WSLCB - Board Caucus
(March 11, 2025)

Here are some observations from the Tuesday March 11th Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) Board Caucus.

My top 4 takeaways:

• Board Chair Jim Vollendroff introduced the topic of improving “Board Efficiencies” as assisting Governor Bob Ferguson in streamlining agency processes, and planned for a proposal to be voted upon the following day.
  • The same topic was an agenda item for the March 4th Board Caucus, though Vollendroff chose not to elaborate on the subject at that meeting.
  • On Tuesday, Vollendroff began by saying, “As board chair, my commitment to my fellow board members and the community is to ensure that we operate with efficiency and transparency; and with a strong commitment to community engagement, and in leadership.” He established that he wanted the board’s assistance ensuring “that our meetings are structured in a way that allows us to be productive, have meaningful discussions and to make well informed decisions” (audio - 3m, video - TVW).
    • While Vollendroff had worked to have productive conversations and be efficient in his time on the board, “I've received feedback from some and experienced firsthand that our meetings could be more productive in keeping with Governor Ferguson's goals of government efficiency and customer service.” He wanted them to discuss “proposals on how we structure certain meetings in which we participate, and I'll share the anticipated benefits: reinforcing innovation, accountability, and meaningful community impact.”
      • On February 26th, Ferguson held a press conference regarding his proposals to address the budget deficit, emphasizing “roughly $4 billion in savings and government efficiencies.” The accompanying press release noted there would be savings in “Good government efficiencies and reductions to ensure state agencies are running as lean as possible and right-sizing government. Many of these are reductions that should be made even if there was not a budget shortfall.”
      • Two of the governor’s executive orders deal with efficiency, with “Improving Transparency and Building Efficiency in the State’s Permitting and Licensing Processes,” likely being relevant to WSLCB.
      • At his first meeting as board chair on January 15th, Vollendroff noted that the board planned to be “looking at process,” and the “customer service” aspect of accepting petitions for rulemaking that wouldn’t be addressed by the agency in a “timely manner.”
    • Vollendroff stressed that they were not finalizing any changes during the caucus, and would only talk about possible improvements as he welcomed ideas from board members on other potential efficiencies. However, he then outlined his approximately 24 hour timeline to restructure public meetings: “Based on what I hear today, I will draft a proposal, and I will bring that to you at tomorrow's board meeting. I'll then ask for a motion granting me as the chair of the authority to govern the proceedings and implement the proposed changes.”

• Vollendroff called for reducing the number of board meetings from every other week to monthly, limiting acceptable public feedback to only written comments, and having public hearings related to rulemaking be separate events (audio - 4m, video - TVW).
  • First, he advocated for transitioning from bi-weekly to monthly meetings. He claimed, “it’s labor intensive and it’s time consuming" for staff and the board to attend twice-monthly public meetings, and once a month would “better align with the timing of key updates and to provide staffing flexibility and efficiency [to instead] execute strategic initiatives and operational priorities, rather than spending excessive time in meeting preparation and attendance.” Vollendroff argued this would result in a “more comprehensive discussion with well prepared reports and recommendations, instead of reacting to issues in short intervals the board can focus on strategic, high impact decisions with a clearer, long term perspective.” He added that this maintained the flexibility to call special meetings for urgent matters
  • Vollendroff’s next proposal was to remove the opportunity for oral public comment from board meetings and transition to accept written comments only. Vollendroff believed this would "improve decision making and thoughtful review by the board,” as board members could more carefully read and analyze written comments. This also “prevent[ed] unnecessary repetition while ensuring all arguments are considered,” Vollendroff reasoned, and pushed “more thoughtful and detailed public input with supporting arguments…which are often difficult to convey in a short oral statement.”
    • RCW 42.30.240 in the Open Public Meeting Act (OPMA) requires public comment be made available by an agency, but allows for their decision over whether such comments can be made orally or in written form only. 
  • The third idea Vollendroff put forward was to “decouple the public hearing process for rule petitions between CR-102 and CR-103, from the board meeting itself. I propose the public hearings be conducted on a different day, at a different time, and to be managed by the rules team, which I believe will lead to a more focused discussion.” He suggested separate meetings would result in comments more focused on a rule topic, observing, “this prevents general concerns from being lost in technical rule discussion, and allows the agency and board to give appropriate…attention to each type of feedback.”
    • As a board member, Vollendroff faced pushback around reducing the amount of speaking time given to the public in June 2024. During his first meeting as board chair, he had a member of the public escorted out of the board room for repeated outbursts.
  • Board Member Ollie Garrett generally agreed with the first two proposals regarding board meeting efficiencies but wanted more time to consider decoupling of the public hearing process (audio - 4m, video - TVW).
    • On the proposals for fewer meetings and no public comments, Garrett stated her receptiveness: “I think it's good, and it frees up time where we can look at getting back into things and to focus on things that we used to do before you all joined the board.” She suggested they could return to a time “where each board member [was] responsible for certain things,” mentioning inactive groups such as the WSLCB Cannabis Advisory Council could become relevant again as an avenue for community input. Garrett further felt the proposed changes would give the board "more time to think about the testimonies, if they're coming in and we're having [a] chance to review them, and have thoughtful conversation…instead of just hearing something, as you said in the three minutes.”
    • Garrett was hesitant on decoupling petition and rulemaking activities from board meetings, stating she wanted to think about that more. Vollendroff clarified that the board would still maintain authority and only public hearings would be isolated. Garrett agreed that it might reduce confusion, especially if public comments were also transitioned to written format.
  • Board Member Pete Holmes stated, "I welcome this discussion. I'm new to the board, and so basic things like the frequency and even the dates that we have would be a welcome discussion for me to have." He also noted, “the board is currently very generous about our acceptance of public comment. It's only required in the case of final actions, of course” (audio - 6m, video - TVW).
    • "I just want to echo something that I have found in my short time on the board, that the nature of those comments, particularly when they're in writing, are incredibly helpful to me,” Holmes remarked. He suggested comments on the Minors on Wholesale Licensed Premises Rulemaking Project had been so helpful that he would have suggested “verbatim acceptance of the written comments.”
    • "I'm wondering…whether it's possible that we can still preserve a way for oral testimony to be submitted virtually,” Holmes offered, wanting comments “to be able to be recorded, for instance.” He thought this could offer the public the advantage of accessibility while potentially improving board efficiency.

