WSLCB - Board Meeting
(April 9, 2025)

Here are some observations from the Wednesday April 9th Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) Board Meeting.

My top 3 takeaways:

• Policy and Rules Manager Kevin Walder shared cannabis rulemaking updates covering projects and petitions for minors on licensed premises; customer identification; concentrate and edible packaging; and laboratory test terminology.
  • Minors on Wholesale Licensed Premises (audio - 1m, video - TVW, Rulemaking Project)
    • Walder noted the project originated from a July 2022 petition to make permanent the temporary Coronavirus pandemic-era WSLCB allowances “that permit children and grandchildren of non-retail licensees to be present on the premises, if supervised and other conditions are met.” 
    • He explained that the petition had been initiated as a project when a CR-101 was approved in February 2024. The proposed rule revisions were published on January 15th, and Walder indicated staff planned to “introduce a supplemental CR-102 on April 23 in order to incorporate some of the feedback that we received.” Absent further changes, a CR-103 to adopt changes would be presented for board approval “likely…in June.”
  • Identification Reform (audio - <1m, video - TVW, Rulemaking Project)
    • Walder reported on the “acceptable forms of ID rulemaking which began in October of last year.” Staff were “conducting research and reviewing stakeholder feedback” as they considered a CR-102 for “later this spring.” He noted the denial of a petition to accept permanent resident cards as valid ID for purchases, as that may be considered in this project instead.
      • In WSLCB workshops, the identification reform project had been narrowed in scope to alcohol sales, and staff had not clarified whether it would be expanded to include acceptable forms of identification at cannabis retail.
  • Concentrates Packaging (Rulemaking Petition) and Edibles Packaging (audio - <1m, video - TVW, Rulemaking Petition).
    • Walder spoke to two petitions from the Cannabis Alliance related to packaging for different categories of cannabis products. He anticipated having staff recommendations on both petitions ready to present at the next board meeting on April 23rd.
  • Lab Test Terminology (audio - <1m, video - TVW, Rulemaking Petition).
    • Walder stated that the agency was researching a petition from accredited and certified cannabis testing lab Confidence Analytics “requesting that we update terminology related to testing in our rules for consistency and clarity, and we plan to present our recommendation to the board on that one in May.”
  • Walder reported that the agency was monitoring feedback received by the Washington State Department of Health (DOH) on their medical cannabis rulemaking to ensure DOH rules stayed consistent with WSLCB. He relayed that agency representatives “were continuing a dialog with them as they prepare for a CR-102 proposal” (audio - <1m, video - TVW).
  • The final topic Walder brought to the board’s attention was staff effort assessing bills being advanced in the Washington State Legislature. He noted his team was “looking at how [legislation] may impact capacity for rulemaking going forward” (audio - <1m, video - TVW).

