Good morning Chair postman members, Gareth Vollendroff. staff and guests the lobbies are open recording has begun.
Thank you Dustin. Good morning everybody will convene the liquor and cannabis board meeting for June 5 2024. First set him up today is the consideration for approval of a cannabis compact between the liquor and cannabis board and the Lummi Nation. And I'll first call on Dr. Marla Conwell, our tribal government liaison to brief us on that and then we'll
Good morning board. Everyone present. I'm happy to bring forward compact between our agency and the Lummi Indian nation. And it will be the first for Lummi to begin working in the cannabis field. So I'd like to ask the Board to consider approving that today.
Okay, any questions or comments from the board? If not, then is there a motion to approve the cannabis compact between the LCB and the Lummi? Nation? This is Ollie I move that we adopt the Compaq and this is June my second that. Great. So that is approved unanimously thank you all very much. Appreciate it. And we do we are joined by some people from Lemmy including Vice Chairman turns Adams, the CEO of Green Man enterprises, Victor Johnson, and the general manager, Sean Lawrence, I believe and, Mr. Vice Chairman, anything you'd like to say at this point?
Yeah. Can you hear me all right.
You bet.
Right on Well, first and foremost. Good morning, everyone. I hope everyone had a good morning and chair, postman and members of the liquor and cannabis board, we really want to hold our hands up to you on behalf of the nomination for including and taking into consideration the Lummi cannabis compact, we look forward to collaborating with the state on this matter. Let me staff that you see here have worked with former director legislative relations, Chris Thompson and the current tribal and government liaison Dr. Conwell for two years now. So the Lummi Nation is eager to open this retail operation, through a for profit corporation aiming to generate additional revenue and taxes to support our tribal members. We have an enrolled tribal members of 5500 here at the Lummi Nation and it's unique as amongst other 29 tribes, a majority of the revenue goes to providing those direct services to our people. This adventure is important to our nation as we will create jobs for the community revenue and a pathway forward to create economic stability for our people. Once again, on behalf of the Lummi Nation, I hold my hands up to each and every one of you that took the time out of your day to look this over today and to approve it. So I did want to give some time to the ones that did work. Very long, two years on this, I'll pass it on to our economic policy.
Good morning, Chairperson and members of the board. My name is Sean Lawrence. I currently serve as the Director for the Office of Economic policy as well as the interim General Manager for Elimination. I've been the director of the Office of Economic Policy role now for three years, and of those three years starting and operating a cannabis enterprise has been a goal for the nation. Today is a great day to have the contact up for consideration. And I believe that we have good board members in place that will implement this tribal entity, like Vice Chair I was mentioned to provide more services to our community. So I'll turn the floor over to our our enterprise Chair. Thank you.
You could chill. Good morning. I'm Victor Johnson. Everyone knows me as turtle. Good morning, Chair and members of the board. I want to say thank you. Again, just as chairman, Vice Chair Adams is talking about we're definitely eager and and wanting to move forward to get some revenue going for our people. And in opening up our store. We look forward to working with you into the future. Nice guy. Thank you.
Thank you.
Great, thank you very much. Congratulations to all I know it's been a long haul. And welcome to the wonderful world of the cannabis industry. fast changing and sometimes mysterious business. So put thank you for sticking with us this like most these negotiations ended a good place but we got a path we get to and I just really value the process that we're able to rely on and we build some faith that will get to the other side of it. So thank you for that patience. Mr. Aisha. Thank you very much good luck
Okay, we will move to rulemaking timelines and leave Daniel Jacobs is with us. Good morning.
