Vermont Cannabis Control Board Meeting Video: Friday, December 17, 2021

Heady Vermont Staff 28 Dec 2021

December 17, 2021 Vermont Cannabis Control Board Meeting. No meeting materials currently available; transcript below.

See all Vermont Cannabis Control Board Meeting Videos

More Vermont Cannabis Licensing Resources

YOUTUBE auto-generated transcript

why don’t we get started then my name is

james pepper i’m the chair of the

vermont cannabis control board today is

friday december 17th

it’s

11 a.m and i’ll call this meeting to

order

so uh

pre-filed our rules uh one and two

the first two of five rules um with icar

and they were approved by icar that’s

kind of a very initial first step in

that process

we filed them with the secretary of

state

today and next tuesday we’re going to be

reviewing and voting on our remaining

three rules

and we hope that that means that we can

pre-file them before the new year

and that again kind of puts us on a

track

towards um meeting our statutory

deadlines that are in act 164.

again

the risk of sounding like a broken

record please read these rules give us

feedback or just

don’t read them and give us feedback uh

we just need feedback um every state um

that is legalized has made mistakes

they’ve left things out um they’ve done

things that they wish they didn’t um

that don’t make sense

and we really here in vermont are trying

to create a regulatory structure that

allows the vermont ethos to survive and

thrive and the only way that we can do

that is to hear from the people that

have built that ethos and are going to

be most directly impacted by these

regulations

so we’re going to be meeting again next

tuesday that’ll be a slightly longer

meeting when we kind of review and

finalize rules three four and five

um the board will again hold its after

hours meeting um from six to seven on

december

28th

and that’ll be live stream and you can

join by a kind of a link on our website

uh we don’t have a physical location

quite yet but it’ll most likely be here

in montpelier 89 main street

um and then that’s really it for

december we’re gonna we have plans to

convene our uh advisory committee the

first week of january to discuss our

january 15th reporting requirements

and with that i would uh ask have you

guys had a chance to review the minutes

from the 15th yes yes all right is there

a motion to approve some move segmented

uh all in favor hi hi

and i will just move on to the rest of

the agenda today again we’re going to be

discussing rules

three and four on kind of at a high

level overview

rule three is really around the medical

program and the specifics there again

the medical program rules are set to

expire in march

and we need to

kind of

create additional rules

or kind of refile rules around the

medical program again trying to align it

with the adult recreational market

and ensure that um nothing no rule that

we enact is more

restrictive than the current uh

department of public safety rules that

are in effect

uh rule four is really around

um enforcement of our regulations

you know what do violations look like

how do we provide notice to um licensees

what does the grievance process look

like and um

and then rule five is around board

removal um board member removal

um so

friend if you’re ready i’ll turn things

over to you yep

um okay so thank you for that

introduction so the what you’re the

board is going to do today is to

review some kind of remaining

outstanding issues on rules three and

four

the rules governing the medical program

and the compliance and enforcement rule

and then

after that we’ll move on to rule five

which you reviewed

in some detail on wednesday

and there’s one small change to rule

five

you have one remaining issue to discuss

and then the hope was that you could

um vote on that one if you’re ready so

then next tuesday you just have to go

through

rules three and four the actual text of

rules three and four and and vote on

those on tuesday

okay

rule three the remaining issues that are

um kind of outstanding to discuss

are um

one issue that julie raised when we

reviewed the when we reviewed

kind of the bulk of that rule initially

which was

in the portion governing the

requirements for dispensary applications

whether or not there should be a

requirement that the dispensaries submit

a plan for training or education of its

staff and um the board had some

conversation about whether

making that requirement since it is not

required in the dps rule

would be in conflict with um that

statutory provision 7vsa 956 which

provides the no rule they may be more

restrictive

than the dps rule but um

i’m taking that back to the board for

your continued conversation on that

point

any

conversation around that

i mean i

i think i’ve already said how i feel

about this i really do think that the

dispensaries should have a requirement

to submit a plan for training for their

staff

wow

i would agree i i think

it wouldn’t even be a cause for

conversation if it wasn’t for that no

more restrictive

language i think

at least from my perspective i don’t

know how you feel

and just so you all know i did do a

statutory review and also

checked uh talked a little bit with the

current medical program staff but do you

think that

it’s defensible to add that type of

language on the basis of requirements

that are currently in statute and that

operate in conjunction obviously with

the current rules

all right yeah let’s definitely do it

then and we’ll just you know again like

the what what’s going to happen is if we

included in our rules

um elcar is really the avenue where um

they’re gonna look at the rule they’re

gonna go to the lead sponsors and all

the committees that created those this

specific statutory requirement and

they’re going to ask if this is within

the legislative intent

and so it’s really going to be their

ultimate decision but i think we should

include it

i agree

thank you

okay

great

so the next issue for your discussion

um is

so when we’re again we’re talking about

rule three talking about the

requirements for patients

um should that healthcare professional

verification form uh be required

with each annual renewal or would you

like to make that a seminal renewal so

it happens every other year

so that’s the form that’s required where

the healthcare professional signs off

the person has a qualifying condition

and are we treating chronic pain

differently than the other qualifying

conditions

with respect to this with respect to

just renewals

generally we’re not waiving the

annual renewal for so incurable diseases

there is um that’s a statutory

requirement and um we do have

we’ve

had some conversations about whether

that should be a requirement in statute

or not but it’s not

i’m fine with every two years

me too

moving right along

the medical program will be moving

forward because people will just

say it isn’t worth it you know

so the last uh remaining issue for the

medical program role is um

has to do with

the background checks for caregivers

um and the proposal is if there’s a

