All right, so we are just after three o'clock on Wednesday, the 15th. So thank you for joining us for the social equity and cannabis rulemaking public engagement session. So today, we have a number of topics to cover with folks. But what we're going to be doing is primarily talking about the rubric today.
My name is Justin Nordhorn. I'm the Director of Policy and External Affairs for liquor and cannabis board. And I'll be leading us through the conversation today.
And so what we're going to be doing, we do have a five minute break built into this, if it is going to interrupt the conversation, we may end up forgoing a break. But if folks need a break, I certainly want you to be able to have that also, of course, feel free to to get up if needed, and move through that we will be ending promptly at 5pm today.
So this session is being recorded. So anybody who's participating on the call today, please understand that the session is recorded all comments, that's including verbal and in the chat are subject to public disclosure, the chats gonna be open for comments and questions as long as the chats not being used to attack people or their position on an issue. So if I see people chiming in calling other people names or talking about people individually, and not about actually, topics of discussion, we may have to close the chat down any abusive language or profanity will not be tolerated. And I will close the chat down for that as well.
So just to cover a little bit about the purpose of our session today. So this is to engage in dialogue and solicit feedback from everybody on our current concepts for the proposed scoring rubric. So please keep in mind that this is a draft, this is not anywhere near completed, it's not anywhere near finalized. So what we're trying to do is gain an understanding of what issues are important to consider in our world development. These starting points, so the rubric that you're going to be we're going to be discussing today is really to start conversation around the topics and the points of consideration. So again, these are not intended to be a finalized version of any rules. But we have to start somewhere. And so we're going to try to provide understanding about our thinking and intent. But the predominant thing that we want to do today is get feedback. And we want to hear from a variety of people. So I know that there's a lot of folks who do come to our board meetings and provide comment, but we want to hear from a broad base area. So we will be limiting to some comments. If I hear folks going off topic, we'll be addressing that as well. So the overall conversation today, again, risk refers and relates to the existing rules, or actually the not only the existing rules, but potential modifications as are necessary implement the social equity bill, which was engro, second substitute Senate Bill 5080. And so a couple of reminders before we really get underway. So all rule language is in a preliminary conceptual draft stage. So again, these are not final concepts have been developed based on feedback that we've received thus far. So I think if folks remember the presentations that our licensing division gave during a board meeting around the feedback that we received from applicants, we also did a survey that we received applicant or applicant feedback on. Those are some of the points of feedback. We've also had public comments in the board meetings that we've taken into consideration. But recent feedback that has been presented, like at the last board meeting hasn't necessarily been incorporated into the presentation today. So don't feel like that hasn't been heard or it's being discounted, that is under consideration. Again, nothing's been finalized. And there's no decisions that will be made today. So all feedback is going to be considered. And not all feedback can be adopted. So remember, we're getting a vast variety of perspectives. So not everybody will agree and that's okay. So we're not going to be able to build in 100% of the suggestions that we received, but we are looking at trying to be responsive to those points of interest. And so, after this is all done today, please keep in mind that the additional comments and feedbacks after the meeting can always be provided in written form through our email or rules@lcb.wa dot gob. So a couple of ground rules for today. So I need people to stay on topic with constructive feedback. So today's focus is really on the scoring rubric and comments on Should addressed, what you like, what you don't like? What are your concerns, what are the suggestions and any kind of perceived impacts if the language were to stay the same or move into another area. So, if you are not going to be talking about these particular points you may be cut off. And we may end up muting you for that, because we really want to keep on task today and be able to get as much feedback as we can from as much variety of folks as we can. So please be respectful of one another's time on no personal attacks. Again, if you are commenting and ends up being a personal attack, we know I'm going to cut you off. And you will not be called upon again, during the course of the feedback session. So we are going to have one speaker at a time you'll be called upon, we ask people to raise their hands. So we can move through if you have spoken already on something and we see people who haven't spoken, we may not necessarily go in order of how the hands are raised. Because we want to hear from as many people as we can. And this conversation shouldn't be just focused on one person or one group of people. So again, we're going to try to spread that around if we can, as we move through this. So as far as the time of speaking, we'd like folks to keep it to a minute or two, we got a lot of ground to cover today, a lot of people are online. And you know, once you've made your comment, you know, we can, you may want to make provide more. And that's perfectly fine as we're looking at this. But we do want to keep things moving along and not having comments or feedback, it's unrelated to these particular areas, we are going to do a subsequent rule, feedback session on the other rules outside of the scoring rubric. And so that's going to be next week. So we'll have more opportunity, there will also be public comment periods that are available. And we're also planning on doing some surveys. So there's going to be plenty of time to be able to provide some feedback. But we definitely want folks to be able to have an opportunity. So if you're going to provide comment about something somebody else has said, you can simply just say, Hey, I agree with that comment, you can leave it there, if you need to say why that's fine, and be concise. If you can't, if you disagree with somebody's comments, that's fine to be able to say, hey, I don't agree with that perspective. And here's why I think that that's not necessarily the right impact. But if people are going to attack one another's positions, or opinions, then you may be cut off, and we'll move on to the next person. Again, we'll have a five minute break scheduled, that we'll see how we're doing, we may bypass to make sure that everybody's got enough opportunity to to, to talk.
So let's move into the actual scoring rubric before we get into the open dialogue here. So the scoring rubric is going to be a tool that's used to assign points as folks are aware. And so as required by the legislation, those interested in applying with us through the social equity license program, you're going to have to meet two of the four social equity qualifications that are in statute. And so with that, not everybody has to meet all four. But you have to meet a minimum of two of those four to be able to be in consideration. So what are these qualifications? So we're talking about those who lived in a disproportionately impacted area in Washington state for a minimum of five years between 1980 and 2010. Now, keep in mind, this is one of the minimum qualifications and you're gonna see in the scoring rubric that we have some proposed adjustments in these areas. And it's not to say that if you only lived in a disproportionately impacted area for less than five years, that may not contribute to towards the qualification of one or two of the four of these. But there may be some proposed points being offered to be able to, to consider those folks who have been living in that particular impacted area. So the person has been arrested or convicted of a cannabis offense, or as a family member who's been arrested or convicted of a cannabis offense. We'll have some discussion around that, and what some of the challenges that we have in that area may be and we're definitely open to suggestions and comments. We've heard a lot of folks who have seen the most recent proposed rubric, they're not in agreement with that we understand that. Again, this is not a final. It's not in the final form. We're open to the comments and feedback and suggestions and we're hoping to provide some, some insight on some of the thinking behind or these route, maybe find a pathway forward.
The third criteria is that you've had a household income, excuse me, that was less than the median household income within the state of Washington. Oh, And so with some of the statutory provisions here, there are some challenges around that, that we'll be discussing. But the fourth criteria is both a socially and economically disadvantaged individual as defined by the Office of Minority and Women, businesses, business enterprise, under Chapter 39.19 RCW, so those are the four that are mandatory criteria. Now we have some others that are that are in consideration. So let's walk through the proposed the current rubric and the proposed draft rubric at this point, and then I'll be presenting each one of these four these areas for discussion.
So I don't know, if folks are having a difficult time seeing this on your screen, we may be able to drop in a one slide into the chat, so you could open it up independently to be able to look at. And so you know, we want people to be able to, to be able to read and understand the criteria that that's in front of you. But so when you're looking at the social equity application scoring rubric, we had nine points of consideration previously with 310 points. The current proposal, again, this, this draft is eight points of consideration with a maximum total of 285 points. And so we're trying to look at what worked well, what didn't work well in the past, and trying to figure out the most effective way for the for the evaluation, so we can have that consistency moving forward as well. And so we'll come back and refer to some of these, but if you want to have it in front of you, you can have a screenshot, well, we're gonna put that into the chat. So you might be able to pull that up and have that reference. But we'll walk through each of these particular sections of the regulations.
Alright, so the rubric criteria, the first one we want to talk about today is living in a disproportionately impacted area for any amount of time. And so if you remember, with the four criteria, to qualify, for someone who's lived in a disproportionately impacted area, that would have to be a minimum of five years. So what we're proposing is kind of to separate some of the criteria. So folks who've lived in a disproportionately impacted area under five years could still receive some points, even though they would still need to meet two other qualifications under statute to be considered a qualifying applicant. So you would still have to have that five year threshold. But our intent here is really to try to align not only with statute, but so the point, you know, providing points to those who lived in these disproportionately impacted areas, even though that may not have been for the full five years. So there would be kind of a hybrid, if you will, still needing five years to meet one of the four core qualifications. However, if you met two of the other of the four qualifications, you could still be eligible for some points in this area.