Good morning Chair, postman members Vollendroff and Garrett. Cassidy West is out again today. So I'm going to be providing the rulemaking timeline in her place. Earlier this week and email went out just to start off with regarding social equity rulemaking, an email went out earlier this week. We had initially planned on filing the CR 102. At the June 18 board meeting, we're going to be pushing that out after receiving extensive stakeholder feedback and stick during stakeholder engagement sessions. We think that there's more work to be done on these draft rules. And so were revised draft of the rules and an accompanying survey are going to be used to gather feedback. And that's going to be publicly disseminated mid June. We're going to use the survey feedback that we get on these draft rules to come up with a final draft of the rules and hopefully have those filed by mid July. Later today, I'm going to be introducing public hearings on two rulemakings. One on the Pro on the repeal of the prohibited conduct rule. And the other is going to be on the medical cannabis endorsement rulemaking. I'll introduce those after I'm done with this rule timeline at the June 18 board meeting, we're going to have assuming that the feedback and the public hearings on the medical cannabis endorsement and prohibited conduct rulemaking go well, we're gonna have the CR 103 is on those two rulemakings. Additionally, we're gonna plan on filing the CR 102 which is the proposed draft rule language on implementing substitute House Bill 1453 for the medical cannabis excise tax exemption. We have. We had one of our stakeholder engagement sessions on Monday and we've got another one tomorrow from one to three, as well as the draft rule language on that as posted on the website. Additionally, we're planning on filing a CR one or two on the THC Bill during the June 18. Meeting. Lastly, there are also two rulemaking petitions regarding cannabis that we are planning on presenting responses on one of them is on request to specify what the principal display panel is for cylindrical containers, and the other is on social equity licensed mobility from existing social equity licensees requesting the ability to move their license from one county to another. During the following board meeting, which is scheduled for July 17. We're also we also have several rulemakings. All related to cannabis, tentatively scheduled. We've scheduled to file the CR 101 for implementing 2151 which is the lab accreditation transfer. This rulemaking is mostly already been completed from the Department of Agriculture side. But as part of that transfer, we have some of our rules that we need to fix up. There's the CR 102 that we're planning for both the cannabis payment flexibility project and social equity, which I previously discussed. Lastly, we have petition responses on planned for both. Yet another petition we received that was requesting to amend the 10 milligram THC cap serving size for edibles, and two more petitions related to social equity, license mobility. Those are making the same request as the previous petition I mentioned. Before I'd go into just talking a little bit more about updates on cannabis payment flexibility. Is there any questions on that timeline?
Don't see any Thank you.
Great. And then just on cannabis payment flexibility this is in response to a petition received, asking for more specificity and additional time for licensees to pay for cannabis from other licensees using a check. We have that draft rule language posted on the website as well as a survey for cannabis licensees. Both of those were live and sent out via gov delivery on Monday. Those can be found at the rules webpage currently, so any cannabis licensees that have thoughts on this. It also we're also asking questions about receiving insufficient fund having insufficient funds issues with checks because that's part of the consideration we have here. So please, Canvas licensees any thoughts or feelings on this? Feel free to fill out the survey Last thing is for the medical cannabis excise tax implementation. Just as a reminder, there is updated guidance on that there was an infographic that was sent around sort of a two page PowerPoint type thing just to sort of go over the basic elements of it. And that's in bolts. And then last week, some more detailed interim guidance, because that law is going into effect tomorrow. However, we're not going to have permanent rules on that until mid September. Both the infographic and the more detailed interim guidance are also on the webpage and linked on our rules webpage under the medical cannabis excise tax implementation rulemaking. No, that was a lot. Any questions on that?
No, thanks. We're good.
Great. Um, and so do you want me to pre which public hearings should we do first?
Yeah, the first one up is and I'll I'll call for that. This is the rebutted contact record regarding whack 314 1105. Oh, so if you want to give us your view on that, and then we'll open the public hearing.
