WA SECTF - Public Meeting
(August 23, 2022) - Summary

WA SECTF - Draft Recommendations to the Governor and WA Legislature
[ Event Details ]

Task force members appointed the second new co-chair in two months, heard about 2023 request legislation, then discussed and approved final recommendations from work groups.

Here are some observations from the Tuesday August 23rd Washington State Legislative Task Force on Social Equity in Cannabis (WA SECTF) Public Meeting.

My top 6 takeaways:

  • Following the abrupt resignation of Representative Melanie Morgan, task force members nominated and approved Senator Rebecca Saldaña as the legislative co-chair.
    • Morgan was a member of the Washington State House Commerce and Gaming Committee (WA House COG), the primary House policy body for cannabis legislation, after being elected in 2018 to represent the 29th Legislative District. During her introduction to the task force in October 2020, Morgan called equity a “personal commitment” to bring “people who have been marginalized” into a place where they could be “at the table” in policymaking. Later in that meeting, Morgan was elected Co-Chair.
    • Morgan resigned as Co-Chair on July 18th. It was subsequently revealed that she was being investigated at that time by Sheryl Willert of the Seattle law firm Williams Kastner at the behest of Washington State House of Representatives (WA House) Chief Clerk Bernard Dean who’d received a complaint she “engaged in abusive and bullying conduct” against task force staff. Following interviews and reviews of communications, Willert submitted a report to Dean on September 22nd in which she concluded that:
      • Morgan behaved in ways “perceived by multiple individuals to be abusive and bullying” towards an undisclosed WA SECTF staffer. 
      • The “rude, disrespectful, and demeaning conduct [wa]s a violation of the Respectful Workplace policy,” and a level of “retaliation” by Morgan against the staffer was further alleged.
      • “Morgan’s suggestion that she would resign from the Task Force Committee if [the staffer] was not removed was also retaliatory in nature because its intended purpose was to force the removal of [a civil servant] from their position.”
      • The report and an appeal from Morgan were published in an article by the Associated Press (AP) on October 12th. Dean released the report to the WA House Executive Rules Committee which could vote on further action or Morgan’s appeal. At publication time, that committee included four members of the majority Democratic Caucus, of which Morgan was a member, and three minority Republican Caucus members.
        • The WA House Policy and Procedure manual described 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.” 
    • In the task force meeting, Lucid Lab Group Director and WA SECTF Co-Chair Jim Makoso announced, “Unfortunately, my co-chair Representative Melanie Morgan resigned from the task force and per statute we have to select a co-chair that is a legislative member” (audio - 1m). 
    • Staff Manager Anzhane Slaughter stated that as task force members worked “to produce our final report by December 9th of 2022,” the legislative co-chair would assist Makoso in “supporting the task force to meet that deliverable effort.” Additionally, she said the statute for the task force required “a legislative chair to facilitate meetings and to sign off on correspondence on behalf of the task force.” Slaughter provided a staff interpretation of WA SECTF bylaws that the “function of the legislative chair is to assist Jim, and task force members, and staff as we deliver…this final report to all relative agencies, and our governor's office” (audio - 2m). 
    • Senator Curtis King nominated Senator Rebecca Saldaña for the post and Michelle Merriweather, Urban League of Metropolitan Seattle President/CEO, was swift to “gladly second” the nomination (audio - 1m). A unanimous vote from the present members followed (audio - 1m). 
    • Appreciative of “the vote of confidence,” Saldaña pledged to help “to step up and and serve with Jim Makoso in this role to make sure that…we're able to wrap up and bring together all of the hard work that's happened over these past years…and turn it into recommendations” in a legislative report “we can all be proud of” (audio - 1m). 
      • Take a look at the draft report shared by staff on October 24th.
    • Makoso welcomed the assistance of Saldaña as Co-Chair, of the mind that “I'm ill-qualified for this position so it's great to be working with someone who is qualified.” He felt they were there “to represent the voice of the community the best we can for social equity, specifically in cannabis,” and promised to “see this through to the finish line” (audio - 1m). 
    • On October 12th, Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) officials confirmed Representative Debra Entenman was appointed to represent the Washington State House of Representatives (WA House) Democratic Caucus on WA SECTF, replacing Morgan.
  • WSLCB leadership presented their draft request legislation to implement some social equity program changes recommended by the task force.