So when we took a look at some of the feedback that we had, on the scoring requirement, people had a difficult time distinguishing living in a DIA for anytime and time spent living in those areas, as well as, you know, being able to consider what were the the effects of those particular areas. And so, what are some of those challenges, we thought it would be potentially beneficial to look at the point structure in a three criteria manner. And so the draft proposed change is going from just the five, to 10 and 10-plus years to a proposed rubric of one to five years, six to 10, and 11 plus. In this way, the intent here is to propose recognizing those long term impacts, and awarding points for the length of time people had been in that disproportionately impacted area. And because people have been in a disproportionately impacted area providing some points, even if it's not deemed a qualifier under the statute for those so again, if you met to the other four criteria, and you've lived in a disproportionately impacted area for under five years, we're proposing that some points be awarded in that particular area. So want to open this this particular point up for discussion and input and see what folks think so feel free to raise your hand if you'd like to comment, you can always drop a comment in the chat as well. We will be saving the chat says as our records is Well, so you can be able to see what that what that might look like. And again, we I can't stress enough are looking for the constructive feedback. And so you know how this could work and be beneficial moving forward. And please limit your comments to a minute or two, and then we can move to the other folks. So do we have any hands up at this point? Okay, before there's one one hand up, okay. So before I call on the first person, the other thing if you're interested, this isn't mandatory. But if you're interested, we would certainly love to hear from folks if you want to drop in the chat. Kind of who you're representing maybe what areas of the state you're in. So we can kind of understand some of the the feedback that we're receiving, if it's all you know, out of, let's say, King County, versus we have a statewide disbursement. And if you're part of an organization or something like that, it's always interesting for us to see kind of where some of that feedback goes
but I see black excellence in cannabis has their hand up. So if we can move them to be able to provide comment.
You should be able to unmute yourself now.
Good afternoon, Justin.
Good afternoon. I cannot I can hear you. But I do. I can't see you.
Okay, give me a second. Oh, you that option is not given to show yourself? No. Okay
I just allowed the option, Oh, there we go.
Okay, so hey, well, you know, good afternoon to all those are on the call. As we stated at the board meeting, the last board meeting, we have an issue with the, the change in the rubric, we believe to put to even adjust the rubric moves away from what the target was, or is the target was designed. The social equity program was designed to target the black and brown community members that have been affected by the war on drugs. That's the whole essence. And you know, the fact that they were cut out, we actually had six of the eight applicants in King County, go to the black or brown community. So that's 75%. Right? That's 75%, six out of 870 5%. So take that into consideration. You guys are trying to take that away from us. You guys are moving away from the target.
Okay. So hey, I need to interrupt you, because I'm not hearing any comments about the living in a disproportionately impacted area issue. So if
Oh,
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought we were on the current rubric five to 10 years, is what you have up on the screen.
Yeah. And so this is this is that five to 10 years in the disproportionately impacted area. So what I need to ask is trying to create that connection on if we moved away from this, how are we missing that target? I guess, is the question for you. So you're saying target
planning. Okay, first of all, it's about social equity and cannabis. Okay, so let's not, it's not about any of the drugs.
So we'll get to that part later. So we need to focus right now on the disproportionately impacted areas.
We
We did. Okay. So basically, what we're saying is, if you get away from the five to 10 years that you lived in that disproportionately impacted area, those were the war took place there, the war took place in West Seattle, the war took place downtown Seattle, the war took place in the CD, the war took place in the south in certain parts of Everett. So we, we want- And now, and because of gentrification, a lot of those people have moved. So now that you're going to open it up to the one to five years is Bureau allowing, basically the people that weren't affected by the war on drugs to to participate in this program. And that's getting away from the target audience that it was intended for. That to us. That's an insult that's getting away from where are we We're supposed to go?
But sure, so let me ask you this. So the concept here is to provide some recognition for those who did live in a disproportionately impacted area under five years. But that does not mean that if that's the only thing or one of two things that you have that if you're in there for under five years, if that would be a qualifier. So you would actually be in qualification for consideration if that was only one of the two that you're proposing to meet the social equity requirements. So what we're saying is If you hold two of the other criteria statutorily, should we? Or should we not provide any consideration for those who lived in a disproportionately impacted area under five years? And so that's kind of the
Absolute? Well, absolutely not because the only person that benefits is now is the cause of drug wars, it's shifted. Now, there's more whites doing drugs in Seattle than anyone. There's more whites now that have drug convictions. And if you allow them to come step up, the whites already dominated the landscape and cannabis in Washington, not what are they 90% 97%? We were trying to give it away for black folks to get into the industry. And the way we did it, the way we wrote it initially, which I was there for that writing was to say, Okay, what were the qualifiers? What would qualify you as getting a license? What would give you an advantage? Well, we did research and data, five to 10 years into dia from this point, this time 1980 to 2010.
All right, so So I get that perspective. And so it sounds like you would prefer to see that it kept at the same with the two criteria five to 10 and 10 plus, so I will make note of that.
Absolutely. That's what are the discussion we stand by that?
Okay, so I'm gonna move on to the next comment.
Thank you.
I appreciate that feedback. Mica sigh.
Mic, you should be able to use your microphone. But if you want your camera, I can do that for you too.
Okay, now, okay. Good afternoon. Can you hear me?
Yeah, go ahead, Mike.
Okay, yeah. Mike Asai with Emerald City Collective. Also with Vice President of black excellence and cannabis. I just want to echo what Peter was saying, in his regards to, you know, if you're going at the DIA starting at 2010. And from so from 2010, to 20, from 2019, that will, in essence, not meet the criteria, this is for black and brown. It should be racial equity, but it's social equity. And I think, you know, everybody knows what the target is, is it's not to increase the white dominant cannabis market here in Washington, and throughout the US social equity is to increase black and brown ownership. And I believe that if you, I understand, you're talking about the criteria, but still given points for someone that lives in a DIA more than two years. We just think that's going to really, in essence, that's just us more focused on white applicants. And this is not the intention. And I believed LCB understands that and knows that. And it's, I want to throw something out there. You
don't have to doesn't have to do with a disproportionately impacted areas at this point.
Yeah, well, it has to do with the qualifications that you had presented before this. So
we're
we're gonna go through each one of them. We're gonna go through and have a conversation on each one of those. And that's why I was asking, does it have to do
with qualifications right now? Or is that later?
If you have a general statement? Go ahead. But
yeah,
I do a deeper dive into some of those other areas later.
Yeah, I just want the board. Really think about this. If you have one person or two people, but just say one person, and if they meet all four, the qualifications or even if it's multiple people, if you meet all for, it should be some points for meeting all four. Because that means like, Okay, if you get through the door, and you're qualified for two of the qualifications, okay, that's fine. You're an applicant. But if you meet all four, that means you are someone that was really or you are others really affected by the war on drugs. And so I would think the board should take that in consideration, if we're really trying to, in essence really meet the threshold of those who were victimized by the war on drugs. And I'll stay there for now. And I'll have more to say later. Thank you.
Great. Thank you might appreciate that. I thought I saw another hand Paul Brice.
Hi, yes, this is Bob Rice. Happy trees retailer, also as the title certain Benton County. I absolutely agree with Peter to reduce the time is just allowing so many other people to filter in. Thanks. Actually, now that we're going on to round two, that before, it really lessens the living in the DIA or in the sense again, back to the black or brown who was harmed, which was truly intended for. I have more of a question. This is the first time I'm seeing the the new rubric. And as I'm pulling along, I didn't read ahead. I was just been trying to listen. There a DIA question in there still for having a collective before going further down this rubric list.
Yeah, there are some points for consideration later on. And will that we'll get to that has to do if you previously owned a medical dispensary more or less?
Okay, I'll definitely hold it for that. But okay, yeah, no, I mean, definitely, I don't like the reduce. And I don't agree with needing to qualify for all four. Well, the I didn't see them the monetary amount on there for this one. So I mean, I don't feel as if trying to take out anyone who has any success outside of the cannabis should have ever affected anyone. But that's it. Thank you.
Okay. Thank you for the comments. I see, David, I don't have a last name, but move him in the comment.
David, you should be able to unmute yourself now.
Okay, there I go. Sorry about that. I just want an echo chamber, I agree stays just data five to 10 years as well. I just want to add that in, I don't think it should be reduced to one to five at all. Because it's just like, like what Peter said, it just allows other groups to come in really easily. And if the bill was was made to keep it for black and brown, to get into this business, and to try to get into a skin into this game, you know, it just led more people to come in. So I think it's step five and five to 10 as well.
Okay. And there was kind of a comment in the chat, it looks like just on the clarification. So does this change to the rubric, the proposed change, again, this is not completed change by any stretch to the rubric mean that someone who lived at DIA for one year in 2019 would get points, and we were suggesting that there would be a minimal amount of points, that does not mean that they would meet one of the qualifying criteria under statute to be eligible. So if that was their only, or that was one of two pieces of eligibility for under statute, it would not qualify them. But that was what the proposal was offering.
And so there was another question around what was the thought process from changing the points for the DIA area. And additional points for length of time. And I think one of the things that had come up into consideration was if somebody had lived in an area disproportionately impacted area for an extended period, and, you know, it was subject to that, you know, over, you know, enforcement for an extended period, would you should you get more points than somebody who lived for less time in that area. And that's what we're trying to do with the proposed rubric was to break it up into three different type of categories, more than just the two that we had before. Based on the longevity, somebody lived in that particular disproportionately impacted area. So that's why we were looking at that consideration. So but obviously, from from what we're hearing verbally today, we'll have to see what other folks think on some of the comments that come in throughout this rulemaking process. But the sense that those who've come into today are not in favor of providing consideration for the limited time in the DIA so
So moving on, I have one more question that came into the chat. Once the application pro So starts with the agency once again, alter the definition of what constitutes a DIA. Once the rules have been established and DIA is defined, then that is what the definition of a DIA is.