• Moving on and similar to board meetings, Vollendroff proposed reducing the frequency of the board caucus to every other week, which Board Member Ollie Garrett supported while noting the continued option for additional meetings if needed (audio - 1m, video - TVW).
  • Vollendroff said that if board meetings were to move to a monthly schedule, "it only makes sense that we decrease the frequency of caucus meetings." He suggested that the board "meet for caucus every other week to discuss agency business, to better align with the timing of key updates and to provide staffing flexibility and efficiency.” He clarified that public attendance would continue to be available for the caucus meetings, and that this was his only proposed change to those events.
  • Garrett regarded this change as going “along with what you're proposing for the board meetings," highlighting that "at any point in time if there needs to be an additional caucus or board meeting based on anything that's going on, we still have that option.” Vollendroff confirmed that the board would retain "the flexibility to call a special meeting given the required 24 hour advance notice that we have” (audio - 1m, video - TVW).

• Vollendroff proposed Executive Management Team (EMT) meetings be withdrawn into non-public discussions with rotating attendance by board members who would be tasked with conveying what they learned to other members in caucus, a change which evoked a more skeptical reception.
  • Vollendroff proposed that the frequency of Executive Management Team (EMT) meetings remain the same, but that the gatherings “transition to having a single board member attend on a rotating basis.” This member would then be "expected to provide a summary at caucus, updating the rest of the board” (audio - 1m, video - TVW).
    • He considered the current EMT format as amounting to "a report out by LCB leadership…as opposed to what I consider to be an executive management team meeting." He suggested private meetings would be "more efficient, given the current structure, to have a single board member attend, and then bring relevant reports or agenda items discussed to caucus for deeper, more thoughtful and detailed discussion.”
    • Lastly, “I propose the name of the meeting also be changed to better reflect the purpose of the meeting,” Vollendroff stated.
  • Garrett provided historical context and expressed a preference for EMT meetings to remain structured to allow all three board members to directly engage with specific agency divisions as needed (audio - 5m, video - TVW).
    • She recalled EMT meetings had evolved from "more of a report out from the various divisions" to being "tailored to a conversation or something that was going on." Garrett elaborated that if there was a "hot item" like an issue with enforcement, the EMT meeting would involve bringing in representatives from the relevant division to advise the board and discuss the situation. She explained that such tailored meetings were not meant to involve the entire agency but were focused on specific areas. As a result, not all division leaders were always reporting at EMT but more relevant division staff could attend, the entire board could ask questions, and talk with one another.
    • Garrett clarified that unlike the board caucus, which she described as "our time to talk to each other," the EMT was "our time to all talk to [Licensing staff], talk to Becky [Smith, Director of Licensing and Regulations], ask questions and get answers." She believed it was more effective for all three board members to be present to directly engage with the relevant staff and have a dialogue “with that subject matter, or that person, or whatever that is, at that time.”
    • Additionally, Garrett regarded EMT meetings as never being that heavily attended by members of the public, distinguishing it from caucus and board meetings which could draw more citizens. Vollendroff clarified that while a board caucus was more commonly a conversation amongst the board, “it's not unheard of that we identify a content expert that we want to have come to [the] caucus to educate us.”
  • Board Member Pete Holmes viewed the “subject of the executive management team meetings…best demonstrates your concern about efficiency in the agency as a whole.” He felt rotating board member participation in EMT meetings would avoid the board quorum mandating meetings be public “to comply with the letter of the law, even though we're not making decisions in EMT meetings.” He indicated the single-member approach meant “you essentially have to do it once for each board member, as opposed to having everyone there to ask questions, have a discussion and receive the same information at the same time” (audio - 2m, video - TVW).
