The Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) convenes a meeting of the three-member Board every two weeks to consider formal rulemaking actions and hear public testimony.
WSLCB - Board Meeting
(May 16, 2018)
Wednesday May 16, 2018 10:00 AM - 12:00 PM Observed
A former Board Member responded to the Board's denial of his petition for rulemaking, licensees spoke on the absence of equity efforts by WSLCB, and the Board hosted a public hearing on the supplemental CR-102 for Marijuana License Forfeiture Rules.
Here are some observations from the May 16th WSLCB Board Meeting.
My top 3 takeaways:
- Regulatory consultant, Chris Marr, addressed the Board after his petition for white/private label cannabis was denied the day before. Chris Marr thanked the Board for their consideration of his request but felt as if there were flaws in the staff report they used to base their decisions on. He reminded the board that the WSLCB passed rules to allow private label spirits when SB 5953 failed to pass last year and argued that the ban on cannabis private labeling was based on the same Tied House restrictions as on the spirits side and “…the same reasons for allowing the practice to exist should prevail.” (transcript, audio).
- Dr. Anne Sulton, Dr. Julius Devereaux and Tony Ives, members of the industry group S.A.G.E., stood to testify during general comment period to address issues of equity, and lack thereof, in the cannabis industry. They believe that one of the Board’s objectives, to ensure active participation by non-whites and females, is not being met and that the industry is at a critical juncture where we are at the risk of losing diversity within the industry (transcript, audio).
- Dr. Sulton urged the Board to convene a 5-7 person working group to help the Board address this issue and offered her services as well as those of her colleagues. (transcript, audio).
- There was a briefing and a public hearing on the supplemental CR 102 for Marijuana License Forfeiture Rules. There were comments received expressing concerns with the proposed rules as filed in the original CR 102 and the supplemental CR 102 was meant to address these concerns. There were no comments during the public hearing (transcript, audio).