WSLCB - Board Meeting
(October 12, 2022) - Summary

Representative Melanie Morgan - Investigation and Report
[ Event Details ]

Just as social equity rulemaking at WSLCB was concluded, a report alleging abusive behavior by a former task force leader reinvigorated lingering public skepticism over agency progress.

Here are some observations from the Wednesday October 12th Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) Board Meeting.

My top 3 takeaways:

  • Final rules for implementing the social equity licensing program were adopted by the board and staff confirmed the retail application window wouldn’t be opened until 2023.
    • Policy and Rules Coordinator Kathy Hoffman initiated her briefing on the project by observing that the CR-101 had been approved almost one year earlier in October 2021 and “no comments were received” at that stage. She described how, when drafting the rules, her staff included both “revisions and updates to existing cannabis licensing rules,” as well as “creation of the new rules section and that's to establish the social equity in cannabis program” (audio - 6m, video, Rulemaking Project).
      • Officials hosted a listen and learn session about the draft rules on March 23rd, noted Hoffman, “with over 120…individuals in attendance.” She’d received board approval to file a CR-102 on April 13th, but “as we reviewed that proposal and based on comments received we opted to withdraw it on May 11th to allow for more time for research, outreach, and analysis.”
      • On August 3rd, Hoffman asked the board to approve a CR-102 with revised language, and a public hearing was hosted by WSLCB on September 14th. “Three oral comments were offered during the hearing and 13 written comments were received,” she stated, although “no substantive changes between the proposal and what is before you today for consideration for adoption” were made. Hoffman continued, saying in this circumstance, a substantive change would be a “revision that would change the function or impact of the rules, such as something that would broaden or narrow the application of the rule, or broaden or narrow qualification criteria in any way.” If any substantive change had been made, she believed it would have been “four to six months before we could ever get to another adoption phase.”
      • Referencing the concise explanatory statement in the notice of permanent rulemaking, Hoffman said it featured “a listing of the changes from the proposal that was up for hearing on September 14th, and the rules that are presented for adoption today.” She described differences as:
        • “changing the word ‘marijuana’ to ‘cannabis’”
        • “two typographical errors in the scoring rubric”
        • “added the word ‘maximum’ to total points in this in scoring rubric”
        • “added an additional clarification in subsection WAC 314-55-570(6)(c) that talks about when the board can withdraw a social equity application”
      • If approved, Hoffman planned to file the rulemaking that day “and rules would become effective 31 days after today, or November 12th of 2022.”
      • Hoffman acknowledged “the work that we've done together to get them to this place” and said it would “take some time to operationalize these rules because they're just one brick in the road to creating this program.” With “more world building to do,” she said that although “many want to apply to participate in this program as soon as rules become effective,” agency representatives didn’t anticipate “being able to accept applications” until 2023. Hoffman promised that WSLCB leaders would keep the public apprised on their website and listserv.
      • Hoffman concluded with an expression of gratitude “to our licensing team for their extraordinary work in designing this program and working with me…Thank you for thinking about what could be in ways that reduce structural barriers, but more importantly, grounding that work and why it should be because that ‘why’ is, and continues to be, our purpose.” Highlighting the work of Director of Licensing and Regulation Becky Smith, Hoffman thanked her “both professionally and personally for commitment to this work,” as her example “inspired many including me.” She then thanked Board Member Ollie Garrett and Board Chair David Postman for his “leadership and always centering the ‘why’ of this work, your commitment to social equity” and “unwavering support of…the significant change it represents.”
    • Garrett seconded Hoffman’s praise, particularly for Smith, and thanked staff from the licensing division for “lots of hours” attending Washington State Legislative Task Force on Social Equity in Cannabis (WA SECTF) events and “setting up our internal social equity task force within the agency.” She also complimented WSLCB officials “for the work that went into getting this to the adoption stage, and like Kathy said we have a lot more work to do here” (audio - 1m, video).
    • Board Member Jim Vollendroff expressed how impressed he’d been with staff who were dedicated to “assure we get this right and that we implement this quickly and well.” He was confident that “government has a role to play in social equity” and felt “super proud to be here today to be a part of this decision and process” (audio - 1m, video).
    • Postman commented that he “too will echo the echoes” of gratitude for agency staff, ready to “celebrate down the line when we have businesses open and running, and we can show this works” (audio - 4m, video).
