WSLCB - Listen and Learn Forum - Social Equity
(March 23, 2022) - Summary

Staff gathered input on draft conceptual rules for the agency social equity program which included many criticisms of the proposal - and heard opposition to the underlying equity project.

Here are some observations from the Wednesday March 23rd Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) Listen and Learn Forum on the Social Equity rulemaking project.

My top 8 takeaways:

• WSLCB leadership provided a background and presentation on the rulemaking project to implement social equity retail licensing.
  • Policy and Rules Manager Kathy Hoffman welcomed attendees to the discussion on “draft conceptual rules regarding the social equity in cannabis program.” She introduced Policy and Outreach Director Justin Nordhorn, Director of Licensing Becky Smith, and Kaitlin Bamba, Senior Education and Policy Manager (audio - 1m, video).
  • Board Member Ollie Garrett offered "a little history" on what WSLCB officials have “done over the last couple of years." She highlighted the BIPOC engagements in the fall of 2020, “outreach meetings to the community" which informed the board about people “left out of the industry” and led to agency request legislation which became law in March 2020 mandating both the equity program at WSLCB and the Washington State Legislative Task Force on Social Equity in Cannabis (WA SECTF). Garrett said the goal was for cannabis regulators “to be more inclusive on social equity,” especially regarding “people of color getting into the industry,” and had been “participating” in WA SECTF meetings to hear public sentiment. Board members “opened our CR-101, and began the rule process back in” October 2021 as a way to “be ready when the task force come[s] to us with recommendations” as a way to “get to some results of being able to issue license[s].” Based on the initial recommendations from WA SECTF, Garrett said agency leaders would be able to accommodate every suggestion—with the exception of “being race-based”---in order to issue licenses to equity applicants as quickly as possible without spending “years tied up in court.” She hoped to hear ways to make the policy stronger and more “inclusive,” “things that we hadn’t thought of,” or “any type of unintentional consequences” (audio - 5m, video).
    • Read the official response from WSLCB on the recommendations.
    • The board approved changes to the criminal history background process in September 2021.
  • Hoffman set out her plan to “walk through these rules with you, elicit feedback in a structured fashion, and then we’ll talk about next steps” (audio - 5m, video, presentation).
    • She noted extensive work before “fil[ing] the CR-101, and after,” asserting WA SECTF recommendations were “largely incorporated into the draft conceptual rules.” Hoffman promised input would be compiled, organized, and analyzed for possible inclusion in the rule proposal to present to the board.
    • Hoffman made clear that people were welcome to submit written comments via the WSLCB Rules email.
    • Hoffman also went over the basics of the agency rules process (audio - 1m, video). 
  • Bamba reviewed a “proposed framework” flowchart for the equity application process, commenting that it was intended “specifically for determining social equity applicants, and prioritizing which applications will be processed.” She indicated that other licensing requirements had to be met as well before licensure (audio - 2m, video). 
    • Applicants would first utilize Business Licensing Services (BLS) during a “30-day application window.” WSLCB staff would receive the applications from BLS before transmitting them to “a third-party contractor” responsible for “reviewing and scoring.”
    • Scored applications would be returned to WSLCB, where Bamba said officials would process “the highest scoring applications first” into the limited number of available retail allotments. “If there are applications that have the same score,” she stated the agency would “contract with an independent, double blind lottery” to decide which applications would be processed.
    • After this stage, an applicant would be given a “preliminary letter of approval” and then have to complete the regular application process like other cannabis licensees.

• Policy and Rules Manager Kathy Hoffman introduced the first new subsection in the conceptual draft rules, WAC 314-55-570(1) covering the purpose of the equity program, and opened the floor up to comments.
  • Hoffman commented that the purpose was developed by staff to “anchor these rules in language from RCW 69.50.335” which included the legislative intent of the equity program (audio - 2m, video). 