Alright, so we're gonna go to it looks like Peter, did you have another comment?
Yeah,
sorry. Yes, we can now.
Yeah. So keep in mind that what I'm trying to point out is that we don't. If we alter anything, we should alter it. So it goes towards this target and not away from it, too. You guys keep pushing back on his one to five. You know, this is reminiscent what Ken Eisenberg was asking for back in 2020. So what it is all he asked for this same, this, I want to say this is Uncle I asked her the same, almost identical rubric to be put forward to the social equity Task Force. I can't quote it verbatim, but it does sound eerily familiar to what he wants. And listen, we got to remember who we're going after here, what our target is, you guys got to remember it 10 years, black people have been kept out of this industry, Tim, and you got to understand there is not one black owned store in King County. This is where the bulk of this enforcement was enacted upon our people here, here Pierce County's was so much County, we don't need to add to this proposed rubric one to five, six to 1011. Plus, however you want to break it down, you're given away in for someone who didn't meet the qualifications back then. And we're not gonna You can't disguise it. It's like you're trying to disguise it, Justin, and I'm not really happy that you're trying to push this. Um,
so So let me let me let me get something out there. So it's clear, we're not pushing anything in the rubric, what we did is we created a draft, so folks can consider it and have some talking and starting points for feedback. And that's what we're doing right now. So we're not pushing any of these things. What I'm hearing from folks already is not a lot of consensus around that proposal, and that's fine. That's something that we'll consider. So I don't think that it's appropriate to put us in a position to say that we're pushing for something over another, you know, we have to implement the legislation, and we're trying to do this, to meet a lot of the interests that have been presented. So Well, I appreciate it. I appreciate. I appreciate that perspective. Now.
If the interest, wait a minute, if the interest of this
This isn't gonna be paid, this isn't going to be an argument, we're not going to sit here for you.
But I haven't I want to make a valid point. If the interest is one to five years, six to 10 years 11. Plus, were those people advocating for it on this line, then, because the only people I hear on this line, Justin is people saying, Hey, we're not happy with this. Hey, let's keep it real brother, you're talking about black men, you're intelligent black man. So keep that in mind, too.
If no, I and I appreciate that. And I again, we're taking all that into consideration. So I appreciate those comments, I appreciate the explanation. Don't, please don't take this to mean that we're trying to push one one area over another.
So I think we're going to move into just in the interest of time, the next area. So we're we're criteria run arrested or convicted for a cannabis offense, applicant or family. So the draft proposed changes or modifying the cannabis specific and we've heard a lot from folks. And let me just acknowledge that we hear what folks are saying about this. Our intent, when we were trying to look at this is trying to figure out how to address, you know, the populations that were most impacted. And when we look at something, and I'll show you a little graph here in a minute, but when we look at how some of the drug offenses are categorized, and reported out particular reports, it showcases what would be considered Buxa, or violation of the uniform Controlled Substances Act doesn't necessarily earmark, what type of substance it was. And so that created some challenges for folks as we had heard, and so they're trying to reduce that barrier to entry. Now, maybe this again, this may not be the appropriate approach, and that's fine, but we're trying to figure out how we can help folks when they're not able to get some of the information based on the limitations of the courts and so on. So when we're looking at the, the issues here I'm going to move into the next one, because it relates to this. So folks can see this. So we were looking to prioritize those populations for those who are most impacted. And reducing those barriers, again, because of some of the documentation, and so for folks who are interested, this is kind of an example of what we have, that the courts may may show. And of course, we have some feedback, I'll be it, it was limited. And let me put a plug in right now for the surveys, because we're going to be doing another survey as well. And it's really important to be able to get a robust survey, feedback results. So I really encourage folks when they see that to please participate in that. But from what we had learned, this was one of those areas that was difficult. And when we look at as you can see how things are somewhat categorized, sometimes it doesn't necessarily count cannabis. So let's, let's open this point up for discussion. And we can see what folks think so. So Mike, go ahead.
Yes, thank you, Justin up. You know, this is, once again, we have to remember why we are here. This is something I want to give testimony last week, but I was rudely interrupted. And so I got thrown off what I wanted to say and what I wanted to say is that the legislative intent, okay, yes, it's the war on drugs, but the legislative intent is cannabis. You're the liquor cannabis board. Yeah. 2018 I think what the 7028 70 is social equity and cannabis. 50 ad is expanding social equity and cannabis. Cannabis is legal. And the war on drugs that we're talking about was the war on cannabis. Because cannabis is now legal. Now, let me say this. It was definitely wrong if someone had a bird cocaine. And then they got four years in prison versus somebody who was black cat tin, crack rocks. Okay, that was injustice that was done. But crack and cocaine is not legal. What's legal now across the US and half of the US is cannabis. So those with cannabis convictions, that in essence, you know, their lives were uprooted. They were traumatized by something that was deemed illegal at one point, but now that it's legal, so the priority has to stay in must stay with the focus on cannabis convictions. Now, from the taskforce, it was talked about, okay, other drugs. In essence, this is why the prior rubra cat, hey, 10 points if you just had a regular drug conviction. I personally didn't agree with that. But hey, I understood that, okay, someone that had a drug conviction. That wasn't that cannabis should, you know, get some type of credit, but to mix, Vincent all meth cocaine crack. And to put that in the same category as cannabis is going against the legislative intent. And my last part is, after the presentation of this on April 24. The very next week, the federal government said you know what, we're going to reschedule cannabis. We're going to we're going to look at this we're going to talk about it. They didn't say we're going to think about rescheduling cocaine or meth or crack or fentanyl, it's cannabis and so so the board, please stay focus on why we're here. And we're here because of cannabis that was deemed illegal. Now it's legal people that have those convictions should get credit for that.
Okay, so so so let me ask you this. And let me make a statement. First one, I think we're in agreement that the intent is on those offenses relating to cannabis. The challenge that we faced is not everybody could get the supporting documentation for that. So should there be consideration for those folks who hadn't been negatively impacted on cannabis arrests and convictions? If it's not specific in some of the paperwork that they have? It just says a violation of the uniform Controlled Substances Act doesn't say what substance it was, should they have consideration or not? And that's really what we're trying to do is say, Okay, you you are negatively impacted by a cannabis conviction but nothing says the cannabis conviction and so
Okay, can I say this, Justin? I just want people to hear this. People have to stop being lazy and get off their ass and when I say that, if you know you were convicted for cannabis, you go to that court, you go get the probable cause, you go get all the documentation to show why you were arrested and why you were convicted for that controlled substance. I want my people to stop being lazy, make an effort, get the documentation that you need and stop saying, Oh, well, I had this take, make the effort to probable cause will say why you got arrested.
Okay.
And that will mean why you've that court that case number on why you got that conviction for a controlled substance. So that's what I will say to that.
I'm
I'm gonna move to Paul. So thanks, Mike. Appreciate it.
Thank you
Paul. Bryce, go ahead.
Yes, Bob Rice, is my camera not working?
I do not see you, but I can hear you.
Okay. I agree with my 100% here. Like, I don't like to say I'm a pioneer, the magazines and needles, two pins that I was pioneer this decade and previous decade. I am a pioneer in this industry. Other drugs that were legal, just like cannabis, but just like how LCB is now working. And you guys all working with cannabis. Some of us knew that this was not treated right fairly, and labeled with the rest of the drugs. This is this is strictly for cannabis to bring in cocaine, fentanyl or anything else is just does not seem right. Because it seems silly that we are looking to award in a sense, the best pioneers, or the best people involved are harmed through cannabis. And through this rubric, getting back to what I'm saying is, I would hope this round seeing where we missed recognizing any pioneers. Again, we're going through the next questions. Again, you're doing what would people deemed as pioneers for this industry, specifically, that helped push cannabis to the forefront for the legalization where it's at now.
Okay. Appreciate that, Paul. Thanks, Carol.
Hi. Um, so what I wanted to kind of address on this one is in our last application, I'm working with my brother to for his qualification, we had difficulty providing documentation as he was a minor. At the time, we were able to provide quite a bit a step up because he was a minor certain things weren't documented in the court records. That would be if he had been an adult. So what I would like to request is definitions being placed into into this for you know, what constitutes define what constitutes probation, what constitutes confinement, because that was our contingency. We they took his arrest, but they wouldn't take his probation because he was a minor.
Okay,
so that's our definition.
Okay. Thank you for that. And we'll be talking about that in a few minutes here as well. But appreciate that comment. It looks like I don't know if Peters hand is still up. I'm gonna go though to Breon, who we haven't heard from yet.
How're you guys doing today?
Good.
