WSLCB - Board Meeting
(April 27, 2022) - Summary

Eye - Medical Marijuana in America - Black Grower
[ Event Details ]

Staff announced free retail security training and site assessments would be available before the board approved an expedited rulemaking and heard a call to prioritize particular cannabis “pioneers.”

Here are some observations from the Wednesday April 27th Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) Board Meeting.

My top 3 takeaways:

  • New state-sponsored options to help curtail armed robberies of cannabis businesses were discussed by Director of Enforcement and Education Chanda Brady.
    • The topic was last addressed to the board on April 13th.
    • Brady reported on her work “with internal and external partners” to offer more help to licensees “as the incidents of violence related to the robberies have increased” (audio - 1m, WSLCB video, TVW video).
      • She told the board the agency would announce a partnership with “a statewide crime prevention association” the following week to “provide training” for cannabis licensees “and their employees.” According to Brady, this education would feature “best practices discussions” from a perspective of “crime prevention through environmental design” (CPTED).
      • As well, the agency planned to contract with an “established, experienced security firm” to assist licensees with assessments on “physical security and employee safety” and give specific recommendations, she stated.
      • Brady emphasized that these services were totally optional, and would be made “available at no cost.”
    • Board Chair David Postman inquired as to the timeline for the measures (audio - 1m, WSLCB video, TVW video).
      • Brady said her staff would “solidify” schedules by the time the partnerships were formally announced. She hoped “to start the training sessions at the end of May,” and would schedule 10 to 12 sessions so that licensees and their employees can “get to one of them.”
      • Physical security assessments would become “available mid-May” rolled out in three phases which she described as beginning “in the areas that were most impacted” by robberies in King, Snohomish, and Pierce Counties, followed by “the [Interstate-]5 corridor, and then we’ll open it up to statewide folks.” Though licensees anywhere in the state could apply, Brady commented that the phases would allow the security firm to prioritize its response in the places with the most “incidents of violence and robberies.”
    • Postman followed up with a question about how the training and assessments were funded, as his impression was the state would foot the bill for on-site consultations and assessments for “any licensee to visit their facility.” Brady agreed, repeating that this was a voluntary service for businesses and not a regulatory compliance matter. Having promised action on the matter, Postman was satisfied that calls for solutions without increasing costs for businesses would be met (audio - 1m, WSLCB video, TVW video)
  • Policy and Rules Coordinator Jeff Kildahl presented a CR-105 for expedited rulemaking on implementation of HB 1210, a 2022 law changing references of 'marijuana' in law and rule to 'cannabis' (audio - 3m, WSLCB video, TVW video, Rulemaking Project).
    • The project was initially identified by Policy and Rules Manager Kathy Hoffman on April 12th. The law mandated use of the infrequently utilized CR-105 rule process for the agency to update references in WAC Title 314.
    • Kildahl provided background information affirming that the project would match phrasing in rule language with wording in the Revised Code of Washington (RCW).
    • He remarked that expedited rulemaking differed from common rulemaking as it began with the CR-105 approval, followed by a “45 day public comment period” without a public hearing, after which a final CR-103 can be adopted by the board “if no substantive changes have been made” to the proposed language.
      • RCW 34.05.353(7) lays out CR-105 procedures: “If no written objections to the expedited rule making are filed with the agency within forty-five days after the notice of proposed expedited rule making is published, or if all objections that have been filed are withdrawn by the persons filing the objections, the agency may enter an order adopting or repealing the rule without further notice or a public hearing.”
      • The WSLCB description of CR-105 procedures stated, “if the Board receives an objection to using this process, it must file a CR-102 and hold a public hearing before adopting the rule.”
    • If approved, Kildahl said he’d file the CR-105, starting the comment period which would run from “May 18th, 2022 until July 2nd.” Final adoption of the rulemaking project would likely be presented on July 6th, with rule changes becoming effective “on August 6th.”
    • Postman was glad to see the project moving forward, finding it to be “one more step in the effort to, I guess, be honest about some of the history of these things and to take action” (audio - <1m, WSLCB video, TVW video).
    • The board approved filing of the CR-105 (audio - <1m, WSLCB video, TVW video).
  • Public comments included a suggested equity licensing change to prioritize former medical cannabis dispensary owners, and disagreement over whether speakers had been engaging in personal attacks against a board member.
    • Christopher King (audio - 5m, WSLCB video, TVW video)