    • During the 2022 legislative session, a bill to put prior WA SECTF recommendations into law was sponsored (HB 2022) though it wasn’t advanced by lawmakers.
    • Makoso relayed that WSLCB staff were hoping for feedback from the task force on “a proposed piece of legislation” (audio - 1m). 
    • Slaughter gave additional perspective, saying that agency leaders considered task force members to be “a key stakeholder” and wanted to get feedback on the “summary document that is before us” by August 25th. They would issue a letter from WA SECTF with Makoso and Saldaña signing on their behalf. This meant “that today is really our biggest opportunity to kind of dive into this proposed legislation as a group and offer some feedback back to the agency as they prepared to produce legislation for our upcoming legislative sessions starting here in January” (audio - 2m). 
    • Saldaña offered task force appointee and WSLCB Board Member Ollie Garrett a chance to speak to the proposal. Garrett shared there was already “an active rulemaking around the current social equity application” statute at WSLCB (audio - 3m). 
      • Saldaña asked for feedback and Makoso invited any WSLCB staff present to participate in their conversation. Slaughter then asked WSLCB Director of Policy and External Affairs Justin Nordhorn to brief on the measure.
      • Makoso acknowledged that as the draft had previously been submitted to members they could “be very diligent with our time here and…from an industry standpoint” he knew companies like his would send the agency their response. His opinion was that their reply should be as a task force that had “been working on this, this is legislation that is specific to the work that we're doing” (audio - 2m). 
    • Nordhorn stated the bill would “address some of the licensing issues that are going on, increasing the number of available licenses, decreasing some of the barriers to entry and then also update some definitions so we can align” WA SECTF work “with what we're trying to accomplish” (audio - 8m, Agency Request Legislation). 
      • If approved to seek legislative sponsorship by the governor’s staff and leaders from the Washington State Office of Financial Management (WA OFM), Nordhorn told task force members that “we'd be looking at trying to increase the license counts by looking at the available census with OFM.” This meant “we wouldn't have to go back year after year to…ask the legislature for opportunities to increase,” he explained, instead getting “a little bit more discretion in that particular area.” 
      • Nordhorn detailed how the proposal would also seek the “flexibility” for social equity licensees to “be located in any city, county, or town.” He understood regulators “still need to look at” jurisdictions with bans and moratoriums. “But the way that the current statute is written we have the ability to allow for relocation,” he said, but limited to “anywhere within the county, and so we're trying to apply that in some of our current rule activities.” Nordhorn cautioned that “if you are seeing a difference between the rulemaking and you're seeing it with this particular piece of proposed legislation, we're already trying to do some of this by rule, but in order to be able to relocate from one county to another there needs to be a statutory change.” So the bill aimed to provide “a lot more flexibility in the relocation of those particular social equity licenses.”
        • The board adopted social equity program rulemaking on October 12th, but staff indicated a window for applicants wouldn’t be opened before 2023.
      • The staff were still preparing to find a “third party contractor so we can have the scoring accomplished in a productive manner,” relayed Nordhorn.
      • Waiving the “annual licensing fees” was a recognition that “one of the costs…on the front end when you don't have a business in operation is certainly a barrier to entry,” remarked Nordhorn. So officials wanted to “alleviate some of those types of barriers,” he said, and “creating the licensing waivers is one of the strategies that has been identified.”
      • But the bill would also add specific restrictions to eventual equity license holders, as Nordhorn described “limitations on the license and transfer of ownership changes.” The intention was to “have a transition…only to another social equity applicant within the first five years so that we don't have an influx of investors trying to basically take on…all of those social equity licenses and then it's not really reflecting what we intended it to reflect.” The time limit was a “balancing act in that particular area,” acknowledged Nordhorn.
      • Nordhorn also laid out proposed definitional changes in the request bill “to reflect the formula” they’d developed following “looking at a lot of the potential legal issues.” In order to be “set up in the best way possible to move this forward so that we don't have anything stopping the licensing or reversing any type of licensing actions,” he stated that the definition for ‘applicant’ would be changed “based on what we're also trying to do with” social equity rulemaking. The request bill summary mentioned these changes:
        • “The definition of ‘disproportionately impacted areas’ is revised to mean census tracts in Washington where community members were more likely to be impacted by the war on drugs; these are areas of high unemployment, low income, and demographic indicators consistent with populations most impacted by the war on drugs, including areas with higher rates of arrest for drug charges;
        • The definition of a social equity plan is revised to indicate a plan may include how the cannabis licensee will work to promote social equity goals in their community, and removes other elements of the current statutory definition.
