “synthetic weed” had been trafficked into the state’s market. He said he’d reached out to agency staff to learn more about the cannabis research license with the goal of improving cannabis quality in the state.