  • Representative Debra Entenman asked whether a prospective applicant would be required to have lived “in a low income area and a high enforcement [of cannabis related laws] area.” Smith responded that the applicant has “to meet …two of the criteria, but not all three” (audio - 2m, video).
  • Christy Stanley, Owner of Green Tiki Cannabis in Kingston, wondered when agency staff would “provide maps to identify” disproportionately impacted areas (DIAs) in subsection 2(b). Smith answered that officials were working with task force members to “receive information about the DIA areas from the University of Washington” which was anticipated to arrive “April 1st.” She assured Stanley that the maps were intended to be “outfacing” and publicly available (audio - 2m, video) 
  • Ross (audio - 1m, video) 
  • Peter Manning, Black Excellence in Cannabis (BEC) member, began by sharing his condolences for Jordan Brown, who was murdered during a retail store robbery on March 19th, and asked about the GoFundMe page in Brown’s name (audio - 4m, video). 
    • Manning was concerned that DIAs would not reflect gentrification. In the “late [19]80s and early 90s,” he resided in impoverished areas of south Seattle which were “overwhelmed with law enforcement” at that time. However, “we no longer live in those areas anymore.”
    • Manning was also bothered by “the qualifications” for applicants, suggesting they’d begun with “three that should have been met, but now we’re down to two.” He was reminded of earlier licensing windows where groups were excluded - “the reason we’re all here today.” Manning wanted to avoid skipping over applicants “like myself” who had operated unlicensed medical dispensaries in the state before voters legalized the plant for adult use.
    • Smith replied that the DIA maps under development “are going to take into consideration” gentrification “based on time frame.”
  • Philip Petty, Washington State African American Cannabis Association (WSAACA) Vice President, brought up how the initial WA SECTF recommendations had explicitly included “people of color, particularly Black people” who “were arrested at a far greater rate” for cannabis offenses (audio - 4m, video).
    • He said that DIAs would reflect these communities, but also allow “other people that lived in those areas” to apply even if they hadn’t been part of a disproportionately targeted group or arrested for a cannabis crime. If the intent was equity, “Black people were affected the most” and should be able to apply based on race.
    • Manning mentioned an executive action by Governor Jay Inslee rescinding Governor’s Directive 98-01 on government preferences based on race or sex before claiming that “color can be used” in determining licensure. Without a direct racial requirement, he predicted the same communities would be left out of the equity program.
  • Jim Buchanan, WSAACA President, said the equity program had been developed entirely because cannabis licensing had been inequitable—“specifically for African Americans”---and that statistics suggested communities of color had been sent to prison at a rate of “4:1.” He believed equity licensure for those communities should be similarly weighted (audio - 5m, video).
    • He agreed with Petty that concerns about race based preferences had been addressed by Inslee rescinding the directive which had been passed in relation to a 1998 voter initiative on affirmative action. Buchanan acknowledged there was a risk of “lawsuits” if the board approved race based preferences, but promised litigation backed by WSAACA if they didn’t. He didn’t think their proposed process could account for gentrification, and the existing wording in the conceptual rules allowed for “races that weren’t harmed” to be licensed “even before the ones that were.”
    • Wondering what officials would do if equity licenses ended up in “the wrong hands,” Buchanan asked if counsel for WSLCB wanted to go to court “on the right side of things, or the wrong side of things?"

• The section Hoffman covered next, WAC 314-55-570(2), dealt with definitions used in the application process, and issues of ownership, residency, and race were mentioned by participants.
  • Hoffman reviewed the definitions being added in the new rule subsection, saying staff hoped to hear suggested changes or additions on the following (audio - 3m, video):
    • “Average state income”
    • “Disproportionately impacted area” 
    • “Double blind lottery”
    • “Family member”
    • “Person”
    • “Preliminary letter of approval”
    • “Social equity applicant”
    • “Social equity contractor”
    • “Social equity licensee”
    • “Social equity plan”
  • Susan Stoltzfus, a Communications and Outreach Strategic Advisor for the City of Seattle, mentioned a definition for "average state income" which would include both the “most recent median household income and the per capita income” but only the former was cited in the definition of applicants. Nordhorn called this “a really good point to highlight.” Stoltzfus added that "using state median household income puts people in Seattle at a disadvantage” as the city had a higher cost of living than the rest of the state, and therefore higher median and per capita incomes as well (audio - 2m, video).