    • Holmes used the analogy of a "burn rate" to illustrate the inefficiency, "where staff time [could] be tripled, essentially, to deal with some of the same issues." Having joined the board weeks earlier, he’d had to be reminded about the difficulties of avoiding board quorum even when hoping to simply discuss an agency matter directly with one of his fellow members. "I agree with the suggestion about rotating attendance, and we'll make the most of that,” Holmes concluded.
    • Garrett clarified that Holmes’ example about quorum was from a separate type of internal meeting, confusingly referred to as either Management Team meetings or Directors meetings, as concerns about board member participation couldn’t have been from a public EMT meeting. Vollendroff went on to specify his proposal “would be that one of us attend [the revised EMT] and then bring that agenda discussion, or that discussion to caucus.” Holmes said he would confirm which type of “regular meeting” he was referring to.
  • After some uncertainty from Garrett, Vollendroff summed up his goal to “have the same configuration of attendance other than, as opposed to all three board members going at the same time, we would send one board member to that, and that board member would then come back and share…at caucus what the agenda was, and what was covered.” The caucus would involve “a more detailed discussion…about any items that come from the executive management team” (audio - 2m, video - TVW).
    • Garrett suggested if a board member wanted to have a dialogue with staff of a particular agency division or on a specified topic it should occur at caucus meetings. Vollendroff replied, “I think that the conversation, it could still happen at EMT. Ollie, what I'm saying is, then the board member who's in attendance would bring it to caucus, and we would have a more broad discussion about it amongst all three board members in that way.”
    • Garrett asked whether staff from EMT would then attend caucus for that discussion, and Vollendroff responded that could be at the discretion of whichever member had attended the EMT.
  • Holmes remembered that the internal meeting he’d been unable to attend over quorum concerns had been a “division director” meeting Vollendroff represented the Board at. Holmes suggested they reach out to an Assistant Attorney General assigned to WSLCB for clarification about how OPMA was applied, wondering if a rotation would “preclude someone that's not presently assigned from attending” that internal meeting. Vollendroff nevertheless returned to his revision of the public EMT meeting format, asserting, “the way that it's structured now, it's subject to the OPMA, and so we would change that. If only one board member comes…it wouldn't be open to the OPMA.” He assumed EMT meetings would no longer be broadcast on TVW, due to “structural changes that would occur” to negate public meeting requirements. Vollendroff concluded by asking “that we either leave it like it is now, or we make the change and just have a rotating board member go.” Holmes added he wanted to “achieve greater efficiencies in the work of the Board, and we have to do that in an open, clear manner” (audio - 2m, video - TVW).
  • As Vollendroff wrapped up the conversation, he remarked, "I appreciate each one of you, and I appreciate the space in which we have, the limited space in which we have to have these types of conversation.” He said it was “ultimately our role and responsibility to have these kind of dialogues in public, so that we're signaling and giving to the community, and our licensees, and our staff clear direction on where we see the agency going in terms of policy” (audio - 1m, video - TVW).
    • He looked forward to "working with each of you on implementation of any of the changes that we propose today,” and expected to have a draft proposal for meeting changes ready for consideration at the following day’s March 12th Board Meeting. Vollendroff planned to “assign timelines to things, so everybody's very clear on when things will happen at what time…making sure that we're giving the public notice about when these things would take effect, should we adopt them.”
  • Following the caucus, Cannabis Observer Founder Gregory Foster submitted written comments on Vollendroff’s proposal, in which he outlined arguments for three potential amendments:
    • 1. Keep EMT meetings open to the public.
    • 2. Voluntarily make written public comments publicly accessible.
    • 3. To avoid the appearance of rushing through---overnight---a rather substantial set of changes to the board's operations, I suggest delaying your motion until the March 26th Board Meeting.