      • Beyond Smith, he credited a “core group” from the licensing division who “worked with Policy and Rules to figure out how to get it down in writing and to turn it into what we just approved here today”:
        • Kaitlin Bamba, Senior Education and Policy Manager 
        • Sarah Davis, Program Specialist
        • Tina Huesca, Licensing staff
        • Jeanne McShane, Deputy Director
        • Nicola Reid, Compliance and Adjudications Manager
        • Linda Thompson, Cannabis Manager
      • Postman also lauded Director Rick Garza, “who was intimately involved in this process.” Postman called it the first time he’d seen WSLCB pause a rulemaking project “and then c[o]me back with a different product.” He said the idea that their first draft “wasn’t enough” really became apparent after “the listen and learn. More than a hundred people came and talked about, really candidly, what was missing…and where we…might have not done as much.” Postman appreciated seeing how staff “kept challenging themselves and each other,” going so far as to withdraw the project “knowing that would be disruptive, knowing that that would delay…this date here a little bit.” He found it admirable for staff at the agency to say “it's not enough…that's hard to do in any endeavor.” 
      • “I really want to thank the people that came to talk to us,” added Postman, grateful to “the people who come to board meetings, some every other week, and talk about this and many of them who do it in an engaging and civil and a productive manner.” He considered it to be “one of the signs of the success” knowing “some of the people who have been engaged in this process will see…their work in this product.”
    • Garza was appreciative Postman thanked the staff for the work they’d done. He wished it “was sooner, but it wasn't, that we began to take some trips to look at the other states to see” how they were managing equity in cannabis licensing, something not required by Initiative 502 (I-502). Garza also appreciated Garrett’s “patience with this process,” as he knew “it’s taken a lot of time.” Giving gratitude to the Policy and Rules as well as Licensing teams, he thanked Washington State Office of the Attorney General (OAG) Assistant Attorneys General Penny Allen and Jonathan Pitel for their help “trying to figure out how we [are] going to make this program stand up and get us what we need.” Garza wrapped up by acknowledging those “from the community who have been patient with us through this process—some that obviously haven't and I understand that—but those that have, who started with some pretty tough feelings about what needed to be done and what wasn't done” had been an asset to their rulemaking work (audio - 2m, video).
    • The board adopted the CR-103 unanimously (audio - 1m, video).
  • A report was released by Washington State House of Representatives (WA House) Chief Clerk Bernard Dean which found evidence that Representative Melanie Morgan, a former legislative co-chair of the social equity task force, “engaged in abusive and bullying conduct” against task force staff.
    • The report was submitted by Sheryl Willert of the Seattle law firm Williams Kastner to Dean on September 22nd.
      • A 2015 personnel process for reviewing harassment complaints said “The House seeks to handle complaints of harassment, inappropriate conduct, and grievances discreetly, promptly, thoroughly, and respectfully.” As the complaint involved legislative staff, when Dean “receive[d] a complaint, either oral or written, alleging a grievance,” he would investigate on behalf of the chamber, and “To the extent possible, the complaint and investigation will be handled in a confidential manner.The investigation may include interviews with the complainant, the alleged harasser, and third parties who could reasonably be expected to have relevant information. The alleged harasser shall receive notice of the nature of the complaint and identity of complainant. The complainant and respondent will be notified of the investigation findings and recommendations in writing. Findings, recommendations, and supporting documentation will be forwarded to the House Executive Rules Committee for appropriate action.”
      • Morgan was a key legislative supporter for legislation establishing and modifying the WA SECTF in 2020 (HB 2870) and 2021 (HB 1443) but did not sponsor or co-sponsor the 2022 bill (HB 2022). During the February 1st public hearing on HB 2022 which included task force recommendations, Morgan acknowledged that she’d not signed on as a co-sponsor of the bill as “a matter of procedure…I had missed the cutoff date to sign on.” The legislation subsequently was not passed.
    • The report summarized a third-party investigation of two complaints against Representative Morgan on behalf of Dean as the staff director for the chamber. Willert, the investigator, attempted to maintain the anonymity of individuals making allegations or interviewed as witnesses.
      • The report’s methodology explained that “Unless otherwise specified in the body of this report, the undersigned [Willert] found the individuals interviewed to be credible,” and made clear it “also reviewed written communications and documentation relating to the subject matter of the investigation. These documents were used to corroborate some aspects of the statements made by those who were interviewed.”