        • The definition of a ‘social equity applicant’ is revised to mean a person who meets at least two of three criteria listed below:
          • 1) lived in a disproportionately impacted area for at least five years between 1980 and 2010;
          • 2) Has been arrested or convicted of a cannabis offense or has a family member who has been arrested or convicted of a cannabis offense; and
          • 3) Had a household income less than the state median in the year prior to submitting an application.”
    • Because “nothing’s official until the governor can approve this,” Nordhorn said the board was limited to their existing grant of authority. Makoso thanked Nordhorn and invited comments from his fellow task force members, only to be surprised since “I don't think I've ever seen a group of people not have questions for the LCB before.”
      • Monica Martinez, Owner of The Calyx Co., noted that as a “past co-chair for” the Licensing Work Group, they had also considered formulas for additional stores. She pushed for Nordhorn and others at the agency “to maybe…look at some of the other possibilities to determine the quantities rather than just population.” Welcoming that “good feedback,” Nordhorn asked Martinez to convey her ideas “in writing to us, that would be super helpful” (audio - 1m). 
      • Micah Sherman, Raven Co-Owner, and former Licensing Work Group co-lead, was curious about the “actual plan” for feedback on the draft request bill, wanting a sense from members how they felt about it (audio - 5m). 
        • Saldaña asked if the measure was “in the right direction of what we want to see, is there something that's way off,” and wondered aloud if individuals should send feedback to WSLCB, or if there should be a concerted effort in their response. 
        • Makoso was concerned they wouldn’t have time in the meeting “to gather consensus, formulate it, get feedback, and then” transmit it “to LCB in response.” He advised sharing their actual recommendation language as an option to quickly reply to each aspect of the request bill.
        • Nordorn wanted feedback to distinguish between their rule project and request bill, and welcomed comments submitted after August 25th.
        • Saldaña got a “thumbs up” from most of WA SECTF in the virtual meeting for their position to “look at what we've already come to agreement with, everything that seems relevant to this legislation to make sure that we provide that” to WSLCB leadership “as soon as possible.”
  • Regulation of Cannabis Production Work Group co-leads presented on their recommendation for “the social equity impact of shifting primary regulation of cannabis production” from WSLCB to “the Department of Agriculture [WSDA], including potential impacts to the employment rights of workers” before a robust discussion by the task force and vote to approve their language.
    • The recommendations were adopted by work group members on July 26th.
    • Makoso, a co-lead for the work group, started off by establishing the legislative mandate for the task force to address the topic was added to RCW 69.60.336(9)(d) in 2021 through HB 1443. He explained that their work group collaborated with WSLCB, WSDA, “as well as industry members on the production and cultivation side of the cannabis industry” to try and “aggregate” opinion on the subject (audio - 2m).
    • Sherman shared how their work was “informed by all of our other recommendations that we've had thus far,” particularly on increasing opportunities “for social equity licensees to become cultivators.” He knew that the 2021 recommendations carried the rationale that “there is no space to add producers, cultivators and have those people be in an environment where they're going to be able to thrive” in the existing “cannabis economy.” Additionally, Sherman conveyed their group’s intent to “make sure that as these big [federal] changes happen, we're in a great place as a state to facilitate that recommendation for producer licenses in the future” (audio - 2m, recommendation):
      • The group’s top-level recommendation read: “Given the WSDA’s guiding principles and their ongoing efforts to work with and support producers and farmers, it would be beneficial for future social equity licensees if certain aspects of regulatory oversight for cannabis cultivation are shifted from the LCB to the WSDA.”
    • Their rationale emphasized economic outcomes, including that “It is not in the WSLCB’s statutory responsibility to be concerned about the economic outcomes of the participants of the industry that they regulate. However, a stated goal of the WSDA is to consider the economic outcomes of industry participants. This difference is a significant factor in our rationale for supporting this transition.” Sherman said legislators and others had talked about the “distinct arrangement that one agency…has it sort of in their mandate to do that sort of work, while the LCB has never really,” and it was “pretty clearly articulated by a number of different people that that was a big difference.” He noted the rationale stated: “In addition, the WSDA provides support for commodity cultivators utilizing internal departments such as ‘Business and Marketing Support’ and ‘Laboratories’ with an aim to help these businesses and reduce operational costs” and would “provide a more equitable cannabis production economy for small businesses and lay the groundwork for future entry of social equity applicants who wish to be small cannabis producers” (audio - 3m). 