I think that I was one of the people that I was an applicant because I was one of the first African Americans to open up a store never went to prison in my life. But, you know, the feds came in, took my store charged me with a crime and on that epidemic, it didn't say marijuana. Because they told me that paperwork that I sent in group, it was a marijuana offense, and it was strictly a marijuana offense. So yeah, I think that something needs to be done because, you know, beds don't really, you know, put that kind of stuff on the paperwork. Even though I did send in, like, everything that showed and led up to it, you know, as far as the the Feds following me and coming into my store, but evidently that wasn't good enough for the bull or the people that were qualifying the applications. So, yeah, something should be done about that. Because for those of us that the feds or the state, whoever you get in trouble by the paperwork that depends if you Due to give me my other paperwork, they sent me a letter told me that it was against their best interest to send me send it to me.
So on your paperwork, did you have anything indicating that it was cannabis related?
Yeah. And I sent in all content. Yeah. But it didn't it said whatever. It wasn't level one. It didn't necessarily say marijuana on there for some reason.
Okay. But but it did have an indicator that cannabis was the it was a cannabis related offense versus just a generic drug offense. Am I hearing that correctly?
Evidently it did because, again, when I went to the Feds got the paperwork on what they charged me with and all that when I sent it in, they told me that it didn't prove that I had marijuana drug charges against me.
Okay.
So what's gonna shock to me too?
All right, well, thank you for that. Appreciate it. Justin is next. And then we'll take one more after Justin, then we need to move to the next topic.
Justin, you should be able to unmute yourself now.
There you go. Hi, I'm Justin. So as just looking at number two here, and it says, uh, and I guess if you go by people who are affected most by the war on drugs, I think people who have felony cannabis offenses are probably way more affected than people who had misdemeanors or stuff like that. And then people with multiple cannabis offenses, definitely were affected it more. I mean, that's just, that's just simple math. More offenses adds up to more time in prison more trouble. I don't know. It just seems like a no brainer to me.
So are you are you suggesting that qoints be considered for each offense versus one offense? Or is that? Is that what I'm hearing you say?
Yeah, pretty much like if if you were, you know, kept getting singled out and got like a delivery in a possession or a possession within 10 or manufacturing marijuana, and they just keep coming at you and coming at you, obviously are more affected by the war on drugs than anybody else. You should get more points.
Okay, appreciate that. Peter, go ahead, and then we'll move to the next question.
You guys,
what you got out there, Peter.
Okay. So, in 2019, I embarked on this venture with policy Dana's Erin Barfield, Senator so Donya to come up with a plan for social equity that will Governor Inslee, we, me and Aaron Barfield sat down, we helped draft up along with polar sturdiness 2071 of the factors that we factored in was, we gave data to the OCV into the legislative body, that black people were arrested in the state of Washington four times that of white. So we use that as a qualifier to make up for the justification. So what you're trying to do is you're trying to take away that qualifier now and merge all drugs in there. And this is where I'm going with this point. And I want everybody to hear me when I say this, because we clearly see that the program actually was was probably 70, beside 75% Above the bullseye, what you guys are doing drastically, it seems like it just he says not intentional.
Remember, these are just proposals at this point, you're making it sound like we're trying to we have, we don't well,
why propose something if something works? You know, let me propose to my wife that I'm happily married to that let's do something that will not work for our marriage. So I get what you're saying. But you got to understand what I'm saying. It doesn't look right.
Sure, but please, please keep in mind, we did get some feedback through the process of the surveys that indicated that these records were difficult for people to to be able to showcase and that's why we're considering this now. That doesn't mean that this is the end result. I think
Justin
that's what that's where we're gonna go so I we're not going to spend a lot of time debating these
I understand but I'm not trying to debate here. I'm not trying to debate. You ever heard of bots? You know, you got bots, you have one guy who considered a computer You too, and he can generate a whole bunch of responses. What you're hearing now, and what you've heard from before, you've heard it from senators, representatives and the community is this is not acceptable. And I could see what we can, we'll show you. And when we come down to your event, how many people are happy with this Black people will come up, brown people will come up, and they will voice their opinion, I want you to give me these people that came up with this rubric, bring them to, I want to hear this proposed rubric where all this data came from that you guys want to change things, all of a sudden, you should reach to the community and ask the community, hey, we didn't get
we hear you. We're hearing we don't need to go down that same talking point.
Okay.
Let's move to the next topic here. So type of sentence received for the drug offense, which we were talking about. And so what I'm hearing overall, is keep it cannabis related. But now let's take a look at the award ordered points around some of the dispositions, if you will. So we're looking at increasing points awarded on the probation, but removing the home confinement as a sentence type. So we want to make sure that the points are for standard dispositions, and one of the things that, that we've, you know, have some indications that was home confinement is typically not a result of a drug offence, particularly cannabis. So I think, you know, what we're thinking of in this particular area is not having home confinement, because if it's in some of our research, it's usually associated with some sort of a bail probation or parole, which is already kind of categorized in that. So we're looking at the removal of home confinement. So let's talk about home confinement, and if there is a reason to keep it, or is there a reason, or people good with the removal of home confinement as that particular category? money could go ahead?
Yes, hi, thank you, Justin.
Yeah.
This is real simple. I understand. I hear what the board is saying about, nobody was awarded points for home confinement. But let's keep this in mind that a lot of people didn't know about social equity, they didn't apply. So we should keep the door open for those who possibly did receive home confinement, because cannabis, in essence was a non violent, felony or misdemeanor. And people who did get home confinement because depending on where they were, are within the state or in the country, the jail could have been filled up, the prison could have been filled up. And because it's a non violent crime, they probably got home confinement. And I would just urge the board, just keep that window open. Don't take that away. Because you may have, you may have one, you may have five, you may have 10 applicants that actually did get home confinement, house arrest, in essence, and this also keep this in mind. house arrest was because it was so it really started, in essence, because it was so many black men getting arrested for whatever jails were filled up. They said, You know what, we're gonna put you on home confinement house arrest. So I just want to,
but if you have, and I'm not trying to debate or anything, but I'm just thinking that if you have the category of home confinement, you would also have things like probation or parole. And so are we doubling up points when we have things that are basically a result of the other? Does that make sense? So I mean, if you're on probation, you're you may be home from confinement, but you're also on probation, or you maybe operational her role for that. Typically, you wouldn't have just home confinement without some other oversight, component of probation or parole?
The good question. I don't have the direct answer for that. But I will say this, if you got a conviction, and you did prison time, jail time, you probably got probation even after that. So I would think that, in essence, it would be as it was before one or the other. So it would be the one if you did get homecare firemen and that's more points over probation. I can't remember which one it was. You would just simply sort of get the points for whichever one The one was for more points, if that makes sense when I'm saying
so. So you would take, you would take whatever the highest scoring point value of that disposition and use that in and of itself. That's
right. Because the way it was drafted last time, you couldn't get double points, right? He was just like, hey, you just get if you got a conviction that you did jail or prison time, you got the max points. But like I said, some people did get that. And they also have probation after completing their jail or prison time for the cannabis conviction. So
alright, thank you.
Okay. Thank you,
Paul. Go ahead.
Yeah, I also agree with Mike on that as well. You know, if you were affected by cannabis, even early on. Someone that was, let's say, during us high school or something, they more than likely got expelled from school, Jordan grant drastically changed a lot of the next years of their life. Again, if this is cannabis, and we're not talking about crack cocaine or something, for sure that you can greatly been affected by the rest of your life by leading to something where you had to go through the whole court system, or they put some ruling there should not be known, like doubling up on points, but whatever the highest it is, you know, obviously, incarcerated, you should be weighed heavier than just probation, but you should, you should be able to get some points.
Okay, thanks. And we'll take one more comment on this before we move to the next topic. So Justin.
All right. Again, thank you for taking my comment. Once Once again, I you know, if we're looking at those most affected, I mean, to me, the most affected are the people who've done the most time. You know, you add up all the years and you do six years of your time. That's six years of freedom. That six years, opportunity's gone. That's It's all because the war on drugs, though, that would be the most effective person to me. And to come back to I think what Mike was saying, or someone had said before, I have done almost a total of one year on home confinement for cannabis charges. So there are people out there that have been affected. And yeah, and it was cannabis charges.
Okay
that's, that's about it, you know?
Okay, thank you for sharing that. I appreciate that. That real experiences is helpful.
So I know our agenda, I had a five minute break a couple minutes ago, I'm going to suspend that just keep moving on, because I'd like us to make sure that we have maximum amount of time for comments, since we're a little bit behind. schedule on on where we're at. So we'll see if we can continue forward here. So if you do need to take a break, you know, you're welcome, obviously, to do so. But I think we're going to keep moving forward here.
So the next area that we're going to be looking for feedback on is the loss of home or ability to purchase a home or rent a home due to a conviction or arrest. So, the proposed changes removing that criteria, it was a fairly small amount of points. And we want to reduce some of the barriers and we had observed that in some of the respondents 70% found it difficult or impossible to obtain those loss records and so, with it being such a low point value, and very difficult document to be able to to validate produce, we thought that it might be appropriate to remove this as a as a criteria. So we're going to move into the next slide just so you can see kind of some of the feedback that we had received on ease of obtaining documents and on the bottom right is kind of the housing loss criteria on whether it was unable to obtain or hard to obtain. So you could see that it was highly represented in that particular area. Any any comments or thoughts on on this particular change? Mike, go ahead.