• Policy and Rules Coordinator Denise Laflamme provided a briefing on the proposed rules supporting the transfer of cannabis laboratory quality standards and accreditation authority from WSLCB to the Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) before a public hearing in which three commenters reiterated identical concerns about an attempted expansion of reporting requirements in a rulemaking focused on rescinding agency authority (audio - 7m, video - TVW, Rulemaking Project).
  • Laflamme stated she was there to "preview the public hearing on rulemaking to amend and repeal sections of chapter 314-55 WAC related to the transfer of cannabis laboratory quality standards and accreditation from the LCB” to WSDA. She explained that "laboratory accreditation is the process that assures laboratories are following laboratory standards to achieve consistent and accurate results.” Laflamme mentioned the project addressed changes from three different bills on the subject.
    • HB 2052, passed in 2019, initially transferred the accreditation authority from WSLCB to the Washington State Department of Ecology.
    • In 2022, another bill—HB 1859— incorporated more modifications and established the Cannabis Lab Analysis Standards Program (CLASP). WSDA approved rules implementing that legislation in April 2024 “under new chapter 16-309 WAC.”
    • Finally, HB 2151, passed in 2024, "amended RCW 69.50.348 and among other things, reassigned the responsibility…to Department of Agriculture.” The statute required labs to “obtain and maintain” WSDA accreditation while WSLCB continued certification of accredited labs as the latter agency would still have “authority for setting quality assurance and product standards under RCW 69.50.342 and enforcing these product standards, as well as enforcing other requirements, including reporting of test results to LCB, traceability, and laboratory disposal of cannabis wastes.”
  • Laflamme indicated the proposed rule language reflected the transfer of laboratory quality standards and accreditation to WSDA, including "repealing two WAC sections: WAC 314-55-1025, which was proficiency testing...and WAC 314-55-103,” a laboratory checklist. She stated rules being amended were “WACs 314-55-0995, 314-55-102, 314-55-1035, and 314-55-109." Changes involved removal of references to WSLCB accreditation activities, adding references to WSDA rules, aligning terminology, moving remaining agency-related language, and removing citations of repealed sections.
  • The rulemaking was initiated in July 2024, Laflamme told board members, with two focus groups on the project held on February 3rd and 6th. Proposed language was published on February 26th, and officials had received ten written comments, “with nine of these related to requirements for reporting cannabis testing results into the state's traceability system,” the Cannabis Central Reporting System (CCRS).
  • Laflamme suggested that absent substantive changes to the proposal being deemed necessary by staff based on comments received through April 9th, her plan was "to bring the CR-103 with final rule language to the board for approval at the next board meeting on April 23.” Under this timeline, she explained that the changes would take effect on May 24th.
  • Caitlein Ryan, Cannabis Alliance Executive Director (audio - 3m, video - TVW, written comments)
    • Ryan voiced concerns from her members about a proposed change to WAC 314-55-0995: "Specifically, the new language in subsection (3)(h) could be read to extend LCB oversight to all laboratory testing results, not just those tied to required quality…control testing." She felt this revision could represent an expansion of regulatory authority without clear language in law. The wording went "beyond the scope of this rulemaking, which was introduced to address the transfer of authority, not redefine the boundaries of reporting obligations."
    • Ryan also noted the timing of these proposed changes in the context of recent shifts in agency enforcement priorities, stating, “we see new measures introduced that reflect a broader posture towards compliance that is a functional change in policy.” She argued that simultaneous evolution of rules and enforcement could cause confusion among licensees. Ryan then brought up the term "all tests" in the proposed language, suggesting that if agency leaders intended to broaden reporting beyond required quality control testing, that "does deserve its own rulemaking process, one that's clearly scoped, open to public comment and grounded in shared understanding.” She added how "terms like mandatory and non-mandatory testing [were] not defined anywhere in statute or rule” and had only previously appeared in “informal” WSLCB guidance.
    • Ryan concluded with a request for the board "to revise the proposed language, to remain aligned with statutory intent, and to consider a separate rule making process" if broader oversight was being considered.
      • The petition on Lab Test Terminology mentioned by Walder requested the definition of “Mandatory State Compliance Testing,” or an equivalent term, “to differentiate non-mandatory (a.k.a. research and development or ‘R&D’) testing.”
  • Lara Kaminsky (audio - 3m, video - TVW, written comments)
    • Speaking as a concerned citizen, Kaminsky echoed Ryan’s concerns. She agreed the revision in WAC 314-55-0995 represented “a deliberate and concerning attempt to broaden authority without proper rulemaking or public input.” While she felt most of the proposed rule language was “largely straightforward” and aligned with legislative intent, the reporting of “all tests” was a subtle alteration with broader implications.
    • Kaminsky noted the section being repealed “limited certification reporting to required tests” and WAC 314-55-102 stipulated “what those tests are and when they…must occur.” She argued the existing rule “create[d] a clear framework for the scope and timing of testing and reporting.” Whereas she regarded inclusion of “all tests” as expanding licensees’ reporting obligations based on agency policy, rather than state law or rule.
    • Kaminsky agreed with Ryan’s assertion that dedicated rulemaking and outreach to interested parties was needed, and the proposed change was not something to be implemented under the "guise of alignment or technical update.” Until WSLCB undertook a project dedicated to reporting non-mandatory testing, she respectfully asked the agency "to remove or revise the language in 0995 referencing all tests, and commit to a transparent public rulemaking process before imposing any new reporting mandates."
  • Amber Wise, Medicine Creek Analytics Scientific Director (audio - 2m, video - TVW)
    • Wise concurred with concerns over the rule change expanding reporting to all tests. She wanted to see an edit to WAC 314-55-0995(3)(h) inserting “the words ‘required,’ or ‘quality control’ to describe the test results that should be reported” to CCRS. Wise believed the revised sentence should read: "certified laboratories must report all quality control test results, or must report all required test results directly into LCB’s traceability system within 24 hours of completion." This wording was “the same language that can be found currently in WAC 314-55-102.” 
    • Wise reiterated that "the LCB has recently announced changes in reporting requirements for non-mandatory tests, and these decisions should be addressed transparently with public comment and stakeholder feedback.” The proposed change at issue was “outside the scope of this lab accreditation transfer bill that we are discussing today,” she asserted.
  • John Kingsbury (written comments)
    • Kingsbury did not testify during the hearing but shared his written comments with WSLCB staff and Cannabis Observer.
    • Kingsbury raised similar concerns about test reporting, but included specific examples of how the change would impact him as a medical cannabis patient.  He was curious if “even those [tests] ordered by patients—would now need to go into the traceability system. I’m not really sure how that would work, or if that was even the intention.” He conveyed that some patients might forego testing their personal cannabis supply under such a regime to preserve their privacy.
    • Kingsbury called for the language to specify “required” test results, elaborating how “the wrong response to those valid concerns would be to simply wash the LCB website of past policy and guidance that only mandatory testing be reported, adopt this overly broad phrase, and pretend that this has been the policy all along.  The right response would be to have discussion about Enforcement or other agency concerns, about any potential collateral consequences, about patient privacy and responsibilities, and for a more thoughtful policy in that way.”
  • For more background on the concerted push by WSLCB staff to expand test reporting requirements through policy and in rule, see Cannabis Observer’s reporting in late March.
    • After publication of this observation on April 10th, WSLCB staff published a "CCRS Reporting Follow Up" announcement which included an internal briefing document describing an agency perspective on the "Developing Issue" described as "Laboratories failing to report all quality assurance test results into Cannabis Central Reporting System (CCRS)." The announcement also indicated, "Within the next two to three months, we will also open the rule development process to address R&D definitions and protocols related to submitting lab product testing results and incorporating elements related to internal quality control sampling specifically related to product development."