      • Individual 1 was recruited by Morgan to act as her campaign manager on her re-election campaign in 2020, and “reported that Representative Morgan is a micro-manager” and “not able to hold a campaign manager through an entire election cycle.”
        • They stayed on the campaign despite salary reductions, and “gave their all to Representative Morgan…writing correspondence and also working on a weekly podcast. As a result, when Individual 1 requested a letter of recommendation from Representative Morgan, she was quite surprised that Representative Morgan refused. When Individual 1 asked why she had refused, Representative Morgan told her that she had been ‘insubordinate’ but provided no further explanation.”
        • Individual 1 was later recruited by Individual 2 to work as a WA SECTF policy analyst, and “accepted the position because Representative Morgan would not be their supervisor and they therefore believed that they would be protected.”
      • The primary incident of harassment investigated was said to have occurred during a planning meeting of task force work group leads on October 19th, 2021.
        • Individual 1 “had been receiving complaints from some of the individuals on the Task Force that they believed Representative Morgan was “slow-walking” the agenda. According to Individual 1, it was the licensing sub-group that was being most impacted by this alleged slow-walking.” Additionally, “there had been members of the public who were openly stating that they did not trust the task force.”
        • The investigator cited a private “meeting held on September 22, 2021 where the work groups brought proposals for consideration to be addressed at the meeting which was to be held in October 2021. Individual 1 reported that because the licensing group had not been able to present their proposals at the September meeting, there was discussion about starting the meeting on October 28, 2021, with the licensing group and then moving to other issues.” 
        • Individual 1 contacted Morgan’s office to discuss the matter and was told she wouldn’t be available until an October 19th meeting with task force staff and work group representatives. This person further asserted “when they brought up the proposed agenda, Representative Morgan stated, ‘We can’t have all of this on the agenda. The Task Force is on high alert and high scrutiny.’”
        • During the October 19th planning meeting, Morgan was alleged to have berated Individual 1 for questioning proper procedures under the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), saying “I’m the elected official” and declaring “I don’t think I need to be at this meeting anymore.” Following that meeting, others present felt Individual 1 hadn’t “deserved to be treated in this manner,” and that Morgan’s behavior was “inappropriate.”
        • “Individual 2 was not present at the meeting but was advised by Individual 4 that when Individual 1 presented the agenda to Representative Morgan, the Representative immediately went into what was described as a ‘rant.’ Individual 2 reported that the conduct was so disturbing that Individual 4 also wrote into the chat on the Teams Meeting that they were ‘really sorry’ for what happened during the meeting.
      • Soon after the planning meeting, “Individual 1 reported that they were advised that at some point after October 21, 2021, Representative Morgan had suggested that if Individual 1 was not removed from the Task Force, that she, Representative Morgan, would resign.”
      • The first complaint “was lodged on November 18, 2021, by an employee of the State of Washington who originally complained about the disrespectful treatment imposed on another employee of the state, not Individual 1, by Representative Morgan.”
        • The first complaint “was focused on Representative Morgan’s treatment of Individual 2” and was filed by Individual 3, who “stated that they had had sufficient opportunity to observe the conduct and professionalism of Individual 2 such that they felt that it was necessary to report what they, Individual 3, described as serious ‘acts of indignity and misconduct’” by Morgan.
    • Assertions and speculation from interviewees documented in the report offered additional context:
      • “Individual 2 reported that the demeanor of Representative Morgan is demonstrably different when the communications are with the internal staff versus when her communications are ‘public facing.’”
      • “Individual 2 reported that the initial concern about community participation was the decision that Representative Morgan would be the chair of the Task Force. In order to facilitate the representation of what was described as an underrepresented community, the community pushed to have a community co-chair. Individual 2 reported that when they expressed the need for such representation and input, Representative Morgan reacted negatively to the suggestion, stating that there was no need for a co-chair. Ultimately, however, the Task Force decided that there should be a community co-chair of the Committee.”
        • Morgan described the delegation of duties between WA SECTF legislative and community co-chairs on June 28th.
        • “According to Individual 2, after the departure of the community co-chair, [FMS Global Strategies President and CEO Paula] Sardinas, the community began to express significant unhappiness about the manner in which the Task Force was moving. Apparently, the community members felt that the Task Force was not moving as expeditiously as the community believed that they should be moving.”