Sure. So I'm here this morning to preview the public hearing on the prohibited conduct rulemaking. The proposed rules that are up for public hearing today are consistent with engrossed substitute Senate Bill 6105, instructing the LCB to repeal the prohibited conduct rule at 314 1105 though, and removing cross references to and six other rules. As I said, assuming public hearing today goes as planned and doesn't identify any substantive change that we need to make to our draft rules. The final repeal will be requested during the board's June 18th board meeting. And assuming that gets approved the repeal will be in effect July 19. The CR 101 was filed February 14 following enforcement actions in Seattle at the end of January and subsequent public feedback we received on those actions, as well as engrossed substitute Senate Bill 6105, was amended in the second half of February to instruct LCB to repeal the prohibited conduct rule. Governor Inslee signed it at the end of March. And while the board's initial intention with the CR 101 was to explore the possibility of either amending or repealing the rule. The instructions and 6105 as well as the overwhelming near unanimous public feedback we got urging us to repeal rather than amend has led us to this point of proposing repeal CR 102 was filed on April 24. To date, we've received two written comments on the CR 1021 on Sunday night and then one earlier this morning, both in support of the proposed changes. Just for reference. The other rules that are being amended to remove reference to the prohibited conduct rule are three 1403 100, which identifies what events require advance notice to the board 314 1101 Five, which is the disorderly conduct rule not to be confused with prohibited conduct. So this rule says that if you know at a liquor licensee location if someone's being drunk or violent or that sort of thing, you know, the licensee has an obligation to address that. And it contains a reference to the prohibited conduct rule, as well as three penalty tables. And these identified if a liquor licensee violated certain rules, and what within a certain period of time what the penalties were, obviously those rules initially, or those tables initially had rows for prohibited conduct, but we need to remove those rows. Then the last one is a rule in the advertising on signs that talked about people wearing costumes in signs. And if those costumes violated the prohibited conduct rule, obviously we need to amend that per the public meeting procedure. If there's any testimony during the public hearing that includes questions, I'm not going to be able to respond during the hearing itself, but I can certainly respond to questions if needed after the hearings. adjourned. Thank you.
Okay. Great. Thank you. Are there any questions about staff presentation before we open the public hearing? No. With that, we'll open the public hearing. Regarding what 314 1105 Oh, we have two people signed up. And the first is John Cheney.
Good morning Chair John Cheney registered to speak but it's not aligned with us today.
Okay, how about Eric Kotz? Okay, Eric Kotz should be able to go ahead.
Good morning. Board members, Garrett Vollendroff. And postman. My name is Eric cots. I'm here to comment on the CR one or two that request repeal of wack 314 Are 1105 Oh, as a member of the LGBT community who lives in Seattle, I've seen the negative impact that black 314 1105 O has had on both members of the community and the small businesses that cater to the LGBT community. The target enforcement this rule has unfairly burdened these establishments. Repealing wack through 14 1105 O is essential to relieving this burden and will grant local jurisdictions in our state autonomy to regulate nudity in their communities. I urge the board to approve the CR 102 file the CR 103 and fully repeal wack 314 1105 Oh, in addition to repealing the 314 1105 Oh being the right thing to do, the Washington liquor and cannabis board has been mandated to repeal the wack via Senate Bill 6105 which states in Section five, the liquor and cannabis Board shall repeal wack 314 1105 Oh, in entirety. The liquor and cannabis board is preempted from adopting any similar rule as provided under section four of this act. As state as I'm sorry, additionally, I'm echoing the 61 Oh fives request to not make any similar rules to whack 314 1105 Oh, now or in the future, including any rules that are restrictions on the exposure of body parts are restricting sexually oriented contract by licensees. For these reasons, I request that the Washington liquor and cannabis board approve the CR one or two file this year 103 And repeal wack 314 1105 Oh, thank you.
Thank you, Eric, I appreciate that. That's the only other person we have signed up. So with that I will close the public hearing on rules regarding whack 314 1105 up.
Next up is another public hearing and Mr. Jacobs is back yet again. I will let you present this one.