      • Makoso joined the conversation to say there was concern that “just because one agency does seem to be concerned with economic outcomes and supporting the businesses themselves…in designing that program for cannabis cultivators, doesn't necessarily mean it would be executed well.” He argued that economic considerations not formally being “a part of” WSLCB’s “core guiding principles at the moment” was a concern that “came up” in their meetings (audio - 1m). 
    • Sherman continued providing their rationale on the topic of sustainability: “A successful outcome for social equity applicants is dependent on an overall sustainable and healthy cannabis economy that fosters equitable opportunities for the entire industry, while simultaneously addressing issues specific to social equity applicants. The current policies have created an economy where many cultivators are struggling to participate in the market. The WSDA supporting cannabis production would lead to an increase in opportunities for current, and future, cannabis cultivators to compete and thrive within the overall economy.” He was aware that “in order for that to occur we're going to need to be in a better place overall in our economy.” They hoped to “take advantage of the strength of the WSDA to the fullest degree” (audio - 1m). 
    • The final point in their rationale was shared by Makoso that “new implementation of the Healthy Environment for All (HEAL) Act by the WSDA would benefit social equity in cannabis production by enabling an equity lens to be placed on all WSDA related regulatory oversight. The implementation of HEAL will influence regulatory oversight to strengthen equitable opportunities, labor standards, environmental standards, and safety standards by taking a [holistic] approach to cannabis industry equity and sustainability.” The “application of that act to certain agencies, with the WSDA being one of them,” was “certainly something that would benefit social equity and cannabis production cultivation in general,” he remarked (audio - 1m). 
    • During discussion of the recommendation, Garrett expressed surprise, as the arguments differed from what Nordhorn had understood during the work group’s July meeting. She was curious as to who at WSDA was on board with the group’s determination. Makoso remembered Nordhorn “mentioning specifically that the LCB would not be in support, as written, of this recommendation” and Garrett said she wanted to avoid approving recommendations “where the other agency wasn't in agreement with this, and I would hate for us to put recommendations in that we already know it's not going to go anywhere” (audio - 5m). 
      • “The legislature asked for our recommendation on this topic and so we're weighing in on that,” Sherman commented, “and to my knowledge that doesn't require the WSDA’s approval for the legislature to change the law. So we're…answering the question that was asked of us.” He indicated, “secondarily to that it has been made pretty clear” by some officials “that there is quite a bit of a different perspective at the WSDA in the last few years, and that there does seem to be quite a bit of willingness to engage in something like this.”
      • Garrett had come away with a different impression from the WSDA staff she’d spoken with on the matter, claiming they were opposed “unless cannabis is federal[ly] legalized.” She was alright with making a recommendation the relevant agency didn’t support, so long as the group was cognizant of their opposition.
      • The work group had compiled information on “what would be the impact of that shift on social equity…outcomes,” reiterated Makoso, finding “we did the heavy lifting, and this is what we came up with.”
    • Saldaña agreed an overall task force perspective had been requested by lawmakers, but “what comes out of this” wouldn’t necessarily be in “the governor's request, or…legislation this year.” But “it is helpful to inform” legislators, she said, especially since “there's not much difference between hemp and cannabis in terms of the plant and growing.” Even as Saldaña imagined a larger role for WSDA staff in cannabis production, she expected WSLCB would continue to regulate “certain aspects…of production as well.” She remained appreciative of their work, though she didn’t expect it would be proposed in 2023 (audio - 2m). 
    • “We didn't come to this recommendation haphazardly,” insisted Makoso, “we had many conversations, not one or two.” He envisioned legislators taking “time to evaluate how this transition should be done, and what each agency individually should be responsible for.” Makoso felt elected officials faced tough choices, but maintained that their group worked “to make as informed a decision as we can, knowing that our goal wasn't ‘what's easy,’ it's ‘what do we think would be most beneficial from a social equity standpoint’” (audio - 2m). 
    • King groused about “protection of the crops,” as he assumed “if you're raising cannabis,” there would need to be “a fence, barbed wire, all kinds of things, and who…has that oversight” and “regulatory responsibility” to ensure it was secure. “Because you just can't be growing cannabis and…have it open to the public,” he declared (audio - 5m).