    • A related revision was included in the proposed CR-102 text published on April 7th.
  • Justin (audio - 1m, video) 
  • Ryan Lee, Martin Davis PLLC Associate Attorney, remarked that the definition for  "social equity plan" in (2)(j)(i) expected an applicant to have at least “51% of the ownership,” he presumed in order to offer a stake in the business to a party in exchange for “more potential financing.” He was concerned that the threshold allowed for “a lot of room for this process to be abused" and wouldn’t serve the people that “are the target for these licenses.” Lee recommended raising the ownership percentage or clearly laying out more lenient “financing options” in rule (audio - 2m, video).
  • Entenman indicated that the standard of "average state income" was a term she’d “never seen used in government” but the rules could outline “median income with qualifying factors” as more “typically use[d]” language. She was uncertain why race wasn’t explicitly mentioned in the rules, believing there was “no prohibition from using ‘Black African American’” in the rules due to Inslee’s recent action. She encouraged agency staff to remember “the history of why we’re doing this” in drafting the rules (audio - 2m, video). 
    • Garrett provided the perspective of the board that if applicant criteria was to include race based consideration, “it has to come to us from” the legislature. She acknowledged that HB 2022 had attempted to do this but wasn’t passed by lawmakers. She inquired whether Entenman herself would sponsor a bill allowing race as a criteria. Entenman replied that she would “if a bill was needed,” but based upon “the information that I have and the declaration that the governor made and the equity and disparity reports that have been done,” she saw sufficient evidence to show “that we can ask for these limited licenses to be” reserved for “African American people” in order to best address “past injustice” (audio - 2m, video).
  • Mike Asai, Co-Founder of Emerald City Collective Gardens (ECCG, audio - 3m, video)
  • Buchanan pointed to a 2017 opinion by the Washington State Office of the Attorney General (WA OAG) about race based preferences to remedy racial discrimination, and found Inslee’s rescinsion made that same remedy valid in “the public sector.” He asked that WSLCB leaders “stop trying to use the old language" that hindered equity in the licensing process. Buchanan then alleged that rules had been “setup…for all of these licenses to be manipulated,” and asked agency staff to make sure privileges were granted to “the folks…they’re designed to be in the hands of” (audio - 3m, video). 

• Public input on WAC 314-55-570(3), pertaining to Social Equity Applicant Requirements, was heard and many called for a more racially conscious list of requirements. 
  • Hoffman explained this section involved requirements like majority ownership of a license by an equity applicant, and three applicant qualifications (audio - 3m, video):
    • “Qualification 1: The social equity applicant or applicants have lived in a disproportionately impacted area in Washington state for a minimum of six months; or
    • Qualification 2: The social equity applicant or a family member of the applicant has been arrested or convicted of a cannabis offense; or
    • Qualification 3: The social equity applicant’s household income is less than the average state income.”
  • Manning voiced a concern with the six month residency requirement, as it had been talked about by WA SECTF as how long someone could move to an existing DIA and then “meet the qualifications.” He agreed with others that those harmed by cannabis prohibition needed to be considered first, like himself, as he’d applied for a cannabis license in 2015 and met all the equity applicant qualifications before they existed. Having been left out, along with “damn near everybody Black," Manning also professed to having seen a “White woman” who owed “a million dollars in taxes and wound up with three stores. That is an insult to me, it’s crazy.” He encouraged agency staff to first consider previous applicants “that had the door shut on them for no justifiable reason” (audio - 2m, video).