Thank you Chair postman. I'm going to preview the public hearing for our medical cannabis endorsement rulemaking. Similar to the schedule for the private conduct if assuming the public hearing goes no As anticipated, and we don't need to make any substantive changes we'll be requesting approval of the final rules during the June 18 board meeting. Those final rule changes would be in effect by July 19. The board voted to accept a petition submitted by John Kingsbury in March 2023 to address medical cannabis endorsements and the rules for that can be found at WAC 314-55-080. You see our 101 was filed in October, after several rule teams meetings and consultation with our partners at the Department of Health. The draft rule language was posted on the website towards the end of February and two stakeholder engagement sessions were held on March 11 and 14th. The feedback received during those sessions was incorporated into the proposed rule language filed on April 24. as identified in the memo and the CR 102 form there are three main changes that are being done with the proposed rule language. The first is creating a requirement that wherever store hours are currently required to be posted that cannabis consultant hours also have to be posted. This requirement can also be satisfied by posting a window of time during which appointments with cannabis consultants can be made. The second is modifying the in stock requirement. So currently there's a requirement in both statute and rule that says that a medical cannabis endorsement holder has to have DOH compliant product in stock in order to hold a medical cannabis endorsement after receiving feedback during stakeholder engagement sessions about sort of concerns about you know shipments or just not having product in stock. We're proposing amending the rule language to say that if a medical endorsement holder has DOH compliant product on order that will satisfy this requirement. And the last one is adding what we're calling a variable care period to allow endorsement holders to fix whatever issue they're notified of about complying with the rules currently, as the rule is written. If an endorsement holder isn't meeting one of these requirements, such as having a cannabis consultant on staff or having medical DT sorry, having DOH compliant product in stock, they're immediately ineligible for the endorsement. In order to sort of clarify what the process looks like we're proposing adding a cure period following notification of a non compliance that will range from seven to 30 calendar days depending on the violation and issue. The range is to accommodate for the different types of violation. Obviously it's going to take longer for someone to hire a new cannabis consultant and get them trained than it is to order DLH compliant product. If after the cure period lapses, the non compliance is still an issue and Then the endorsement will be rescinded. Additionally, after an endorsement has been rescinded following the expiration of a cure period, if a licensee requests to have an endorsement added, again, they're going to have to submit additional documentation to the licensing division to show that the non compliance that was previously an issue is no longer an issue. We've received for written comments since the CR 102 was filed on April 24, including suggested changes from the Cannabis Alliance that specifically are asking us to make specific rule changes that will be we can address following the public hearing and following we'll have to address those in the concise explanatory statement as to whether or not we can make minor changes to the proposed rule language. But just to be clear, the public hearing this morning is about the proposed rule language filed in the CR 102. Not the requested changes. Again, any questions that come up during the public hearing itself? I'm not going to be able to address at that time, but I will be able to address them after the public hearing is adjourned. Thank you and I can answer any questions.
Could you just clarify the lesson? You're saying about possible changes? I know the the vote today is just on what's been published. But and what is the sort of floor ceiling whatever of what changes could be made post today? Is it non substantive? And then you could?
Yeah, so, um, so it non substantive as well as sort of minor changes that don't change the substance of it. If it's something where we're adding a whole new requirement to it, or we're fundamentally sort of changing deviating from the proposed rule language, then that raises the question of whether we need to do the whole CR 102 process again. But if it's sort of a minor language change or adding in language that sort of clarifies an existing requirement, just to sort of make it more explicit. That would be something that we can probably do without really having to redo this CR-102 process.
Okay, thank you. Any other questions from the board? On staff presentation? No. Okay, thank you, Mr. Jacobs. We'll open the public hearing. On medical cannabis endorsements, though I don't have anybody signed up. Just want to make sure that's right. Yes. Okay. Then I will close the public hearing on rulemaking regarding medical cannabis endorsements. Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay, we're to the portion of our meeting where we invite general public comment. Everyone will have up to four minutes to speak. We ask that people as much as possible, limit your comments to liquor and cannabis board business. And certainly frame from any kind of personal attack or going off topic and other things. I will try to mention if somebody has wandered too far, those in the room just a reminder, as we do every week, the microphones in the room and the ceiling are very sensitive. So watched wrestling paper or anything else while people might be talking either in the room are online because it comes through to those sitting online. Online meetings were recorded and will be available usually the same day on our website. And what if you're online, I'll call your name and as usual, just give us a second to for Dustin to find you and we'll connect you and give you a chance to get your camera on. And then Dustin will remind everybody when they have 30 seconds left and then you'll be asked to conclude your comments right at the four minute mark. And without we will start with those that are signed up online and the first is Sami Saad.
