WA SECTF - Public Meeting
(September 14, 2021) - Legislative Proposals - Disproportionately Impacted Communities

WA SECTF - Public Meeting (Sep 14, 2021) - Legislative Proposals - Disproportionately Impacted Communities
[ Event Details ]

Members adopted an algorithm for determining disproportionately impacted areas (DIAs) but postponed consideration of two social equity application process recommendations.

Here are some observations from the Tuesday September 14th Washington State Legislative Task Force on Social Equity in Cannabis (WA SECTF) Public Meeting.

My top 3 takeaways:

  • Task force members discussed a recommendation from the Disproportionately Impacted Communities Work Group which defined an algorithm to be used to determine DIAs.
    • Work group co-lead Cherie MacLeod, appointed to represent the Association of Washington Cities (AWC), broached the topic, saying they would review “DIA maps,” the “application process flowchart,” and “a scoring rubric.” She started off by reviewing the definition of DIAs, one of three “eligibility criteria” used to determine who qualifies as a social equity applicant (audio - 2m, video).
      • The Disproportionately Impacted Communities work group last met on August 17th.
      • Reached by email regarding the lull in public meetings of the work group, WA SECTF Manager Anzhane Slaughter conveyed, “Although the DIA workgroup has not been meeting, the workgroup co-leads (Chris Poulos [appointed to represent the Washington State Department of Commerce (WA Commerce)], Cherie MacLeod and other group leaders) have been meeting on a weekly basis to finalize the proposals made on the workgroup level in preparation for the full Task Force meeting on Oct 28.”
    • MacLeod identified Massachusetts as a state where officials developed “essentially a formula to define” a ranking of “census tracts in our state [by] those who’ve been most impacted” by cannabis criminalization. Michele Cadigan, a graduate student looking at equity programs and a Disproportionately Impacted Communities work group member, reviewed the algorithm which was intended to give “a DIA score for each census tract.” Following a discussion of the formula, MacLeod concluded that ranking the tracts helped “determine eligibility” and it would also “help us prioritize applicants” (audio - 12m, video).
      • Cadigan had a WSLCB contract for a maximum of 35 hours of work between March 26th and June 30th.
    • Task Force Chair Melanie Morgan, appointed to represent the Washington State House Democratic Caucus, asked for an example of the formula’s application to census tracts. MacLeod said the “top 20%” of census tracts in the state identified by the formula would be declared DIAs. Slaughter then gave an example where, using a social equity applicant’s address, the corresponding tract and DIA score would be identified and shown to the applicant. She noted, “there is the [Washington Tracking Network] WTN, which is the state agency that already does a mapping system like this” that WSLCB licensing staff could “partner with” (audio - 6m, video) 
    • Following a motion to adopt the formula, the task force voted unanimously in favor except for member Yasmin Trudeau, appointed to represent the Washington State Office of the Attorney General (WA OAG), whose abstention was “an issue of process in our office” and not a stance for or against the recommendation (audio - 2m, video). 
  • Members then discussed the proposed application process for the social equity program, leading to a variety of questions and remarks before the task force agreed to table the recommendation.
    • MacLeod described a flowchart outlining the application process, saying the established WSLCB licensing system would be augmented for social equity applicants with “more steps in the front end” (audio - 7m, video).
      • Applicants could “start off looking at mentorship, potentially, if they can go straight over and apply” with the Washington State Department of Revenue which would also send their application to a “community review panel, made up of community members.” This third-party weighed in on “preliminary approval,” at which point an applicant could seek a business location before their application was submitted to WSLCB licensing officials, she explained. MacLeod stated that the work group was also asking the task force to recommend “at least six months of time...to find a compliant location.” Applicants at this stage, “or later on in the process,” could seek social equity technical assistance grants from WA Commerce.
      • She continued, saying a “Social Equity Case Manager or Advocate” would be employed by WSLCB to “keep an eye on this process.” Expecting “far more applications submitted than there are licenses,” for social equity, MacLeod mentioned that the community review panel could also serve as a “tie breaking” entity for applicant prioritization.
      • MacLeod outlined how applicants progressing past this point would follow a process similar to existing WSLCB licensing procedures including inspections, fees, and license issuance. Once the equity licensee obtained local government approval, “they can eventually open up,” she commented.
    • Task force member Ollie Garrett, appointed to represent WSLCB, wondered about the potential for a six month delay before application denial and if applicants could work with case managers to address “what the issue is.” MacLeod answered that the time period could be a “minimum” and she hoped applicants wouldn’t be denied “without working with them” first (audio - 2m, video). 