          • Willert “did not interview Ms. Sardinas in light of the fact that Ms. Sardinas had previously filed an ethics complaint against Representative Morgan which, in the opinion of the undersigned, would likely have resulted in Ms. Sardinas having a biased view of Representative Morgan.”
          • Morgan reported in her interviews that Sardinas “filed a complaint against her and she wondered whether Individual 1 and Ms. Sardinas had gotten together to ‘gang up against her.’”
      • “Individual 3 reported that after receiving a complaint about the manner in which Representative Morgan interacted with Individual 1, they had a conversation with Representative Morgan in which Representative Morgan attempted to cast blame on Individual 2 and others, including Individual 3, for a lack of training and mistakes that were made during some of the work that Individual 1 was performing.”
        • Morgan commented “that from her perspective, Individual 1 had and exhibited a greater connection to the community partners who were participants on the Task Force Committee and who had different perspectives about how to achieve the objectives of the Task Force than Representative Morgan. In hearing the description of concern from Representative Morgan, Individual 3 reported that they did not see communications with the community members as inappropriate or unusual.”
        • “Individual 3 reported that they had a meeting with Representative Morgan and another individual, Individual 6, during which time Representative Morgan sought to have the supervision of Individual 1 removed from her then current supervisor to the Director of the Office of Equity.” They further explained “their belief that it is unlikely that this is the first time that it has been suggested to Representative Morgan that her communications were/are problematic, and that Representative Morgan puts up defenses when she receives such feedback.”
      • “Individual 4 reported that they personally observed Representative Morgan tear Individual 1 down in front of an entire group of people. Individual 4 reported that the conduct was so disturbing to them that they experienced sleepless nights even though the conduct was not directed toward them.”
        • “Individual 4 reported that even though Individual 1 tried to shake the incident with Representative Morgan off as ‘a different method of leadership,’ they believed that the conduct of Representative Morgan constituted ‘abuse,’ was ‘disgusting,’ made them ‘angry,’ was ‘intimidating,’ ‘unprofessional,’ and constituted a violation of basic human rights.”
        • Additionally, they claimed “they were present when Representative Morgan made a statement that there had been an individual who previously attempted to file a complaint against her, and that person was no longer employed. Individual 4 reported that they were not sure if this was intended to intimidate, but they did not believe that it was appropriate for the Representative to make such statements.”
      • “Individual 5 credibly reported that they have had interactions with Representative Morgan that they described as being ‘hostile’ and ‘inappropriate’ on at least two occasions.”
      • “Individual 6 described Representative Morgan as passionate and having the attitude that if she is given the platform, ‘she will take it.’ Individual 6 reported that as a result of this method of communication, there is ‘white backlash’ in all forms. Individual 6 went on to state that Representative Morgan is ‘not a slave and will never be one.’” 
      • “Individual 7 reported that Representative Morgan was not respectful or appropriate with Task Force staff. Individual 7 reported that Individual 1 was attempting to push through Task Force agenda items when Representative Morgan ‘came down’ on Individual 1 in front of others in a way that Individual 7 did not believe was appropriate, especially in light of the fact that it did not appear that Individual 1 had done anything wrong. Individual 7 further reported that Individual 1 was ‘stepping up to do as much as they could and appeared to be attempting to follow rules and instructions.’ However, Individual 7 observed that Individual 1 was being treated at the very least, ‘rudely.’”  
    • When interviewed in April 2022, Morgan “reported that she could not give a ‘blow-by-blow’ stating that she was overwhelmed by the question and that the meeting in question was not the only meeting that she chairs.”
      • “When asked specifically what the interchange was between her and Individual 1 regarding the setting of the meeting, Representative Morgan reported that she did not recall the exact words that were exchanged at the meeting…When asked about the tenor [of the] exchange, she stated that the tenor is ‘I am a leader and I am the Chair and I made the decision.’ She reported that the staff kept coming back to the suggestion that there be a full meeting,” but she couldn’t remember her response.
      • “She stated that she did have a conversation sometime later with Individual 2 about Individual 1’s job performance. When inquiry was made about what concerns she raised about Individual 1, she stated that Individual 1 was inconsistent in her communications.”