Yes, just real briefly, Justin. This was brought up during the task force, where you know, it was Basically acknowledging the barriers for cannabis conviction. And this, I don't have a problem out the end up, like I speak for blacks and cannabis, you know, we really don't have too much of a problem removing this. But I just want to just say that it did come from, you know, many meetings through the task force saying that, you know, these were some of the criterias. But I was just say this, the simpler the rubric can be, the better it will be for potential applicants going forward. So that's it. I don't want to
Okay, thank you. Appreciate that, Paul.
Yeah. Also the grants like, I believe I got the points on the last one. But you know, that question with so many different factors to then be able to try to build your proof for that can very easily be just misinterpreted, or or even submitted, but still very easily misunderstood, or misconstrued? Or are put into the help support that really did not? It's just, it's just too open to really accurately make it make sense.
Okay. Thank you for that. Appreciate it. I don't see any other comments on that one. So that one was sounds like fairly straightforward.
So moving into the household income, less than median household income in Washington state, so we were proposing decreasing some of the points awarded for that particular criteria. And it's, again in that same area of mitigating that verification challenges. So and then the other thing that is we found that might be difficult in this area is to assess on the household, not necessarily the applicant income, that would obviously be much easier to be looking at, but as a household cumulative income. That seems to be, you know, kind of a greater challenge, because if you have multiple people in the same household, are you capturing everything correctly, and that can even be some of the youth workers that would be within the household as well. So we're proposing decreasing some of the awarded points. Still recognizing that it's, it's an an issue, this is one of those criteria, that is within statute. And so this will, will need to remain in some fashion. However, we wanted some feedback or on what people think on on, you know, how many points that they should really be looking at. So we've got four commenters on this. Mic, go ahead.
Yeah, Jackie Justin. Once again, this is something I believe is going against legislative intent, in essence of, okay, it's still there. But to decrease the points, it opens a door for more white applicants. And I'm gonna say this when it's wide, where the goal is, for black and brown. We can't just say only black and brown, but we know that's the goal. If you have a cannabis conviction, more than likely you, at this point in, in recent years have not been able to make over the medium income. And I think by lowering those points, you're the LCB. Once again, you're you're you're going backwards to where we need to move forward and make the rubric better. Keep the points at 40. We at blacks and cannabis even suggested of increasing the points. This is part of the bill, this is part of the legislation. The verbiage that's in legislation has to be the priority. And it doesn't look like from what this is reducing it from 40 to 15. They're not prioritizing the legislative intent. And what the intent is, is, is for those who have been victimized by the war on cannabis, they haven't had a chance to make that money and especially in recent years. And you know that that's it, I just think it needs to stay at 40 or increase, but it should not be decreased.
Yeah, so So let me let me ask this question. And maybe I'm just not thinking about this appropriately. But so let's say you have a household that has one or two people and then you have another house Well, that might have six people in it. And so if the six people cumulatively are exceeding that median household income, but they were impacted in a greater way, and that's why there are six people living in the household, but they get over that medium income, wouldn't that kind of take away from from the actual impacts for those folks, so if you have two people that are just under and you have six people, because they can't afford to go and have independent domiciles, that that isn't a greater impact. That's the, you know, kind of one of the things I have on it
right now. And I'm just saying, my response to that would be, whether it's six or 10 people, you could come together to live under one roof. But when it comes to feeding yourself, like, I don't know, maybe I don't know what the definition of the household is. But if you have, okay, let me I've been on food stamps before, I'm not it's no secret to that the government knows that. You can live in a house with multiple people and be under food stamps. But if you're just feeding yourself, that's one of the questions they asked, Are you feeding anybody else? Does anybody else eat with you? And the answer that I've always had was, well, no, I'm just feeding myself. So you could be under a household with multiple people, but it's just comes down to in essence, you're, you're you're, you're renting a room, you're sharing space, whether it's family or non family, but the focus would be just on you as an individual, I believe the household apart, it really should be if you're married, then that's a no brainer, then it's two people. If you're not married, then it should just be an essence just based off you solely because you're not married. And so when you do your taxes, you can have a girlfriend, you guys live together, maybe you might eat together, I don't know. But when you do your taxes, you don't do your taxes as Oh, this is my girlfriend, boyfriend. So the focus should be just on. If you're married, obviously, that's combined income if you're not married, and it's just based off for you. Yeah, and I see this somewhere, it said people who had a difficult time, I just I don't understand. There's no way you can have a difficult time providing how much you make or don't make it. It's really simple. So thank you,
Justin, go ahead.
Can you hear me?
Yeah, go ahead.
Okay. Yeah. So once again, if we're talking about the the people who are most harmed, harmed being in the past, about the war on drugs or cannabis. I mean, let's, let's go back and look at their household income when they're actually being harmed. I mean, we I was in and I was going to jail and prison every other year, I had no household income for 15 years. And I finally finally win, the War on Drugs ended. And things changed. I'm finally finally made over the household income last last year. And because of this, I'm going to be on getting harmed again. I'm going to be harmed again, because because I'm actually making something for myself now. I mean, I just feel like it's kind of if you're going back and you want to look at things, it should be those who are harmed the most by the war on drugs and what happened in the past, not what's going on right now. Because right now, it's it's, it's over. Okay, this is this is this is retribution. So I don't know that, that. That's my take on it. And here. I think it's just simple, simple math.
All right. Well, thanks. Thanks for sharing that. Peter.
Okay, Justin. I'm back. I'm not happy with the change, or the proposed change from 14 to 15. Because, number one, as I stated before, I think we're moving away from the target. It lets the LCB know something I don't know. Because we still have to get clarity on how many black or brown people actually obtain a license. I do know that. This out of the eight in Seattle six went to black and brown. Once again, I'll state that 7%. That's pretty good. So Black hexagon, cannabis, we're not with the point change. As Mike stated earlier, I think that we need an increase in those points. You know, and I'm not here to be confrontational. But I do want to understand the motivation of LCV. If you guys are making these changes, or wished to make these changes, or these proposed changes, where are you guys getting information or the motivation to want to make these changes because I've only heard two people just spoke contrary to what we were speaking too as a group, so please clarify in please let us know when we can know exactly what the percentage was of black and brown people to get a license. Thank you, Justin.
All right, thanks, Paul.
Ah, yes, well, I definitely disagree with that. I think those points need to be dropped to the lowest that they can be dropped to you meaning five. Again, I'm gonna keep saying this. There's cannabis pioneers, black and brown. Even though this program is not for black and brown anymore. There's cannabis pioneers, I would think we're trying to find the most deserving. I was harmed 1997 got pulled out of my senior year in college. And I went to a path of real estate and buying nothing but houses with basements to grow weed and and very, very successful, opened up one of the first collectives in Tacoma and I still don't have a shop next to home because we are still trying to put me the pioneers or other people like me in the back of the line to just restart again. And we're not trying to ever, ever sit there say, people who are pioneers are really helped drive this industry. To get point like this is just crazy and to sit there and say, Hey, if you married to a successful wife or something that made more money, well, that just negates anything you've been through. Like, that's just ridiculous.
Thanks for that. Carol.
Hi, okay, so I'm gonna, I'm gonna go in the middle here, I think 40 is too much. I think 15 is too low, it needs to be somewhere in the middle. And I'm going to stay stay that because of a couple of things. First of all, I do want to address the household, median household medium income, by federal terms, would be a single individual, a married couple a family. If there's 10 families living in a house, that's irrelevant, it's just that that family unit. So I think it needs to be by a federal standard on what a household income is. Another issue, I totally understand, you know, reading your slide here, this stakeholder feedback, the lack of capital and the potential for exploitation, I can vouch there was a, there was a load of exploitation. In this last round, there are a number of people that were awarded retail licenses that I don't believe should have been awarded retail license, because they did so fraudulently. And then there was no means to challenge that. Be that as it may, you know, one of the ways to, you know, control that or to at least attack that in some way is to act is to act acts, ask that sorry, ask for how they plan to obtain the capital to open a store and who their potential investment partners are, and what their role in the organization is going to be. Because that's what it's going to boil down to is, is it is as exploitation, and that definitely was a mistake before.
Okay, thank you for that.
All right, so let's move into an employment area. So, the criteria here is the unable to obtain employment due to an arrest or conviction, whether it's the applicant or family. Again, this was a fairly low point. Award last time, so the proposed changes to remove that criteria. And, you know, what we're again, talking about some difficulty in obtaining some of the records. And although again, it was a limited survey response that we had plugging in, please participate if we have more surveys coming out, but approximately 72% of those respondents found it difficult or impossible to obtain employment record or employment loss records. And so the proposal here, again, for for kind of streamlining is to remove that particular criteria. So let's open it up for some feedback. I see Paul.
Yeah, I definitely agree to remove that it's as silly as awarding the guy who sits on the license last and owns him because he sat on the license last night Again, very easily sold loaded to just depend on how you want to write it or turn it in to just make that, that those BS points work for you.
Okay. Mike, go ahead
yeah, thank you, Justin. Yeah, just like I got points for this on the last time, but um, we're okay with removing this once again, is something that's low. But once again, this was from from the taskforce during those meetings, which, you know, if you got a cannabis conviction, more than likely you were unable to obtain appointment. I was 21 years old. And I was a metro bus driver. My cannabis conviction happened several years after that, I tried to go back to Metro, and I couldn't. But understand, just wanted to say, hey, we're fine with that.