  • Asai echoed others’ comments, saying that in WSLCB and WA SECTF meetings there had been consensus that African Americans in the state were “arrested the most for cannabis.” He seconded the comment that a six month residency was insufficient, and found the idea that “only two” of the three qualifications needed to be met by an applicant made the expectations looser than the last licensing window opened under SB 5052 in 2015, in which applicants needed to meet four criteria. Asai remarked that HB 2870 had included “the arrest rates in cannabis,” so a cannabis arrest of an applicant or their family should be “one of the main qualifications,” in addition “points” for applicants meeting “all three qualifications” (audio - 5m, video). 
    • Asai suggested having the 51% ownership of a license by an equity applicant be a minimum requirement, with more weight being given to larger ownership percentages. Should he apply to license ECCG, he promised it would be “100% Black owned.”
    • He recalled the residency requirement for applicants mentioned in the WSLCB BIPOC engagements had been ten years, but “now it's six months.”
  • Louie Flores, The Pot Zone Co-Owner (audio - 3m, video) 
  • Stanley felt that since 51% ownership was a controlling stake in a company, any percentage beyond that was “a redundancy.” As for the six month residency requirement, she felt a shorter window was advantageous because there were certain to be multiple DIAs and lower income applicants wouldn’t always be in an “affected area very long” (audio - 3m, video) 
    • She then wondered “how far back” regulators would look at “qualifying income.” Smith said officials would review “at least 20 years.”
  • Petty thought that, for “a Black or Brown applicant, a social equity plan seems like nonsense” because “we are the social equity.” He stated that other legal cannabis jurisdictions set residency requirements to be “at least five years” and that rules should favor medical dispensary pioneers and those who sold cannabis “out of their pocket…on corners, at homes.” Petty was unhappy that WA SECTF recommendations on the number of licenses, “capitalization,” and mobility within jurisdictions in HB 2022 hadn’t been passed into law. Though WSAACA hadn’t spoken with Entenmen’s office about the bill, he’d felt it was the “perfect solution for what we’re trying to fix” (audio - 4m, video).
    • HB 2022 would have also removed the requirement for applicants to have a social equity plan. Some changes were made to the definition of the plan in the proposed CR-102 text.
  • Micah Sherman, Raven Co-Owner and a WA SECTF appointee co-leading the Licensing Work Group, returned to the 2017 WA OAG opinion on race based preferences “in contracting.” Members of his work group determined the war on drugs constituted a “racially informed project" and necessitated “a race conscious solution to combat that." He was skeptical that the drafted qualifications would lead to a list of “Black and Brown people that were explicitly targeted by that arrest program” becoming licensees. Sherman was hopeful inclusion of a race based qualification would improve those odds (audio - 2m, video). 
    • Race-based references in the rubric recommended by the task force were rejected by both WSLCB staff and Inslee’s office, according to an email from Sheri Sawyer, a Senior Advisor to the governor, included in the CR-102 memorandum for the rulemaking project.
  • Hoffman tried to move to the next section but Garrett reminded her they’d agreed to hear more remarks on the section (audio - 2m, video).
  • Darrell Powell, Seattle King County National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Treasurer and Area Conference Second Vice President, wanted a clearer explanation from agency representatives as to why the racially conscious approach from the task force hadn’t been applied. He found the lottery for applicants with identical scores was “a ploy” that had stakeholders “twisting in the wind for 38 licenses." Powell wanted rules that reflected communities of color being “first in line” for equity licensure as “anything short of that is unfair,” adding "you can't keep on using the term social equity" if the process disregarded race (audio - 3m, video).
  • Entenman asked about the qualification that applicants be “low income” (audio - 1m, video).
  • Jim Buchanan (audio - 2m, video) 

• After that, Hoffman introduced WAC 314-55-570(4) on the Social Equity Application Process which described the application window, initial requirements, contractor review, board review, tie-breaking lotteries, and the preliminary letter of approval.
  • Hoffman outlined the proposed process broadly, saying applicants would be limited to applying in “one jurisdiction at a time” (audio - 4m, video). 