      • Aware of that concern, Makoso felt individual “aspects” of production should be settled by “the legislature, in conjunction with each agency” involved in cannabis regulation reviewing “which components of oversight would still need to rest with which agency, which is why we were very specific with the verbiage.” He argued that WSDA already shared oversight of cannabis edibles with WSLCB, so while their recommendation wouldn’t set a “new precedent,” legislators would need to decide the details. King thanked him for the clarification.
      • Sherman seconded the point that WSDA “already does quite a bit with the cannabis industry,” noting their role in maintaining a list of cannabis pesticides in rule. For King’s example of fencing around a cannabis production facility, Sherman suggested, “if I was like making the list of who does what, that would certainly stay within the LCB and would be more of a control component.” He viewed their recommendations as a step in growing the relationship between the department and producers.
    • Makoso invited any changes to the recommendation or “verbiage that maybe you want to see that isn't there” (audio - 1m). Saldaña phrased this as opening the floor to amendments from task force members to change the Production Work Group recommendation (audio - 1m). 
    • With no alterations offered, Merriweather moved for a vote on the language as written and was seconded by Washington State Commission on Hispanic Affairs (CHA) appointee Carmen Rivera (audio - 1m).
    • A vote was taken with everyone in favor except for King and The Bake Shop Owner Pablo Gonzalez, who abstained (audio - 3m). 
  • Next, the Non-Violent Offense Policy and Home Grow Work Group briefed on their first recommendation around the “social equity impact of altering residential cannabis agriculture regulations.”
    • The work group hosted a presentation and discussion on the topic on August 9th.
    • Merriweather, one of the group co-leads, went over the home grow recommendations they’d developed (audio - 2m, recommendations):
      • “Legalization of residential cannabis cultivation for personal use will promote social equity (6 per adult and 15 per household of plants).”
        • The plant limits came out of the most recent home grow bill at the time of the August 9th meeting, HB 1019 from 2021.
      • “The cultivation of 7 to 99 plants should be reclassified as a misdemeanor, instead of Class C Felony.
      • Expunge cultivation convictions for 20 plants or less.
      • Registering in the DOH [Washington State Department of Health] Database should be a requirement for the 15 plants with Doctors Recommendation or Prescription.”
    • Merriweather thought their work group “was really brilliant and had some…valuable feedback as to our rationale to those recommendations,” which stated that (audio - 4m):
      • “Less arrests would reduce the accumulated harm suffered by individuals, families, and local areas subject to severe impacts from the historical application and enforcement of cannabis prohibition laws. In the case of cannabis cultivation prohibition, these sever[e] impacts for small residential cannabis cultivation are not historical, they are ongoing.”
      • Merriweather shared that patient advocate John Kingsbury had used federal crime data to indicate that “Black people were five times more likely on average to be arrested for homegrow activity over non-Hispanic Whites, and Hispanics were 2.4 times more likely to be arrested for the same activity.” Enacting their recommendation would “be a step in the right direction to clear this disparate impact,” she said.
      • “Within these parameters, rolling back this prohibition, which is already the norm in 16 states and Washington D.C., would carry with it a definable social equity benefit” that the recommendation asserted “is measurable.”
      • “This recommendation will be a step in the right direction towards reducing institutional racism and poverty,” Merriweather remarked, by reducing arrests and “increas[ing] licensing opportunit[ies] for those that have historically…grown in their home” by reducing their criminal histories. She also acknowledged that there were consequences for “people with non-violent convictions” involving housing, social program access, or employment.
    • The first question around the recommendation came from Martinez, and involved cannabis growing rights and the plant limits for medical patients. After some debate, Kingsbury clarified how there were different plant counts for patients based on whether they choose to register with DOH, and the recommendation for home grow matched the upper plant limit for registered patients (audio - 6m).
      • King voiced “a little concern about the cultivation of seven to 99 plants” being reclassified as a lesser offense. Legalizing adult cultivation for six plants, or 15 in a household was one thing, but “I don't know what the value of 99 plants would be,” he told the group. He speculated, “what does a misdemeanor really mean to your record…if you're gonna make a substantial amount of money because you've grown 99 plants and you may or may not get caught?” Not wanting to give an incentive for people “to work the system,” King claimed to be fine with allowing adults “a way that they can take care of their own personal use” of cannabis (audio - 2m). 