Hello, can you hear me?
Yes, sir. Yep. Good morning.
Hey, good morning. Good morning everyone. And I wish you guys a great day. And I just want to speak from my heart today. And I want to thank everyone tried to work hard for try to make the social equity, you know be success. Maybe some has been done. We thank you guys. So expander what they did exactly, that's what they've been given to them. But it still some people a lot of people left. And we still as as one of the winners of the social equity. But we still we have in one shop other people in the past getting five and I used to have a medical chops since 2009 2010. We've been forced out. So the Are we lucky to be here? Because we've been weakened written, but for justice, we should be here to have license. But at the same time, some people didn't get it now you guys have in a new rubric. Those people they should you guys should split the license in 26 slicer and go to those pioneers before 2016. Those black people being forced out or color people in general. It's not the color. It's not the white and black but some people have been left some people not listening to the community, right? I represent 25,000 Washingtonians Sudanese, you know, African American and East African American people. They're not happy. We met with a social equity. Melanie Morgan. Rebecca, Rebecca, what's her name? Rebecca Saldana had been invited never show she didn't come other people came from the social equity I became a public study they had me King five news and after me spoke to Jim Buchanan we can no disrespect for Jim Buchanan he said the truth we've been disrespected I have a big problem and Ollie Garrett No disrespect for her maybe we was having back and forth in the past you know stuff like that. But just I want you guys to listen to my heart. Last time I tried to speak I've never been called My name is not being called for many times. So this is please make the social equity work 26 liason go to those whiners. They've been forced out. We've been saying this over and over and over. I don't know what more to say. last meeting we have we say that and it was in Highland Community College. We all say that we agree about that. What you guys want? I don't know what you guys want. If you guys don't listen to us, and you guys not taken Oh, come on. Seriously. This is going to be like Jim Buchanan said this is a disrespect. He said that in King five news. Very clearly. So why this is mean in a committee they said hey, those legislator, that's what they wanted. They don't want it that way. So we understand people went to present for this. But some people been assassinated in lifetime being their shop is being closed there. They lost their life. I lost my father. I sold the house to establish a cannabis shop and they've been throwing away. Now we tried to open up but until it was all over. I went to a rental. Evergreen Market they put a cap in the city you cannot have more than five license and he own more than five on the whole thing. The last shop he bought it. And he bought it from Jim Buchanan and one of the partner Emerald Haze. I live right behind Evergreen Market. I cannot even open a shop because they put a cap on the city. The mayor not working out with us in Renton, we thank the Mayor of Seattle, he make a nine spot for the people. But do you guys need to reduce the barrier you guys to need to exempt? Yeah, the people they have medical cannabis they should have not exempt from if they can be right next door to somebody else because we've been thrown away they have five sharp no competition should be doing it as that way. Second thing is last thing to share. Please acknowledge those pioneers. And please acknowledge I attend try to attend every meeting last time Jim he missed to call my name and not be my name is not being called. And I shake my voice you should think I shouldn't get additional time. Because last time
now thank you for your comments today. The next person signed up online is Christopher king.
You should be able to
just about there. Thank you. And I appreciate if you don't start me early this time like you did last time. You'd like to do that to me to minimize my time whenever you can. So here we are. Great. Yeah. Appreciate you just starting the early like you did last time because so
Why don't you just let us know when you're ready to go?
Yeah, I'm good now. That's what I did last time. But y'all had started it before I said that. So it's all I Have you recorded. So anyway. Great, then. So a couple of questions. Number one is postman. It's the first time I've spoken with you since your return since that three minute rule. So let's go back to that for a minute. Can you recall any other time when you have trimmed the meeting comments to three minutes? Sir, Mr. Postman there's a question pending, you answered questions selectively. So I'm just gonna ask you one more time. I'm trying to help you not get sued. Because if you can remember another time when you did that, that'd be helpful. So have you ever asked the board ever before trim the time to three minutes then your recollection?