  • Asai encouraged a definition for “pioneer” applicants that had been medical dispensaries before retail licensing. For the application window, he was curious “how long after that will the application get to the LCB?” Bamba answered that applications would be transmitted through BLS to WSLCB “within a matter of a few days” (audio - 2m, video). 
  • Entenman turned to the “oversight of the applications” as an independent entity might need a clear declaration “they will not benefit from the license.” Smith confirmed any contractor would “have to declare that they won’t benefit” from any licenses granted (audio - 2m, video). 
  • Sherman pointed out that the social equity contractor review under (4)(c)(v) still used the WSLCB alternative scoring rubric and expected an applicant to meet two out of three possible qualifications in order to qualify for a license. He professed to be unsure of the scoring value of various pairings of the three possible qualifications. Bamba stated that the statute required applicants to submit a social equity plan to the contractor who would evaluate them according to the agency’s alternative scoring (audio - 2m, video).
  • Tony Motley, Jr. (audio - 1m, video) 
  • Latisha Ellery wanted to know “why it’s being implied that this opportunity is just for African Americans?” Hoffman made clear that the proposal from staff hadn’t included race based preferences. Ellery followed up to see if “this opportunity [is] only being applied to African Americans” as she’d found commenters were debating “which race is gonna be able to qualify for this." Hoffman stressed that “a lot of decisions haven’t been made yet” (audio - 4m, video).
  • Manning alleged that a WSLCB employee named David Corva had suggested that the original voter initiative was structured so “that Blacks and Latinos would suffer the most, they wouldn’t be qualified.” He indicated he’d fought against this and been joined by other BEC members and Paula Sardinas, a former WA SECTF Co-Chair who was then a member of Washington State Commission on African American Affairs (CAAA). Manning stated that he, Sardinas, and other BEC leaders worked with WSLCB to draft social equity legislation in 2020, and that it was an attempt to address “the impact that Black people suffered at the hands of White people when it came to cannabis,” which he insisted “hammered and decimated our families.” Acknowledging Ellery’s concerns, he said the most pertinent issue was “why haven’t the people that were hurt the most benefited from it yet?” Nordhorn made clear that while some people wouldn’t agree on the justification for the program, they weren’t there to debate the “atrocities of the past," and would hear everyone out (audio - 5m, video).
  • Jim Buchanan (audio - 6m, video)
  • Alexis Gobeske, Dynamic Law Group LLC Attorney, found the mention of an equity plan in (4)(c)(v) “oddly placed and may lead to” confusion. She advised changing the mention from appearing in parentheses to being included as something the contractor was evaluating. Gobeske further felt the scoring rubric should be included in rules so that it was transparent and not “modified later,” something WSLCB leaders had done when implementing SB 5052 (audio - 2m, video). 
    • The rubric was subsequently included in the CR-102 language drafted by agency staff.
  • Asai wanted to know why (4)(c) limited the applicant to applying to one jurisdiction “during the application window” and why (d) barred an applicant from subsequently changing that jurisdiction. Bamba responded that as there were a “limited number of available licenses” and an applicant didn’t need a confirmed address but did have to select a jurisdiction, though they were evaluating changing that to a county selection rather than a municipality. She was clear that applicants could only “apply one time” and that she’d ensure the scoring rubric was available online (audio - 3m, video).
    • The CR-102 language was modified to have applicants select a county instead of a local jurisdiction. 
  • Entenman inquired about applicants’ need to submit an equity plan which Bamba noted had been in the initial law. Entenman pressed for the rationale behind having applicants endure the time and expense to develop a plan, feeling it was “an unfair requirement." Bamba had no counter argument, saying WSLCB staff were willing to work with Washington State Department of Commerce officials to “simplify” the plan. Entenman concluded the plan should be applied to "everyone, or no one" (audio - 3m, video). 
    • One mention of a social equity plan in (4)(c)(v) was removed from the CR-102.