Thank you. Great, thanks Mike. I don't see any other comments on that one. So I know, I think there'll be quite a bit of discussion. Oh, did you just put Okay, there we go.
On the next one, so. So this one has the criteria have never held or do not currently hold 51% majority of controlling ownership or controlling interest or should say, in a state cannabis retailer. And so the proposal here is to increase the points by a few points, and you know, with the intent really to, you know, get a broader array of folks who haven't had the opportunity to get into so if you had a license, or you have a license, and there are others that haven't, to provide some consideration to kind of get that broader representation in there. So obviously, the five points is not a huge amount of points, but it is a change, that would provide some additional considerations for those not currently in or haven't held a cannabis license. So Paul.
Yes. So again, like I'm trying to figure out who sponsored like these, these questions of who is trying to remove the pioneers, from our industry not recognize one black pioneer even though it's not about black or brown anymore? But, you know, the original one had, he said, There was nine questions, there was really 11 questions. And the 11th question was, if you're already a current retailer, you don't get the additional 10 points that everyone else gets now that greatly affected my scores. Again, like to be a pioneer in this industry that opened before the legalization for the 502 the people who tried to get these stores going to just take away points from them that still have not made money in this industry trying to do it the legal way trying to make their mama proud and, and like, one of the things I've said early on four years ago, when we were doing the whole social equity was reparations. Were our reparations met for black or brown pioneers. When all this is inheres. If you're in the industry, you don't get to have points and again, that you'd love it the question, who did it affect? Who did it? Who did it affect more than let me just be specific me who is in as black or brown, that's already a retailer, which we know is only seven over our four year study. Now many of us knowing it's only seven would have had a cannabis offense. And also retailer, there's only one person that slipped through the sense got through the crack that way, me and maybe one other person. So you guys put together this all these questions and only put such huge weighing on one question that only one person in the state does this question affect, now that we now that we are adopting white and all other colors, but again, I remember we worked on this for years for black or brown on the 25th Our that when the doors closed down, and it rolled out as we can't have a racial component in here. And so then this rolled out this way, but going knowing what the reality is and what we all worked and talked about knowing that for the black or brown, it only affected me and that's a fact, which again, is absurd, because, you know, I understand Cheech and Chong and I don't mean like, say, Mom, I'm a pioneer. But four decades ago, I got my way Oh, my milestone chart. It changed my life greatly from then on. And I've navigated stayed in this industry all the way through maneuvering to stay in the industry I deserve to be in and all these questions are about, you know, if you're in especially it was if you're black or brown in your in your out, well then where's where do we ever go to recognize the pioneer for this industry? Who are we ever gonna get because the white people got their recognition, they all went from in 2017 to be able to get from three license to go to five to hey, if you were considered a pioneer status, we're just going to give you two more licenses. As Pablo mentioned LTB called him up and said, Hey, would you just like to have two more licenses that are recorded? And he said, Yes, while I'm waiting for my call, I'm not gonna wait for my call. I want to see reparations through this time. Why do I have to get back in line? No pioneers or nothing recognized and just, I'm gonna miss the bus again. Like this is this is crap.
Alright, thanks for that, Paul. Mike.
Yes, thank you, Justin. when this first came out, and I hear Paul, I truly do when this came out, I guess I believe what the intention was for the current White dominant industry, the white retailers, not to be able to hijack and get a social equity license using a black face or brown face. I want the board to take this into consideration. Because what happened to myself as a pioneer? What happened to Peter Mani? What happened to Papa John? What happened to many of the Black and Brown pioneers, the true pioneers was wrong. What happened to Paul Bryce and his story he should have been in Tacoma, he should have been in Auburn. He got parked out there in Cle Ellum. He has no connection to Cle Ellum. But he has a store and successful but he has one. Have you ever or currently hold? This is what it's just say, Have you ever had or currently hold three or more licenses? For someone like Paul rice that is a black man that is a cannabis pioneer, he should not be penalized to obtain another license. But for those those that have three or more, that's where that that's where that criteria. So think about that. Just think about that LCB board? Because it is, you know, in essence, it's wrong to penalize someone that has one license that was a victim of the war on drugs. That was a cannabis pioneer. And yeah, that's all I have to say.
So let me make sure I understand your comments, because this was the proposed change here is increasing the awarded points by five for those who haven't ever or don't currently hold that 51% ownership. Your suggestion from from if I'm hearing this right is to somehow amend this to reflect points for those who hold two or less or three or less licenses, then they would get points for consideration. But you wouldn't have points to get points if you were three or more. But if you only have one or two, you would still be in the same criteria as never holding or not currently holding 51% Is that what I'm hearing
you get? That's correct.
Okay
can I live for holding one or two? Okay, but if you have three or more than Yeah, you should be penalized because at the end of the day, at the end of the day, this is not this is not for you. It's just not this is for those who got cut out. This is why we're here. We're here because the pioneers spoke up. And you know, and I have to say this with all due respect, it wasn't that the LCB we don't I don't want people to hear this. And let me just say this, Justin, it wasn't because the LCB decided one day "Oh, we lacked inclusion." It took a whole lot to get where we are. It took a lawsuit. It took a social justice uprising even before this actual social justice uprising. But this is not because LCB had a kind heart because if the LCB truly had a kind heart in 2017 they would not have done what they did with Senate Bill 5131 bedroom
next next person I see is King guest
All right, King cast you should be able to unmute yourself. Great guys. I have watched this thing as someone not from Washington. And but someone who's been watching the entire cannabis industry in many, many cities, and the wrongs are so myriad in nature I can't even begin to describe. But I did a video with Kevin Shelton, he and his brother Ben Shelton, the original pioneers certainly as well. I also know King, I know a lot of people who've been working on this thing on this particular issue right here. I gotta agree with Mike. What happened there? That there's no way, you know, it should start with the penalize those who had three or more, because like I made the statement the other day if the board meeting, you know, you can't have they never were reparations. And that was way back when all this discussion started. There's supposed to be reparations that's never happening. And, you know, you just find ways to give these crooks like Khalifa, I mentioned at the board meeting, you're giving licenses to thoroughly unqualified white people, you know, and, and as someone says, you're promoting black people that aren't even really, they may be pioneers, but they're already in the system. And you know, like the Dennis Turner thing that you're touting him, I mean, granted, he's done some good work. He's done a bit of on some bad things, too. And let's prove it. But in general, everything's been a masquerade. And we're tired. We're past time.
So So let me ask, let me ask you this. And, you know, because I'm trying to keep it within the context of this criteria. So, so you had mentioned that, it sounded like you agreed with Mike. But you also had mentioned other folks, you know, holding the license, so just so I understand correctly, you would be in favor of providing the points for anybody who's never held doesn't currently hold or holds up to two licenses, but not three or more. Is that what I'm hearing?
That is correct.
Okay. Okay
Unfortunately, and I'll let someone else get on the other thing, too, is been more involved than the actual rulemaking. But just to go back again, I said this very pointedly before, I think that people I've got Sam economy, by the way, Sammy said said he can't get into the meeting. And salmons call me take and get a meeting. So anyway, but to finish my point here. There was in the statutory the constitutional analysis, that is, look, you have a compelling governmental interest. Okay. This is a strict scrutiny analysis in terms of using race, race, race based criteria in these situations. And I said this a long time ago, you have a compelling governmental interest. All right, you could have had ways to tailor it to narrowly tailor the outcome in the least restrictive means, so that you could include race as a criteria. And everybody just kind of laid down and died on that aspect under threat of, you know, lawsuits from rich white people. Okay, who had the same rich white people that scam that system in the first place? You know, so my heart's already broken, my heart breaks for people who are already pioneers, but I just want to consider that because it just you always laid down and died, you never tried to do the right thing. And you have to be, you know, browbeaten and kicked and screaming to get anywhere. And so I'm just frustrated with all this. And then to top it off, you give us this meeting last week, we did cut the time to three minutes, which you've never
okay, like, let's keep this focused on the goal.
I am, but there's a bigger picture. That's all
I understand. I understand your frustration. Don't get me wrong. But I do want to keep the conversation moving. Because we do have limited amount of time today.
So I said I'll yield my time. But yep, that's on this point. Thank you.
All right. appreciate the comments. Thank you, Carol. You're next.
So am I understanding what the last few have said correctly? They, they want to award points to people that currently own two or fewer stores? Is that what I'm hearing?
Yeah, so the proposal that we have is if you've never held or don't currently hold, so maybe you have a license and you went out of business, that you would have some additional points, the previous respondent was indicating that they believe it would be appropriate that if you only hold one or two licenses, that you should also be eligible for those points. And the three or more and I'm going to make a couple of assumptions here but the three or more was originally you could have up to three licenses now you can have up to five licenses. So it's my assumption that because you can have so many licenses that folks with one or two Shouldn't you know, basically you should still be considered in consideration because you're not anywhere near that cap is kind of what I'm hearing.