Mr. King, as we've told you before, this is not the question and answer period. If you have a question for me, you can email me.
Yeah, for me it's not but for other people, you engage in it all the time. So anyway, I'm gonna take a dramatic pause now for 15 seconds for everybody to think about the fact that Mr. Postman can't answer a simple question as to why three minutes were put in place for this Black centered meeting about Black and Brown. So, you know, that's that's the thing. Good Lord.
And we've talked before about your dramatic pauses you got you have four minutes your time. Time, so please continue
And their constitutionally protected, you don't know First Amendment law and you should because here Reporter. You know, I can sit here and do whatever I want to do as long as I'm not threatening certain things. Okay. I can't wait to sue you for this. You know better. I will dramatically pause as long as I want to. And I'll tell you too, Attorney Patel, you know it. You're a lawyer, educate your client, Jesus Christ. Now the next thing, Libby Haynes, all right, she's having a discovery problem, where all of a sudden she can't get the information that she needs, that was promised. And the LCB attorneys got snippy with her. Turns out they had not given her everything that she was supposed to get in terms of the applications and the scoring for ponder and all that stuff. Right. And she was right, there were five pages missing. She gets it. And then still, she's short all these points because they didn't include our drug conviction. When a drug conviction was clearly cannabis related, given the parameters of it, it was probation. All right, so that's another intrinsic flaw in the whole system that you've got there that you need to correct and to make matters worse, guess what? Almost nobody, I think nobody's won an appeal yet. They all get tossed out. And and then people are being told by the Attorney General's office which is you the training for telling your friends okay? That even if the case can be proved that they're still not entitled to get a store, making the whole appeal process illusory, that just like the whole social equity fairness thing is illusory. You guys are still doing the same Jim Crow you've been doing? And it's disgusting. We all know it. You know it ridiculous. Three minutes. But you won't do that again. Yeah, it's obviously what you for that. I can't wait. You guys have a good day back in the yard Ciao.
The next person signed up is Damian Mims.
Hello?
Good morning.
Hey, good morning. Um, so, I just wanted to comment on the process that we have going on right now. With the grant funding that we were supposed to get nine months ago. So I'm gonna read this list that they have contractor build out. Can we have quotes by the way, um, Damien for black excellence in cannabis? Sorry, I forgot to introduce myself and good morning. Um, contractor build up? Can we have quotes estimate screenshots of items to be used? More details to justify the total amount reserved for this? Security cameras? Can we have estimates and quotes office supplies such as doors, pens, furniture, point of sale? Can we have estimated costs and a breakdown of cost to justify total amount? Point of Sale purchases not eligible, but it could be leased. Safe. Please specify what items you'll be getting and their specific amounts. Currency counter. That item is not eligible. May we run an allocate the funding towards another eligible item? After our conversation? I will double check if it could be leased legal attorney fees for paperwork, whatnot. Please provide quotes and estimates. lease or rent can we have estimates location, monthly rent expenses and how many months? Miscellaneous travel bills please specify and give a breakdown of costs. You know, all these nitpicky items that they have in here are all based on what I'm going to spend money on when I get the money. Once I can find a location that's approved by the LCB I can't do any of that. They want me to essentially find a contractor to make up an imaginary quote to an imaginary building that I don't even have because I can't get it because the funding hasn't come to me that was supposed to be issued nine months ago. This is yet again another obstacle in the way to prevent social equity applicants from opening their doors. I don't understand why every step of the way through this entire process everything has been a challenge, and is still you know, earlier, Mr. Postman, you said, Oh, things can move fastly and mysteriously, will mysteriously, these things for social equity applicants have not moved fastly. And they have not changed. They're consistently drug out, delayed and stalled out and made difficult. And this stuff is causing harm to social equity applicants that are trying to get their doors open, but aren't being given the tools and the assistance necessary, or that was allocated to us through the law through the legislature. They want us to have this money, but yet we can't get it because all these roadblocks and all these nitpicky questions, who what contractor you know of is going to show up, make a quote, to build out a building, that there's no location, there's no facility, there's no nothing. How do you do that? I don't understand why the government or these people in charge that run these programs, choose to put these requirements that are unnecessary, and basically burdensome on people that have already been harmed or damage that is nonsense. So we can open our doors, and it's just it's not doing anything. Same issues we have with ponder, same problems of delay, installing clarity is all bad. And I don't understand why we keep running into the same problems. I'm not sure who's paying who or what's going on in the background as to why we keep having it will recall to get but it's ridiculous. Thank you
Okay, now, I think that's everybody that was signed up online. I will call those in the room who can come to the podium and still have the same four minutes and again, Dustin I'll let you know what 30 seconds. First is Paul Brice.