  • Jeff Merryman, I Grow Owner, considered a requirement for an equity plan to be “great,” even as he disagreed with allowing a new licensing window for equity applicants. While agreeing it was “unfortunate that not everyone could get in,” he still found that an additional “essay” in order to apply was “nothing” (audio - 1m, video).

• WAC 314-55-570(5) dealt with Additional Provisions about the application timeline, ownership changes, siting, odds of approval, and transfer of licensure.
  • Hoffman went over the five provisions in the section before accepting comments (audio - 2m, video):
    • “(i) There are no time restrictions for a social equity applicant to select and secure a location.
    • (ii) Social equity applicants may not make ownership changes to an application after the application has been reviewed, scored, and prioritized...
    • (iii) Social equity licenses that are currently designated to specific cities may be located anywhere within the county in which the city is located,” but “may not be transferred outside of that jurisdiction.”
    • (iv) Qualifying for the Social Equity Program will not result in or guarantee cannabis business license approval…
    • (v) Licenses awarded under this section may not be transferred within the first year of the license being issued and may only be transferred to individuals or groups of individuals who comply with the requirements for initial licensure as a social equity applicant for a period of five years from the date of the transfer.”
  • Stoltzfus requested clarity in (iii) that businesses could move anywhere within a county “where not prohibited by local government,” and whether retail limits in cities were being increased or would remain capped. Bamba clarified that they were looking at "about 40 licenses" which had been “discontinued, canceled, or revoked.” While equity licensure wouldn’t automatically raise a city’s retail cap, those licensees would be allowed to locate anywhere in a county zoned for cannabis businesses, or in a municipality whose government approved retail businesses beyond their allotment cap (audio - 2m, video).
  • Stanley followed up on Stoltzfus’ remarks to ask whether an equity license approved in cities with bans or moratoriums in place, or which “don’t utilize [an] allotment,” would be automatically relocated to being in the county. Bamba replied that the draft allowed applicants to locate anywhere within a county and that WSLCB officials didn’t “hold up” issuing licenses based on local restrictions. Stanley then asked whether the number of available licenses including retail title certificate holders and Bamba assured her it didn’t (audio - 2m, video).
  • Sherman was also curious about equity licensees’ ability to move from an unincorporated area of a county with a ban or moratorium into a single city within that county with the city’s approval. Bamba said they could, and last year agency staff had identified “17 allotments that were designated to cities” maintaining bans or moratoriums. She promised to get back to Sherman with an updated list of licenses able to be moved out of a ban or moratorium area (audio - 2m, video). 
  • Buchanan wanted the time limit before an equity licensee could transfer or sell their business raised from one year to five which he believed would close a loophole in the program ripe for “major manipulation" through use of "straw owners" (audio - 2m, video). 
  • Asai called for mobility of equity licenses statewide, something which had been proposed in HB 2022. Bamba said allocation of cannabis retail by county was in statute and would need to be altered by lawmakers. Asai asked why there couldn’t be a guarantee of licensure for qualifying applicants meeting requirements in rule, and why they were barred from transferring or selling their licenses for one and five years, respectively, after receiving it. Bamba responded that besides the equity program criteria, applicants needed to meet usual cannabis licensing requirements such as securing a location and a criminal history check. Smith went over the period after applicants had received final licensing but before they could transfer or sell that license (audio - 8m, video).
  • Tim Laucks, former dispensary owner (audio - 4m, video)
  • An attendee named Justin posed a question for all participants. He proposed “unlimited licenses” available to everyone as limits were liable to “create animosity and…anger amongst the groups that are claiming they’ve been disparaged in the past." He posited that more laissez-faire licensing “would work for our benefit” because restricting them “only creates nepotism” and even “hatred” among different racial groups (audio - 3m, video).
  • Osaze Wilson, Canopy Growth Corporation Legislative Analyst, asked whether the request for proposals (RFP) to contract with the state as social equity consultants would be limited to a specific kind of business “to do this type of review.” Smith explained that they would be looking “for experience” in application scoring rather than a specific business type, and anticipated the RFP would be posted “in the next month or so” (audio - 4m, video).