      • Makoso thought since they were recommending legalizing up to 15 plants per household, but also calling for “the expungement of cultivation candidate convictions for 20 plants or less” he was concerned about “a little bit of an inconsistency there” (audio - 1m).
      • Martinez inquired about whether the mention of medical cannabis grows meant the recommendations called for a policy change. Kingsbury responded that the mention reflected what was already in law. As confusion persisted, Saldaña raised the idea of removing the point mentioning patient grows since “the recommendation is to keep the law as it is” (audio - 5m). 
      • Paul Brice, Happy Trees Owner and WA SECTF “advisory community member,” wanted to know if the proposal was differentiating “clones versus” mature and flowering cannabis plants. He knew that plants “vary greatly in size; you can have a plant ten feet tall…yielding one pound or more, and then you can have one plant yielding…an ounce.” Merriweather wondered if clarifying recommendation language could get Brice on board with the change. Saldaña expected as legislation began being sponsored, officials could both review other states’ policies on how much cannabis could be held, and, “I do imagine that by rule they get more specific” (audio - 4m). 
      • Sherman returned to the issue of recommending expungement, curious “how do we feel about anybody that had between 20 and 99 plants that has a felony, but now it's going to be a misdemeanor. Should there be an accommodation made for those people to be able to remove that felony?” He was candid that his “tendency would be to potentially bring that expungement number up to 99 and then get everything kind of lined up like that.” Saldaña expressed similar feelings, unsure “what the 99 number means because that seems like a lot” and not “just, like, accidentally doing a few extras.” She encouraged elaboration from the work group representatives on that number. Saldaña also asked about the option to expunge offenses involving 20-99 plants (audio - 15m). 
        • Merriweather summed up the attitude of work group members to “be as forgiving as possible.” Kingsbury clarified that “‘expungement’ and ‘vacating’ are very different words” and “a critically important difference.” He attributed the change to feedback from Danielle Rosellison, Trail Blazin' Productions Co-Owner and Cannabis Alliance Adjunct Board Member. Kingsbury had his “own opinion about that 99 plant limit, which I think is probably a little closer to Senator King's opinion, but I don't feel like it's my place to define.”
        • King wasn’t receptive to this aspect of the recommendation, “if you're going to…say seven to 99, then you ought to be vacating all the convictions up the 99 plants. And again, I'm very concerned about what that quantity really means.” Sherman echoed these concerns, endorsing a talking point more “descriptive of the issue, which is that a lot of people have convictions that were too aggressive and we need to both vacate those and redraw the line between what's a misdemeanor and what's a felony.”
        • Saldaña could understand recommending vacation of offenses with a higher plant count as a way for “people that have been caught up in that system…to get a second chance and to enter this business now…under the legal framework.” Vacating and legalizing adult cultivation of lower plant counts “is really for people that are doing personal use,” she argued. Sherman threw in his “personal opinion” that the state “should vacate all cannabis convictions…and start the slate clean.”
        • Brice said when the state had unlicensed dispensaries he’d encountered out-of-state medical cannabis patient documentation with 99 plants listed as allowed. He felt other states tried “their own thing of what plants and allowance should be, and I think some states try to even protect something from medical for having 99 or less. So I think 99 should be the number because of that.”
    • Slaughter checked to see whether task force members preferred “a more general, broad statement around increasing…the legal number for residential home grow” (audio - 1m). 
    • Washington State Department of Commerce (WA Commerce) Sector Lead for Life Science and Global Health and WA SECTF appointee Allison Beason offered an alternative, since “most people's convictions of that were victims on the War on Drugs so having a number of 99…I feel like you're getting to a point where you're kind of giving people, not a clean start, but from a felony to a misdemeanor…having that extreme number would be good.” However, she could see “elected officials right now kind of didn't like the higher number and they wanted to lower that number.” She wanted the “community experts” on the task force to recognize that, left to public officials, “you might not get…the broad range that you're trying to get…I would recommend that you do keep some type of number.” She laughed when she added the “more extreme you go the more we’ll pare it down in legislation” (audio - 3m). 
    • Saldaña described the first recommendation being “legalization of residential cannabis cultivation for personal use will promote social equity, the six per adult and 15 per household.” Secondly, she’d heard that “the cultivation of seven and 99 of plants should be reclassified as a misdemeanor instead of a class C felony moving forward.” Several members discussed the reference to the medical patient plant count and DOH registry already in law (audio - 7m). 