Hello, my name is Paul Brice. I'm already a retailer run happy trees, also a social equity applicant. And as well as the advisory member for the social equity Task Force, sent over four years, had roaming ability to be in more meetings than I believe anyone else where I had the ability to listen and chime in four months, I'm gonna say is definitely not enough time. But real quick, just want to address the rubric going out last week when we all went to Highline. It just felt like a complete cloak and dagger. Aaron Washington has a list showing rubric points that's negative 30 points if you are a pioneer. saying that's not correct. Justin Nordhorn has a piece paper saying that is correct. Again, everyone's just trying to make us overlook what's really the most value for us. And as for the social equity applicants, we all have the ability to take part in any new license type coming throughout till 2032. Whether it be mushrooms, delivery, consumption lounges, and I can do any of them can make Washington State look good doing any of them but Washington or LCB. They want to tip they want to take what left value we have for cannabis because it's not in cannabis anymore. Jumping off subject, title certs are a major concern. The fact that before you even roar The next round if you guys push this rubric through which LCB is clearly trying to push this rubric through while it's flawed and going to let this social equity program get even more further away from the intended person. People that it was intended to help. They're going to be able to let in all their friends and everyone that's not most harmed not most deserving to simply be able to up and run and get these shops going as competition even befor the next round of licenses are, are even awarded. You know, I would like to say for myself. Who again also gets The title of being a cannabis pioneer for my colleagues through this decade decade before so much involvement in cannabis opening up collectives in Pierce County and Kittitas County back in the medical days. Still not being able to have a license in my own hometown prior to moratoriums, even to come up putting up one of the first early on pioneers for my area to still not even be able to get into this program where in a sense, I had to buy my way into a flawed system that now this loophole is trying to be exposed so all the good ol boys can get into this club. Again, they're trying to take you guys are trying to take away the one thing that really is protected for our value and that is the new license types. You know right now, my daughter 23 years old, she's grown up her whole entire life, helping me water plants so forth being in this industry. My daughter now works for zips and I can't blame her like it's within the town we live in. I can't tell you where I seconds, two hours away or four hours away to my next store and since I got 30 seconds just coincidentally, I'm also being audited by LCB right now while I'm trying to do my build out one so busy and I'm wondering how many other, other social equity people you guys are attacking just like I'm in the most fined pot shop in the state of Washington because I was attacked, hunted and targeted by the LCB thank you for time
Mike Asai.
Good morning Chair postman Ollie Garrett board member Garret BOARD MEMBER Vollendroff Community My name is Mike Asai with Mo city collective of first downtown Seattle dispensary in 2010. I am also the Vice President of black x's in cannabis. I'm here today to voice my concerns regarding the petition by WACA that would basically allow out of state investment without legislative action. This move threatens to undermine the principles of social equity that we have fought so hard for.