    • Task force member Curtis King, appointed to represent the Washington State Senate Republican Caucus, wanted to know more about the review panel and if its members came from “a specific city, or county, or area” where the business was to be located. He asked whether the applicant timeline amounted to “holding a license for six months” while other applications could have been processed (audio - 4m, video).
      • MacLeod responded that the community review panel was still under development but was intended to include representatives of local communities and the cannabis sector. She noted that securing a location was a “large burden in this” involving high costs for applicants, but didn’t have additional insight into whether the timeline amounted to “holding” a license.
      • Slaughter stated the panel should include subject matter experts and DIA residents while avoiding “conflicts of interest.” She relayed that the process was already being reviewed by WSLCB licensing officials, including the concept of a Social Equity Case Manager.
    • King next asked who made a final eligibility determination, the panel or WSLCB representatives. MacLeod replied that “all the applications” went through the review panel and if they didn’t meet eligibility requirements they could reapply later (audio - 1m, video). 
    • Trudeau inquired about the existing “delegation of authority for decision making,” and if it would “ultimately, rest with LCB.” She attested that if the recommendation was for WSLCB “delegating the authority of these decisions with that third party reviewer, that might be something that needs to go to the legislature to adjust.” Slaughter confirmed that “final decision authority” would still be with agency leaders, which would consider applications after the community review panel vetted them. The group would send “recommendations for selections” of applications to agency staff, who she said would “hopefully respect” the panel’s recommendation. “At this point an individual is not given a license, they’re given a preliminary approval letter,” Slaughter stated, and still had to “go through the other agency checks” such as fingerprinting for criminal history background checks and “financial review.” But the applicant could show the approval letter to officials at WA Commerce “to apply for grants,” she added, saying the work group had heard “loud and clear from community” that they needed “grants to...help get the space.” Slaughter concluded that this stage of approval was for equity applicants who were “a little bit closer to receiving a license to then be able to take something to” WA Commerce to move forward with applying for a grant (audio - 3m, video).
    • Trudeau then asked about the scope of the recommendation (audio - <1m, video) before commenting that review panel members---whether they were agency staff or a community member---could be “subject to depositions and any other sort of trial related, or process related” litigation brought to challenge the group’s decisions (audio - 1m, video).
    • Paul Brice, Happy Trees Owner and advisory member of WA SECTF, wanted to know if social equity applications were specific to a jurisdiction. Slaughter offered context that WA SECTF members would be voting on a licensing work group recommendation on additional retail licenses later in the meeting. Eventually, she expected “new license types” would be made available offering “more to choose from” and easing competition for specific jurisdictions between applicants. However, she confirmed that retail applicants would need to specify “where they would want their license” and anticipated “a lot of competition” (audio - 2m, video). King commented that the concept of license mobility “concerns me,” and Morgan asked that the issue be left to work group members (audio - 3m, video).
      • On September 22nd, the licensing work group decided to make a recommendation to WA SECTF that “all social equity retail licenses and current title certificate holders who fit the social equity definition can be located in any municipality that allows for the siting of additional retail licenses. This would not preempt local restrictions, but simply give flexibility to the licensee to locate said license where they’re able.”
    • Micah Sherman, Raven Co-Owner and a work group member, wondered if applicants would be limited to a single location, or if they could list several by order of preference “in case they don’t get their first choice.” MacLeod was amenable to the idea, with Brice adding that the established licensing process was “a one-time shot” and the idea of fallback locations for an application “has to be considered” (audio - 4m, video). 
    • Morgan requested a written version of the work group recommendation for the application process, hoping it would complement the flowchart. She pointed to the “new development pieces, like the community review panel, the social equity case manager” and wanted clarity on “who’s choosing that...what’s the makeup of that? Those are some details that are kind of missing.” She was curious if this was something that lawmakers would need to develop or if that authority would be granted to WSLCB leaders because “all of that is not laid out here.” The licensing steps for equity applicants would need to become a checklist, Morgan asserted, while the flowchart would need to be put into writing for legislators and WSLCB staff to specify “more direction in our recommendation” (audio - 12m, video)