  • Petty asked where the licenses available for social equity applicants were currently allotted and Bamba promised to check and get back to him. He then responded to Justin’s remark, agreeing if past applicants for cannabis licenses had “fairly” received them, “we wouldn’t be having this committee right now” (audio - 6m, video).
    • Petty then encouraged Nordhorn to describe the reason for the social equity program. He responded that the distribution of licensing to that point was “not a representation of communities across the state” as some people “involved in the cannabis industry before…didn't qualify” for reasons such as criminal history or inadequate financing. “We’re trying to reduce those barriers and provide this as a more equitable approach” on behalf of those that feel as though “they’re not included in this particular opportunity,” Nordhorn relayed. He said this was to help those “disproportionately impacted over the years”

• The final subsection, WAC 314-55-570(6), was about Application Withdrawal, and only a few people had comments pertaining to the conceptual draft language.
  • Hoffman addressed “why the board might withdraw social equity” applications (audio - 3m, video):
    • “(a) The Social Equity Program application or additional materials are determined to be incomplete or incorrect by the Social Equity Contractor; 
    • (b) The Social Equity Program application materials are not timely received by the Social Equity Contractor; or
    • (c) The social equity applicant(s) requests withdrawal of the Social Equity Program application at any time in the application process. The social equity applicant(s) must request withdrawal in writing. The voluntary withdrawal of a Social Equity Program application does not result in a hearing right.”
  • Jim Buchanan (audio - <1m, video) 
  • Peter Manning (audio - 3m, video) 
  • Justin (audio - 2m, video)
  • Asai reiterated that former dispensary owners, whom he believed were pioneers in the cannabis sector, had done “everything the right way.” But when SB 5052 established a second application window, dispensaries that “were not transparent in what they were doing” secured cannabis licenses (audio - 7m, video).
    • The merging of the adult use and medical cannabis sectors left out dispensaries owned by all races, he stated, but cannabis prohibition had been disproportionately enforced against communities of color. Asai said “Black and Brown medical pioneers are the reason why we are here.”
    • Asi claimed that "in the medical days” there’d been fewer reported robberies because dispensaries like ECCG had protected themselves, speculating that “being Black and Brown owned may have had something to do with it.” He asserted that “a lot of lies” from cannabis licensees that dispensaries were unsafe contributed to a narrative in favor of shuttering medical outlets which led to the adoption of SB 5052 in 2015. And now “the things that were supposedly happening years ago is happening now,” Asai commented, mentioning public discussions of the trend in crimes by WSLCB leaders.
      • Robberies of medical dispensaries prior to the availability of adult use cannabis retail wasn’t unheard of, with several incidents reported in Seattle alone between 2011 and 2015.
  • Jim Buchanan (audio - 3m, video) 
  • Merryman called for a preference towards those who formerly operated a medical dispensary, rather than based upon race (audio - 1m, video).
  • Manning shared his gratitude on behalf of BEC, feeling that participants “got a lot off our shoulders or chest…without hostility and animosity.” He also hoped to see more licenses for equity applicants (audio - 3m, video).

• Wrapping up, staff went over the next steps for the rulemaking project and some upcoming events.
  • Hoffman thanked attendees for staying late, assuring them that their feedback had taught her “a lot” and would inform their work on the project (audio - 1m, video). 
  • Nordhorn was explicit that the meeting wouldn’t be the “only opportunity to comment” on the rulemaking project and asked for other suggestions to be sent to rules@lcb.wa.gov. As the rules were developed, other public comment events would occur, he conveyed (audio - 1m, video).
  • Hoffman said people could also contact staff about the equity program generally, “or the licensing process.” The comments would be compiled and considered as the agency prepared for the next step in their rulemaking, she added (audio - 1m, video) 
  • At publication time, board members planned to hear a presentation from staff on the CR-102 on April 13th, and a public hearing was tentatively planned for May 11th.

Information Set