      • Morgan acknowledged “that one of the other issues that she had with Individual 1 was that she started recording meetings without advising her that the recording was taking place and that multiple individuals complained.” She stated “someone inquired about the reason she was being recorded because they were not aware that they were being recorded.”
      • “Representative Morgan was questioned about her relationship with Individual 2. She stated that she felt that Individual 2 was attempting to minimize her as the Chair of the Committee. She stated that she felt that it was imperative to “stand her ground” and she felt that there was a lot of push and pull and that there was a “power struggle” about who was in charge of the Committee. When asked for specific examples, Representative Morgan was unable to provide any.”
    • Following her investigation, Willert asserted the following conclusions in the report:
      • “Representative Morgan engaged in conduct directed toward Individual 1 on October 19, 2021, which was perceived by multiple individuals to be abusive and bullying.”
      • “Representative Morgan engaged in abusive and bullying conduct which was predicated on the manner in which Representative Morgan addressed Individual 1’s suggestion that the next Task Force meeting be a full meeting and cover topics beyond those which had not been covered in the September meeting because that meeting went on for longer than necessary. These actions occurred in the presence of multiple people and were legitimately perceived and received as rude, disrespectful, and demeaning. 
      • The undersigned concludes that engaging in rude, disrespectful, and demeaning conduct is a violation of the Respectful Workplace policy.
      • The undersigned concludes that the complaints filed by Individual 1 and Individual 2 about Representative Morgan’s conduct on October 19, 2021, were the cause of the complaints lodged by Representative Morgan about Individual 1
      • The undersigned finds that the lodging of complaints against Individual 1 after learning of the complaints lodged by Individual 1 and Individual 2 constitutes retaliation and was an adverse employment action.
      • The undersigned also concludes that Representative Morgan’s suggestion that she would resign from the Task Force Committee if Individual 1 was not removed was also retaliatory in nature because its intended purpose was to force the removal of Individual 1 from their position.”
    • On October 9th, counsel for Morgan appealed Dean’s decision to release the report to the WA House Executive Rules Committee, as “the flawed investigative report was provided late on a Friday afternoon (October 7, 2022) weeks after it had been submitted (September 22, 2022) and only weeks prior to an upcoming election in which Representative Morgan is standing for re-election.”
      • Counsel argued that the Committee’s choice to release the report before her appeal “not only undermines the Committee's role in the process and denies due process and fundamental faimess by providing for public release of the investigative report prior to completion of the appeal process, the policy makes no sense.”
      • Morgan’s counsel indicated “Representative Morgan intends to present supplemental and clarifying information as a part of her appeal that will undermine both the factual ‘findings’ in the report and its unfair conclusions regarding Representative Morgan's character and conduct.”
      • According to the Washington State Legislative Ethics Board Complaint Opinions, Morgan had been cleared in three previous complaints, including two involving allegations of harassing behavior, in 2019, 2020, and June 2021.
    • On October 12th, the report and Morgan’s appeal were published in an article by the Associated Press (AP).
    • At publication time, the Executive Rules Committee included four members of the majority Democratic Caucus, of which Morgan is a member, and three minority Republican Caucus members, who would consider Morgan’s appeal.
      • The WA House Policy and Procedure guide describes the appeals process as involving a committee review “by examination of the information submitted by the grievant, and the written record assembled...To the extent that the Committee may seek additional information beyond the written record, from either the parties to the grievance or the Chief Clerk, all participants shall be afforded an equal opportunity to augment the record…The Committee will either uphold the decision rendered at Step One, modify the decision, or send the decision back to the Chief Clerk for modification. All decisions of the Committee are final.” 
    • A member of the Washington State House Commerce and Gaming Committee (WA House COG) which has oversight of cannabis-related legislation, Morgan wasn’t the first member to face claims of acting inappropriately towards civil servants.
  • In public comments, several speakers from Black Excellence in Cannabis (BEC) voiced appreciation for the board’s progress on social equity and attributed problems with the social equity task force to Morgan’s leadership.
    • Peter Manning, BEC member (audio - 4m, video).
      • Manning spoke during the previous board meeting on September 28th.
      • With adoption of the social equity rulemaking project, Manning told the board he was “happy with where we're at now.” He said that since 2015 he’d been “bringing light to the fact that there wasn't Black and Brown inclusion into this industry” and “at that time I felt it was done purposefully, and I'm not sure if I was right about that.” Regardless, he thought there’d been “a lack of color to this industry and I made that very clear and I have been fighting this whole time and still to this day we have no social equity…those opportunities were robbed from us.”