      • MacLeod answered multiple steps required task force input on “whether folks do wanna go with” the concepts. Slaughter found “preliminary approval” and a six month timeline to find a location to be the biggest changes in the licensing process, and suggested WA SECTF would “be working alongside LCB” for implementation of “the details.” She agreed that establishing the review panel would necessitate “legislative action,” but in the meantime, approval of the recommendation amounted to “approval on the flow” of the application. 
      • Morgan didn’t believe that “working with LCB” was what WA SECTF “was tasked for.” Recommendations would be directed to that agency, where officials would “do their thing.” Slaughter felt it “behooves the task force” to collaborate with agency staff on “what’s feasible and what’s not” absent legislation, and reiterated agency leaders were already evaluating the Social Equity Case Manager idea. Morgan disagreed, confident the body was “tasked to give them recommendations” and could clarify if needed, but Garrett was the primary conduit for engaging the agency. Garrett chimed in to say agency staff had heard the task force “was working on things that may already be in place” which members might not need to “spend energy on.” 
      • Task force member Rebecca Saldaña, appointed to represent the Washington State Senate Democratic Caucus, voiced cautious support for the concept of the review panel, and had no stance on tie breaking. Believing that “the neighborhoods that would score high are in my district,” she said zoning remained a challenge but “six months gives a chance to say ‘here’s a couple places’” that would permit an equity business.
    • King had multiple comments on the application process (audio - 11m, video):
      • He understood that “you're going to have 40-50” community panels and tie breaking equally qualified social equity applicants would open “up a real Pandora's Box here." In the event the review panel started “picking winners and losers, you got a real challenge on your hands," he said.
      • Garrett suggested a panel wouldn’t be associated with each community and would primarily vet equity applicant “qualifications.” Slaughter added that community members had voiced opposition to applicant lotteries as a mechanism for moving applications forward. Brice mentioned that he hoped the process involved “picking winners” who were the “most deserving.”
      • King and Morgan wanted more definition about what the task force members were voting on and the criteria for the review panel. Slaughter said the vote would consider acceptance of the flowchart, and potential subsequent votes would address specific elements.
      • Saldaña wanted the task force to “give clear feedback” to the work group on “where we need more clarification.” Chambers had several questions, but concluded that WA SECTF wasn’t ready for a vote on the recommendation. Morgan agreed, asking for a motion to “table” the application process recommendation until it could be developed further “in word format.”
    • The task force voted unanimously to hold off on the recommendation “until a later date” and asked the work group to meet again so WA SECTF could vote “pretty quickly” on specifics before the 2022 legislative session (audio - 2m, video).
  • The task force briefly talked about the proposed application scoring rubric before voting to postpone discussion and subsequently consider the recommendation.
    • Slaughter mentioned the scoring document, saying WSLCB leaders were waiting to implement recommendations on “how we can assign points to individuals based on eligibility” and application criteria. Morgan found the rubric to be so detailed that there wouldn’t be time in the meeting to adequately brief members. Poulos agreed a speedy overview wasn’t “practical,” as there were “potentially 13 separate things that need to be voted on” (audio - 2m, video).
    • The task force voted to postpone consideration of the rubric, with one member voting nay without identifying themselves. Morgan promised to communicate with MacLeod and Poulos since “we’re really treading on a deadline here” (audio - 2m, video). 
    • The October 28th WA SECTF meeting was scheduled to include a presentation on the DIA proposal.
      • In a subsequent communication about the status of the Disproportionately Impacted Communities Work Group, Slaughter noted that Poulos had “accepted a new leadership role with the Department of Corrections. With his new role, he will be stepping away from the Task Force and another representative from Commerce will fill his seat, not necessarily his position as DIA Co-lead.”
      • Slaughter went on to say, “Same goes for Cherie[‘s] seat on the Task Force. Since she is no longer representing the Association of Washington Cities, another representative from AWC will fill in.” AWC Government Relations Advocate Sharon Swanson represented the association in MacLeod’s place at the October 20th Licensing Work Group meeting.
      • Slaughter concluded that Morgan was “looking to dissolve the workgroups and move the work back to the Task Force level. Depending on the outcome of the Oct. 28 special meeting, The DIA workgroup may be dissolved. While the Licensing and TA&M workgroup meet until the end of the year to finish up their tasks.”

Information Set