      • King began by admitting an error in his comments on licensing bias from April 13th in having said “we needed to run this analysis through a compelling governmental interest window…that’s not true, with respect to Libby Haines[-Marchel, former owner of Rock Island Chronics] at least, all we need for her is a rational basis test.” He asserted the board could adopt rulemaking for social equity applicants who previously “went through the gauntlet and you got your lottery passed” before being disqualified from final approval for a factor which had since “been taken away.” King proposed such applicants should “go to the front of the line” for equity licensure based on the suggested “race-neutral criteria.”
      • Viewing the purpose of the agency’s social equity efforts as a need “to respect and honor those who built the industry” regardless of their racial identity, King insisted that good actors in the medical cannabis space “got two-stepped out” by a bad process and ought to “come first.” He felt that only after this group was reviewed and licensed by agency staff should “Johnny-come-lately” applicants be considered. The first round of equity licenses granted “should go to Blacks” as he believed “no Blacks made it through” previous licensing windows at WSLCB.
      • Intolerant of “any antisemitism here,” King spoke about “who controls the narrative in all of this” around cannabis equity. Claiming a message purportedly showed Uncle Ike’s Co-Owner Ian Eisenberg raised concerns about cannabis testing which validated “everything that I, and [John] Novak, and Cynjo Hall” had alleged were problems, he alleged Eisenberg later insulted his work. King added that “cronyism” in WSLCB cannabis licensing had been observed by others besides himself and his associates.
      • Stressing that he wasn’t “attacking” Board Member Ollie Garrett, King expressed concern that “if the only way people of color can get licenses is through being personal friends of Ollie Garrett” then agency leaders needed to “examine” bias in their processes.
    • Kevin Shelton, former LifeTree Collective Garden Owner (audio - 5m, WSLCB video, TVW video)
      • Shelton established that he’d operated a medical cannabis dispensary in Skyway from 2011 to 2016 where he claimed to have “had zero violations from any local or state agencies.” He said his criticism of Garrett’s alleged favoritism in agency licensing wasn’t meant “to hurt her, or personally attack her” but was instead intended to “shed some light…on the violations that were done against me.” Shelton pointed out that WSLCB had not obtained accreditation from the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc. (CALEA) as it was a law enforcement agency “with limited authority.”
      • Shelton’s friends and family had invested in his dispensary, he said, and he had been “destroyed financially” by losing the business and unable to distribute a return on those investments. He felt Garrett was affiliated through WSLCB with those “profiting off of our downfall."
      • Commenting that Washington State African American Cannabis Association (WSAACA) President Jim Buchanan had told him that the association “speaks for all of us,” Shelton challenged that claim. He remarked that "we're here to speak for ourselves" and Buchanan could represent those “that wish to not speak for themselves.” He asked for “justice” but hadn’t heard “one peep” from WSAACA leaders.
        • Buchanan had been active as a participant and work group member of the Washington State Legislative Task Force on Social Equity in Cannabis (WA SECTF). In a WA SECTF meeting in July 2021, Buchanan did suggest WSAACA spoke for “the community” - as that term had generally been used in a context where legislators and state agency representatives worked alongside community organizations, licensed businesses, and members of the public. As observers of every WA SECTF public meeting, we think it’s fair to assert that many different communities have been represented in that context by different individuals over time.
      • Shelton added that Postman had the power to “make a difference” before wondering about the “personal vendetta that you have against the Black pioneers." He asserted he was here “for business, and we’re here about money,” a position which he believed the board could relate to.
    • Postman recognized that WSLCB hosted required public comment periods so citizens could “say what’s on your mind," but as chair he also felt empowered to "speak on behalf of this agency" (audio - 3m, WSLCB video, TVW video).
      • Claiming a statement wasn’t an attack on Garrett “doesn’t make it so,” argued Postman. He felt speakers challenged her impartiality as a board member “continually” and raised “the same issue” which he felt Garrett had already addressed. An effort to “try to demonize Member Garrett when she has single-handedly led the effort to make our system more equitable” wasn’t “a convincing argument for me,” he explained.
      • Moreover, he denied that either Garrett or himself would be "motivated by the money that these part time jobs pay," nor did they get “more money depending on who gets a license.”
      • Postman had been "super impressed" by the progress agency staff were making on social equity despite there being “a lot of litigation around these issues." Institutional change wasn’t easy and Postman remained hopeful that “we can move beyond the personal" to focus on policy and “case law.”

Information Set