Okay, so that to me when I'm hearing and I do own a store just to be on the thing I do own a store. We are a 100% Lesbian Woman own store, and 50% minority So I'm not seeking historical myself, I'm trying to assist my brother who has been devastated by the war on drugs on getting a store. But be that as it may, doesn't that totally if you if they can an applicant can have two licenses already or up to two licenses already? Doesn't that completely negate the entire purpose of this? Isn't this to get people into the industry that haven't had the opportunity to do so. So I would be absolutely 100% against is that the whole purpose of this is to allow people who did not have the ability to get into this program to be able to get into it. And if they've already got a license, they're already in.
Okay. Thank you. I see, we have two more commenters that have already come in itself. We can keep those comments short. So we can move to the next one. But I'll go ahead, Paul, go ahead. You're up next.
Yes, I just want to say again, I am a current retailer, I'm in clown, a town of 3000 people, I am the number one sales store in that city. That's roughly 130,000 On average, a month, I make less money than I did when I'm doing it now legally, than I used to make when I decided to do this illegally. Again, I want to be a good person, I want to make my mother proud. I'm the most fine attacked person by the LCB. And I take pride in everything I do. And I only want to do this the legal the right way. It's It's why I've been trying to push so hard for the legalization to prove everyone like this, this is the right thing to do. And, you know, talking about, you know, three stores, like we already know, let's let's keep this let's be honest with ourselves. There's plenty of retailers that own over five stores already and their own. And there's retailers that already got their hands on these social equity licenses. And, again, if we're talking about trying to create legacy through this reparations through this, then allow for some pioneers to actually make some money if you really believe there should be reparations in this. All right.
Thanks, Paul. Yes, go ahead. And then we have one other comment. We are running out of time. So I'd like to move into the next one.
I'll be brief. And yeah, I do with regards to the the young lady that just sent me I'm on the phone that I know you can't get in. Well hold on a second. You can't get in, but I'm sure I did. I told him that you're not in do. I don't know why they can't let
Can we can we talk about the rules instead of Oh,
my brother can't get in. And that's important. You know, he is a pioneer. But he's a pioneer. But anyway, again, with regard to the lady spoke up, yes, I see your point on maybe two stores? Maybe that is, it's a borderline. But one, I think one is okay, if you've managed to get one. But again, there's not a lot of people like that they have that one store like that, at least stores that you've given the five, you know, five licenses to when all that stuff. You know, maybe one maybe you can't go to two, but one should be okay. And I don't think there's a lot of harm to come from that the harm already came from given the five in the first place.
That's
yeah
Appreciate that. Thanks.
Yeah.
And, Justin, you'll be the last comment on this one.
Thank you for taking my comment. It's going to be short. So just getting back to the main purpose, I think of what everything is, is the people who are most affected by the war on drugs at the end of the day. What's I don't see if I hit the lotto today. What that would what that make a difference how was affected back then? I mean, it doesn't, I was affected back then. I was most affected by the war on drugs back then. So what happened today, if I own a store, don't own a store? hit the lotto. Whatever happened? It shouldn't affect my point. My points I should my points shouldn't go down. Pretty because I was most affected by the warned us. Just just a few cents. Thanks.
Okay. Thank you for that. Appreciate it. So I think the next one will be justice as compelling for people to talk. So this is a new concept that we're been discussing, and this is if you've applied as an applicant previously in the 2870. And you weren't selected to move forward. And I know that there was a lot of folks that were, you know, really close to getting their points and, you know, the spectrums and, but they didn't weren't selected to move forward. So the new criteria that we're considering is awarding 15 points to those applicants who went through the process of applying but we're not selected to move forward. So open that up for perspectives here. So Mike, you're First
Thank you, Justin. Yes, myself Emerald City collective and as constituents and members and blacks, the cannabis, members of constituents, we completely disagree with this, you know, to penalize, in essence, somebody who obtained a social equity license, and at this juncture have not been able to open up and to say, Well, you got one license, let's open it up for other people. You know, that wasn't the case in 2015 2016, nor wasn't in 2017. When the ownership went from three to five. There's no secret, I want to own five, I want to own the max and others like myself, who are pioneers, when I had that opportunity. But it seems now LCB saying is that I should shut up and dribble that I should be happy with owning one. And I'm being penalized now with being able to apply for the next round to obtain the second. And so you know, this. As I stated before, in my public comment last week, what about those who applied under Senate Bill 5052. Those are pioneers like myself that applied and didn't get across the finish line, because the LCB lied, and they gave licenses to people who didn't qualify, put on there no rush to apply, you put on there no initial cap. And, you know, where's the fairness in that? For someone like myself, that's was the second black owned in the state and the first downtown Seattle medical cannabis dispensary. We can't No one can try to rewrite or change history. That is the history and that is facts. And I have documentation to back it up. But the issue was that what about those who apply? And were not able to get across? Assign? Let me just say this, I qualified back then just like I qualified now. So the cannabis conviction would not have put me in a position where I wouldn't have got to, that I would not have got across the finish line in 2015 2016. So I think we should just do away with this. Or once again, give credit and points for those who did not get across the finish line as a social equity applicant now in 2015-2016. Thank you.
Paul, go ahead.
Yeah, so I mean, I agree like I, I, during the 5050 to apply. I was told I, I have email confirmation that said Yes, you did apply. But now because you haven't been given a someone to help with you. Now we're going to kick you from your your programming, and that simply just got me out yet again, after I had to fight so hard to prove and show numerous emails of correspondence of talking about well, what about me? What Why don't I have these extra licenses that bud tenders are simply being given. And I'm an actual store owner that fought on separate counties prior to again 2011, before moratoriums went up. I was told simply, okay, well, yes, well, since she weren't given someone, we're going to boot you out again. And here we are trying to, again talk about pioneers legacy create reparations, and and to sit there say, you can't have more than one store. This is where all the social equity people are planning to double up are planning to max out because it's not the race again, it's over. It's no longer possible to do all that. When you get all those extra those licenses out. And they already have all the money and they're already finding all the best property. But they've already positioned themselves to now go for their 16th store, night store to a 12 store. And and they're just doing the roundabout ways that we all know about. But you know, we pick and choose whose paperwork we want to lose and who we want to award. This is supposed to be about reparations. Again, there's pioneers here and this is a for sure, something that we're nice toward an artist that's gonna be black or brown, but who is most deserving, who's most awarded to get these licenses to receive reparations to see received legacy and wealth in the industry they deserve. Sol Sol Sol to be in. Thank you.
Thank you. It looks like just Europe.
Again, so yeah, I'm pretty much on the same track as what has just been said before. Before me. You know, I think, you know, you want to look at the people who have been harmed the most those who applied for the 50 52 and, and were kept out of the industry. You know, I think that's, that's the people who should be getting the points. I was I applied for 5052, I would have applied in 2014 for the original lottery, but I had a felony on my record and couldn't, you know, I was kept out of that. And then I applied for 5052, I received a priority one. And you guys said you'd put me on a waiting list and let me know when when a license became available. And I was never informed of anything. And here I am again. So I mean, if anything, those of us who have been harmed in the past by this war on drugs, or those of us who are pioneers in this industry, I think we should be getting the most points. And that's, that's it.
Thank you. All right, and it looks like Peter. I can hear your music.
Okay, yeah, I'm sorry about that. So anyway, with this, I, I'm not really filming this. But one thing I will say. Justin hasn't said anything like thus far, except for that. Now? Yeah. Why don't we take in consideration of those people that weren't unjustly cut out in 2015? With 5052? You know, I can speak from experience that I know a lot of black and brown people that qualified, get their paperwork on time, and arbitrarily and capricious. Something happened, someone a miss, and LC had all different kinds of reasons as to why. But yeah, maybe you guys should consider that when you guys. You want to adjust something. But yeah, I don't have any problem with that. I mean, towards those people that were on Justin cap out of the industry. I can 2013. Yeah. Should they be given them a go at it? Absolutely. Especially if they meet the criteria? Should they be given points? Yeah. Because they believed in the system that then, and they wrote that down by this system. And we all know, you know, that LCB what they did to this community. With that, I won't go into it. But we all know what happened. That's why we're here today. I agree with that.
Okay. All right. Looks like that was I see, Sami, so I don't I think you just came on. So we're talking about this new concept on the screen applying as a 2870 applicant and was not selected to move forward or should they or should they not be awarded some points in that area? And what we really want to do is keep focused on the question, so go ahead, sue me.
Very well. Can you hear me?
Yes, go ahead.
Okay, I'm just I'm just concerned why you guys did it. Let me and I've been for a long time. And I own the first medical cannabis shop in Washington. I met with the social equity, and we've been disrespected has been signed by a legislator, Miss Rebecca Saldana, she failed to be true.
Okay, hey Sami, I'm going to stop you right now. We're not going to attack anybody else. We're not going to be talking about anything else other than the rubric that we're talking about here. I will cut you off. If this continues.