    • Merriweather moved for a vote on the trimmed recommendation language, seconded by Tamara Berkley who was appointed to represent licensed retailers (audio - 1m).
    • The task force voted in favor of the adult cultivation recommendation with the exception of King who opposed the move (audio - 1m). 
  • The Non-Violent Offense Policy and Home Grow Work Group then went over a recommendation on the “equity impact of removing nonviolent cannabis related felonies and misdemeanors from the existing point system used to determine if a person qualifies for obtaining or renewing a cannabis license.”
    • The work group hosted a presentation and discussion on the subject on July 11th.
    • Merriweather outlined the recommendation (audio - 3m, recommendations):
      • “Remove all non-violent cannabis convictions from consideration in the LCB’s new threshold protocol.
      • LCB training protocol for threshold reviewer should be similar to and in alignment with Pro-Equity Anti-Racism (PEAR) training, the new mandate for state agencies.
      • LCB to use language that would encourage people with previous felony convictions to apply. LCB should inform potential applicants that based on prior applications, it is very rare to be denied based on criminal history.”
      • The rationale described:
        • A “pervasive sense of unfairness within the community that permeates many of the social equity discussions. To be sensitive to that community input, it is critically important that the task force be attentive to this dynamic.
        • Although LCB’s threshold scheme makes good sense as a tool to address inequity, the subjectivity inherent in it may exacerbate the perception of applicants that they are being treated unfairly by LCB examiners, especially if competition among applicants for a small number of licenses is strong.
        • While the threshold system, by itself, offers more opportunity for social equity candidates to participate in the system, and will likely reduce the number of potential applicants from being discouraged from applying in the first place, the workgroup feels more can be done. Therefore, the workgroup is suggesting a hybrid approach to applicant evaluation that will reduce subjectivity, increase the transparency of why an applicant may have ultimately been approved or rejected, and importantly, to reduce LCB staff exposure to accusations of unfairness. Having a hybrid approach means combining LCB’s threshold evaluation approach and completely removing all cannabis convictions from threshold consideration. This approach would further social equity objectives by decreasing severe impacts from the historical application and enforcement of cannabis prohibition laws, while decreasing subjectivity associated with the examiner and the threshold evaluation.”
      • Merriweather said the point was “removing barriers for folks to apply and ensuring that…there's no subjectivity” by those evaluating equity applicants.
    • King verified that the recommendation was “only referring to cannabis convictions.” Merriweather answered positively, while acknowledging “some discussion on personal use amounts for other…recreational drugs.” But she was fine with the recommendation language clearly specifying cannabis (audio - 1m). 
    • Berkley moved to adopt the recommendation and was seconded by Merriweather. With no further discussion, Saldaña thanked both work groups for their contributions to the WA SECTF report (audio - 1m). 
    • Everyone except King voted to pass the recommendation (audio - 1m). 
  • Staff talked about the near future for the task force, including additional meetings and finalizing the report to the legislature due December 9th.
    • Slaughter presented a timeline for the remainder of WA SECTF work, first establishing that even though WSLCB hadn’t opened a licensing window for social equity retail applications, they were still working “to get those licenses out to the community.” She encouraged anyone interested to sign up for announcements from the task force. Slaughter noted that staff welcomed further written comment from members through August 31st and conveyed their upcoming milestones (audio - 2m, timeline):
      • Sept 30 - 1st Draft - Staff will email task force a 1st draft with everyone’s contributions
      • Oct 14 - 1-on-1 - Schedule 1-on-1 meeting with staff between Oct 1-14
      • Oct 15 - 2nd Draft - Staff will email task force 2nd draft in preparation of meeting
      • Oct 26 - Meeting - We will spend the meeting going over the draft and making edits
    • “Now that we have made it through all assigned tasks based on our legislative agenda,” Slaughter relayed that “staff will work with members to start formulating our report,” the editing of which would be the central focus of the October meeting.
    • Makoso thanked participants for their efforts, and repeated some of the key deadlines they faced. He reviewed the rest of their report timeline, with final edits being made in November before final submission to the governor’s office, WSLCB, and relevant legislative bodies on December 9th. Saldaña was grateful to task force members and requested that before they met with staff to “make sure you carve out at least an hour or two to review that so that when they meet with you, you're able to engage” on the draft report constructively (audio - 6m). 

Information Set