      • Manning was let down when he learned agency leaders had selected a third party vendor to act as the social equity contractor, feeling that “we should have got word from them prior to that just so we can have a discussion about it, and they can give us some type of backdrop on who they are, and why they selected them.” He called the lack of engagement “the same playbook” as the prior licensing window, where he accused Garza of “giving presentations on I-502. This is primarily to all the White neighborhoods and communities. This is what the LCB did to let White people know that ‘hey, we're gonna open up this program, you guys should come participate.’ This did not occur in my neighborhood.” He summarized “If you're truly making social equity for the Black and Brown community, there has to be transparency on how this is going to go down because it's a trust issue between my community and the LCB.” Manning had serious concerns that “people aren't included in the process.”
    • Damian Mims, BEC member (audio - 2m, video)
    • Jeramick Lyons, BEC member (audio - 5m, video)
      • Directly referencing “recent allegations surrounding the conduct of Representative Morgan and her role” in WA SECTF, Lyons asked “that you please not saddle us with the unwarranted suspicion and bias…as an organization with any misconduct or behavior of those who claim to share our desire for equity.” The pressing questions he wanted addressed were:
        • “what is known?”
        • “what has been promised?”
        • “what direct action is being taken to address it?”
      • “Our request for fairness has indeed been heard,” Lyons remarked, and “we're very, very pleased with that.” Additionally, he viewed the adopted rules “solidified as a necessary update to policy…that our state and social equity is…necessary.” Lyons felt that when I-502 was passed by voters in 2012, “it's obvious that addressing past prohibition harms were not included,” but was surprised state officials were “quibbling” over details of “disbursement” of social equity licenses, adding that BEC members saw “no movement” on the social equity program. Stating that “we have not recovered from” documented disparities in policing cannabis prohibition, he said “the most important thing to us is to be given…clear information on how this will affect us today.” Lyons wanted “ to level the playing field and we can only do that through clear communication [and] non-misrepresentation.”
    • Mike Asai, Emerald City Collective Gardens (ECCG) Co-Founder and BEC Vice President (audio - 4m, video)
      • Asai last spoke to the board on August 31st.
      • Asai held up the ethics report on Morgan as “proof of the manipulation we at Black Excellence in Cannabis have been saying for over a year.” He argued that she was “not my representative. She does not speak for the African American community. Her job and only job was to delay the process. This is a sad day for the Black and Brown community.”
      • He noted that “two years ago today, LCB had the first listen and learn session. Today, there still has not been any social equity licenses issued.” Asai suggested that once it was “time for the LCB to issue the first…social equity program draft rules it became apparent the LCB rather listened to the compromised social equity task force, than the voices from the listen and learn session.” Cannabis “pioneers have been traumatized, being cut out of this billion dollar business,” he argued, “we know there's been…manipulation done on many different levels so we're highly concerned, and going forward in this process. As stated today, now the licenses are not going out until 2023.” Believing the board was “trying to do the right thing,” Asai still found that “we've been delayed enough. I have been delayed enough, my brothers and sisters in Black Excellence in Cannabis and the Black and Brown community have been delayed enough.”
    • Sami Saad (audio - 5m, video)
    • David Busby,OpenTHC and WeedTraQR CEO (audio - 1m, video).
      • Busby referenced his comments criticizing the limitations of the Cannabis Central Reporting System (CCRS) on September 14th and 28th, and informed the board “you guys got it all sorted out.” Giving a “shout out to the tech team for getting those issues sorted,” he thanked the board.
    • Christopher King (audio - 4m, video).
    • Novas Oak, signed up to speak remotely but wasn’t in attendance when called upon. 
    • Postman thanked participants, agreeing that their “extraordinary program” for social equity would be “be publicized where there will be many, many opportunities to interact and hear what's going on, as there has been.” He knew it wasn’t going to be perfect but “we're committed to it, and like I said earlier, I think the board looks forward to being held accountable for…making this happen. We also are smart enough to know we will be held accountable.” Promising “there's nothing underhanded happening here, we've laid it out for you,” he expected to “have more conversations about it as we go on, but I look forward to seeing the program emerge and seeing people engage with it and getting the feedback on how that's going” (audio - 1m, video).

Information Set