Okay. Okay. Let me let me say this one. Why the HB 20 a 70. It made for the pioneer and 10 the language, the pioneer, the black people, they start the medical first and one of their mom, the first one in Washington State, and I met my my community, the Sudanese American community was East African American community and Reena we meet with Rebecca's with Melanie Morgan. Sherry mccline from the city of Seattle, all the social equity group, they met with us and they brought drink, and we and they brought coffee, and we brought seats, even I purchased the seat in my own pocket. A lot of people came to my Baker, and they said those final black pioneers, they should get a shop first, the black pioneer, the one they started before 2016. The language has been changed. I've been involved I've been supporting on this bill since day one. We are more than 65 Washingtonian, we've been disrespected. And now we do throw us one shop, even the one shop I on the top green and LLC. Those shops, we've been fighting me and at that time was let me
I need you to focus on the question at hand. So the question at hand is for those people who applied under 2870 That did not get selected to move forward, should they? Or should they not receive some points for consideration on their application?
This is what I'm fighting for. I'm sad, you should receive not just point they receive qualification to get the job immediately, like cabin Shelton. Libby. Okay.
So you're saying that they should receive points for this?
Yes, a lot of points. They should keep up, not just these three, a whole 310 point if I'm included, I win this one because they have a convicted felony. Why?
So let me just just a moment, let me ask you this, because I don't think that you were on for some of the previous comments. So then this question is around 2870 some of the previous comment, or is it indicated? They don't believe that folks? Under the 2870 application should receive points however, they do believe that, folks that would have been under the 5052 should get points for back on is that a
5052? Is it about what you just explained to me back it down for me? Is that 52 About what is about the people went to present
so this is just those folks who applied under the these provisions should they or not yet the points not
what it is so I can explain to you but the people they have the medical cannabis they should receive a full point not just full appoint a recommendation to get the shop. You guys mistreated them. You guys lie to us. You guys like to I legislator, Ben can be counted. He cannot determine for people. Jim Buchanan. He's the only one
we're not. We're not gonna go and talk about people. We're talking like you to participate constructively. But
no, no, no, no, I'm gonna speak in on yours. I'm going to speak publicly. I'm going to tell everybody
and you can I'm going to cut you off if you can't focus on the rules set that we're talking about today.
Okay, the rule today said what's your name, sir?
So my name is Justin. And as I described at the very beginning,
okay, I am black person, and you're white. No disrespect. But you guys mess us up. You listen to other people. You're not listening to real people. We started this first. We have shops, we lost millions, millions of dollars. And cabbie Shelton to he been in this now. Now he's out, you destroy his family. Alright, so we're back like us on a laptop on a green today he on another one? So this is LCB.
Alright, so we're gonna move on to the next comment or? Justin, you have the last comment on this point. And then I'm going to be wrapping up.
Okay, real quick. Just just to I didn't I forgot to say this with the last time. So if we're going for the most affected by the war on drugs, I don't think we should be punished for not applying for the last round. I mean, that's kind of essentially what you guys are doing. You're, you're punishing those who didn't apply. And basically given them no chance to get that 15 points. I don't think, you know, people should be punished for that, especially if they've been harmed. Thank you.
All right. Thank you. All right, if you can make this super short, Mike, because I gotta get to the wrap up here. And I see that you you've chimed in after I said that Justin would be last but I'll give you that last opportunity. 30 Seconds or Less please?
Oh, Justin, I didn't know where you wrapping up. When you say wrapping up. I thought it was a meeting come to an end. Are we going to talk about the points for former dispensary owners? I'm sorry. I
so no, the medium. So so the criteria that we went through is all up here. And I understand that there is interest in former dispensary owner criteria. This one had to do the concept here was having to do with those who applied before. And so under the the upcoming rubric that was proposed. I don't think we have that in the in the slide deck here. So go ahead and comment on that if you'd like to right now real quick, and we'll take those comments because I know that we've talked a lot about that before but feel free. Oh, did you freeze or did I freeze? You froze their mic? Nope. All right.
All right. Well, I'm gonna move into the close up. Go ahead and leave your hands up if you have your hand up. Now. If we have a couple of minutes at the end And I might take some general comments. But I do want to move through the rest of this. And so just to touch base on a rulemaking timeline. So we are planning to do a request for approval on a 102, which means that that will be more of the formal draft language. That will be in on June 18. And so up through May 24. We're trying to get some preliminary feedback on these draft rules. And so we can incorporate those before we finalize a CR one or two. So next week, we'll also be having a session. And that'll be a hybrid session. And the same rules will apply as we outlined today, but it's going to be in the evening next week. So I look forward to meeting folks in person. But keep in mind, written feedback, the next round, expires on May 24. And then we're going to be taking all that feedback, providing consideration drafting the 102, you'll have opportunities after the 102 is filed also to provide additional feedback. And then we will also have a public hearing on July 31. And so there's still plenty of opportunities again, rules@lcb.va.gov is a great place to provide those comments. So just so folks understand that the first part of the rulemaking phase is the CR 101. That was already filed. And the second phase is a CR 102, which is what we're doing now is engaging with public stakeholder feedback and comments prior to drafting up a 102 to present to the board and then there'll be more commenting periods after that. So if you want, you can either send it to roles@lcb.one.gov, you could do it by hard copy mail, our addresses up on the on the screen. And you can find out more information about our rulemaking process on our website lcb.y.gov. And if you look us up under laws and rulemaking overview, you'll be able to find some information there. Excuse me. So participating in this process. Those who are interested, you know, are encouraged you COURAGING. Everybody provide feedback, written feedback is really good for us to be able to have as this goes through, but we do have the virtual and in person rulemaking workshops, as well as the submitting written comments, again, the deadline for the first round of comments, May 24. So and then we'll be going into the 102 part of the process. There are other rulemaking resources available for folks that would like to understand our upcoming engagement opportunities, or understanding the rulemaking process and ways to engage. And so the social equity program resources are also available for on our social equity website, we have a new blog that is being published, we also have direct access to our social equity email in our licensing area. And then if you have anything on the social equity plans, you can also email the social equity plan at LCB dhawan.gov. And so the next steps are we're going to be reviewing other language outside of the rubric and trying to collaborate, collaboratively engage in that particular part of the process. And so those who are interested in providing feedback on that, again, it'll be very focused on the role, language and development. That'll be on May 22. From this says, 5pm, and I think we're doing 5:30pm until 7:30pm, and at Highline Community College, so I apologize for that error. So this will be from 5:30pm to 7:30pm. Two hours, it'll be a hybrid format. So we will have in person and virtual at the Highline Community College and then teams will be a virtual platform. So we're we're pretty much out of time. I've got two minutes left, I will give 30 seconds for final comments to our three hands that are raised. I will cut you off for 30 seconds so we can conclude on time so Sammy, go ahead.
Thank you so much. No disrespect and when I made the color come on not not disrespecting we all the same. But you guys have to acknowledge we started this first cabin Shelton. He'd been left. You guys destroyed his family. He have a son he has a special need. And that's not fair. If you if this is a social equity, it will help him. Libby she is what Ullman she is the single woman raising the child raising kids raising family her son went to present she on the first one Okay, so he's not here brick is now working making half and half make how for the rib and how for those pioneers why not and give those additional points they have to have the license not just additional point. I'm sad from what you guys do.
Okay, thank you.
Sad
Okay, Justin, go ahead.
Yeah, my my comment was on the topic we didn't discuss as far as the the licensing of previous dispensaries.
Okay
sum, I just think I did a public records request on the top scores of the last SCA applicants and looking at those first five top scores, none of them except for one actually showed proof of having a licensed dispensary, or, or collective garden and but did receive points for that. So I think you guys should be consistent and you know, kind of check that out, you know?
Yeah. And that might be one of the talking points we'll bring up if we miss that. And next week's meeting one of the concepts that are which I'll put out please provide written comment if you have any input on on that issue, to the rules sandbox, but one of the concepts is to focus on those who own the business versus operating the business was one of the concepts that we were in discussions about, so thank you for your feedback. Mike. Last comment
Okay, thank you. Yep, I'm sorry, my computer's Can you guys hear me? Yeah, go ahead. Okay. Yeah, my computer died. We are here because pioneers were cut out. We're also here because there yes, there was a war on drugs. But what and let me say this Senator Sal Donya is a beautiful woman. She has been very supportive of social equity for anybody to attack her is wrong. She is part of the reason why we are here today. Love Senator saadani. Love you, Don. We need to recognize the pioneers. What's going on is the pioneers of the pie pioneers have been cut out Justin blue, there needs to be more points, you guys need to get rid of the DIA as we have been advocating for just give points and priority to the former pioneers who qualify for Social Equity. If you guys want to make things right, you want to make the wrong right, then do that. Because what's happening is the Pioneers are a threat to the industry. Everybody knows that people are going to flock to the pioneers. We deserve our right we built this industry. As I said last week, my letter from Department of Revenue's marijuana, everything with the LCB.
Alright, thanks, Mike. I know that we are out of time or overtime, and I promised people we'd be done at five. So I understand your points. Mike, we've talked about it before we've heard that public comment before as well. So you know, we certainly are taking into consideration all comments. So really appreciate you, you chiming in on that. But I want to thank everybody for your time today. And this particular session for the day is over and we will be talking with people next week. So thank you for all the feedback. And I want to do a special thank you to those who provided us comments in the chat. We'll be capturing those and for all of our consideration, so thank you for participating in that manner as well. So thank you all and I hope you have a good night.