It's evident you know by waka craft cannabis, they are completely against social equity. They've been trying to do backdoor tactics for years now against social equity. By granting this petition, it would effectively jeopardize the progress made towards more exclusive and fair cannabis market. I think I'm saying it right. This ESOP petition is nothing more than a disguise for out-of-state investment. It will completely dismantle the foundation of social equity and cannabis for the director and the staff. To support this petition indicates either a lack of understanding or disregard for the importance of social equity. I urge you to reconsider this stance and recognize the detrimental impact the decision would have on communities that have been disproportionately impacted by cannabis prohibition. To the current White retailers, I implore you to stop undermining social equity efforts. Your actions have have far reaching consequences. they hinder the progress and the opportunities for the Black and Brown communities. It's time to support us that promote the diversity and inclusion in the industry rather than seeking ways to circumvent them. Regarding Senate Bill 5080, the proposed rules and scoring rubric need to prioritize medical pioneers who paved the way for the legal cannabis market. Senate Bill 5131 2017, which was an agency led bill, the agency you owe a debt and gratitude to prioritize us the pioneers you owe us. If this is not addressed adequately, we will pursue legal action. legislative action to ensure justice is served. Additionally, cannabis convictions must remain the top scoring priority and application process. The focus will remain on cannabis, as this was the legislative intent. Expanding the criteria to include all drug convictions, the loose the purpose of these initiatives and distracts from the core issue. Removing affidavits and As proof of residency in a disproportionately impacted area is not in the best interest of the Black and Brown communities. This change will further disadvantaged those who have been historically marginalized and will continue to face systematic barriers. Furthermore, certificate holders should be excluded from the Social Equity Program. allowing their inclusion would dilute the retail license market social equity to be exact and enable them to benefit from the hardship experienced by Black and Brown communities. Removing affidavits is proof of living in a dispersed hicap areas that in the best interests of the communities. The LCB has a history of shifting the goalposts when it comes to the black and brown communities. In conclusion, I urge LCB to reject Walker's petition and to prioritize in all decisions, we must remain steadfast in our commitment to justice, fairness, inclusion in the cannabis industry. Thank you.
Peter Manning.
Good afternoon. Chair postman's BOARD MEMBER Vollendroff. Boardman oliguric My name is Peter Manning, president of black excellence cannabis. You know, it's I don't know, I'm impressed. I'm impressed. I'm flattered. I'm happy. And I'm I'm happy at the fact that our community is waking up to the shortcomings of the LCB. Is the LCB racist? That's a question that we all are asking representatives, legislative bodies, senators, we're all asking these questions. Here is a here's an envelope full of White applicants that applied in 2015 that did not meet the qualifications per law. They did not have cannabis on their incorporation. They did not have cannabis on their corporation prior to that they didn't pay their taxes. This is over 30 stores that have licenses that were licensed. Here are black people that pay taxes. Apply in 2015. Had cannabis on their court articles of incorporation had a brick and mortar or were denied from this agency. Coincidentally, all of these people dealt with three people, three to four people in this agency, Frank O'Dell, Rebecca Smith, Jeannie McShane, or Beth Lehman. Is the LCB racist or do we just have racists inside the LCB? To sit back and hear a Black pioneer, talk about he has a store. He is victimized, he's over policed and over scrutinize. It's not uncommon for me to hear being an advocate for the Black and Brown community. This happened at Hollingworth farms, I think they were the only one that ever haven't gotten drawn in this whole process. Those other black folks that were in this industry, or people with dark skin, that also are overly enforced by this agency. Listen, Black people, Brown people, I'm speaking to you, representatives, and Senators, understand you guys delegate the policies and laws for this agency to operate off of come in let's audit this place. Come in to see what we say as a community is affecting us and how it's affecting us. Let's see who's doing it. This is not against Vollendroff. Or David postman. They weren't even here. Ollie, you were here. A lot of this stuff occurred on your watch. Sister, what's your state? what's your what's your take on it? As I figure we are fed up. We are looking at doing with launch. Launch was in ran by a person that has a profound interest in White retailership here in this state. How can we give her control over social equity and expect it to be done exponentially fast on any level? We spoke out against her in this in that whole process before it happened. She fraudulently claimed that she had got the support of the community even used our name and which is trademarked. I don't understand the logic behind that and said that she had our endorsement, which was a lot better you have 30 seconds. Listen. We need to come in we need to fix this Postman Vollendroff I'm calling on you guys to take action. This is only gonna grow. We're not gonna let this go I'm calling to you to board members come in and stand up and get this done let's get it done right thank you