• While Board Member Ollie Garrett did not make an explicit acknowledgement of the end of in-person general public comment during the meeting, she did announce the process for sharing written comments received as an attachment to approved minutes published in the weeks or months following board meetings (audio - <1m, video - TVW).
  • The elimination of the opportunity to offer spoken general public comments during board meetings was proposed by Chair Jim Vollendroff as part of his “board efficiencies” first contemplated on March 11th. The board had since announced adoption of meeting changes which reduced the number of caucus and board meetings, and required general public comments to be submitted in writing.  Final verbal comments were offered by the public on March 26th.
  • As the board meeting wrapped, Garrett shared that “general written public comments received [in the] LCBboardmeeting@lcb.wa.gov inbox are distributed to all of the board members for review, and filed in the meeting folders. All comments received will also be attached to the final approved board meeting minutes then posted on the LCB website.”
    • During the meeting, board members approved meeting minutes from May 2023 evidencing a history of tardiness in voluntary transparency.  Members also approved minutes from March 2025 highlighting the unavoidable delay in publication that will occur after the shift to monthly board meetings if written comments are unnecessarily attached to subsequent approval of minutes.
      • Other regulatory agencies impose a deadline on receipt of written comments in order to facilitate proactive publication before meetings occur.
    • Cannabis Observer requests public information associated with every WSLCB public meeting.  We commit to publishing general written comments as we receive them on our website on each event’s detail screen.