caregiver if a caregiver is a family

member

should the board grant a temporary

registration for that caregiver pending

the outcome of the background check

um so this has come up in situations

where a person has

been diagnosed with a terminal illness

they need access to medication

immediately

um should a family member caregiver be

given a temporary registration

while the board conducts the background

check

seems like a pretty easy one yeah yeah

and we asked in our last meeting if

there’d ever been an issue with a

caregiver right right

yeah

i yeah i agree

yeah all right yes

i should allow this mra registration

okay

so that

completes the outstanding issues on rule

three so the board will review the full

text of that rule on tuesday

okay so we’re gonna move on to goal four

and um

we talked um

i can’t remember what day that was

maybe last friday about the

about rule four of the compliance

enforcement rule

and i showed we went through some slides

primarily on the categories of

violations and what the potential

outcomes could be

so just a few more slides

to review the process set out in rule

four

i’m just starting with this

last um

this last slide that you reviewed that

kind of sets out the notice

how the notice process works

notice of violations can be issued with

or without an immediate effect depending

on whether or not

the violation poses an immediate threat

to public health or safety

so we’re going to go through what that

process looks like

for

starting out with

the notice of violations

notice the violations the contents are

are listed here on the left and service

on the right

so a notice will contain a concise

statement of the nature of the violation

and then the actual basis for it the

penalty for penalties to be imposed

any associated health and safety orders

if the violation poses a threat to

public health or safety

and information to the licensee about

how to contest the violation

um and how to pay a waiver penalty if

the licensee wishes to do so

and also submit a corrective action plan

if that’s part of the violation and

we’ll talk about the waiver a little bit

more on the next slide

and then service

sufficient service shall be certified

mail to the business address

on the licensees application and also by

email and then there’s also a provision

that the licensee can opt in

to receiving notice only by email

okay

so um

moving through the process here a

licensee can waive their right to

contest a violation

and pay a waiver penalty instead

so the amount that’s provided for on the

notice should be the waiver penalty

amount

and if the licensee chooses to do that

they can pay the waiver penalty and that

will constitute kind of an acceptance of

the board’s penalty

or the licensee can choose to deny the

violation

and contest contest it in writing or

request a hearing

depending on what type of penalty they

face and we’ll talk about that in the

next couple of slides

and depending on the outcome the fine

assessed the waiver penalty can be

the same as what the fine assessed

ultimately is or the ultimate

fine can be lower based on the board’s

final decision

okay so we’ll go through the process

if the violation poses no immediate

threat to public health or safety

so this kind of sets out the timelines

that

the board has to abide by

so within 15 days of receiving a notice

of violation the licensee can contest

by filing a written response to the

board

and that written response has to contain

each issue in fact and dispute

the rationale behind the licensee’s

position

and any pertinent facts to be determined

by the board

if the licensee fails to contest the

violation within 15 days that

constitutes an admission

and an acceptance of the penalty

um if the licensee does respond the

board has to consider that response and

issue a final decision in writing within

15 days of receiving the licensee’s

response

and

if the violation

penalty if the associated penalty is a

suspension or a revocation then the

licensee can request a hearing before

the board

and the hearing has to take place within

20 days of the board receiving that

request unless the licensee waives that

20-day timeline

evidence can be introduced at that

hearing in accordance with the statutory

rules of evidence for consensus

administrative cases there’s a statute

that will be cited in the rule

and the board can issue a final decision

either on the record at the hearing or

in writing within 15 days after the

hearing is complete

and the board they’re fi the final

decision of the board either

after the hearing or just uh in writing

in response to the licensee’s response

can be to either uphold its original

violation notice

or to revise the penalty to be less

severe

um or it can dismiss the notice

altogether

or the violation altogether

and then um a person who wants to appeal

that final decision can do so in

accordance with statute

and that 7vsa 847 is the same appeal

process that you reviewed

on wednesday with respect to the board

removal rule

so we can look at that again if you’d

like this is the

provision that a person has to appeal

within 30 days of the decision to the

executive director who assigns the case

to an appellate officer

and an appeal from there goes to the

supreme court

so just a reminder that this tracks

almost identically with the process that

the agency of agriculture uses for

violations of the people that they

license um there’s a few

you know statutory changes in our in our

in our statutes um

around time frames but they do 15 and

they do 30 days

but uh other than that it’s almost

identical

which i think is a benefit to the people

that are used to that sort of um process

that have been living with it um

already it won’t it won’t seem new or

out of place for most of the kind of

people we hope will be participating

yeah and if our if our hearing shall

take place within 20 days versus 30 days

of ag recognizing that this is folks

livelihood and if there’s an issue and

they need to stop or close their doors

or whatever i think

it makes sense that we work as

expeditiously as we can

to come to some type of resolution

okay

okay there’s one more and this is just

that the violation

does pose an immediate threat to public

health or safety

the timelines this is very much the same

but the timelines are a little different

if the violation does pose a threat to

public health or safety the notice of

violation that the board

submits to the licensee has to plainly

state that the penalty will take effect

immediately

and then the board has to confirm the

violation notice and the penalty within

seven days of the licensee

so for these types of violations um

suspensions revocations or health and

safety orders

take effect immediately

um if they’re accompanied by a written

finding that their the violation posed

an immediate threat to public health

safety or welfare however

any associated fines or corrective

action plan requirements will not take

effect

until the conclusion of the process

so then again we move into the same kind

of process here 15 days of receipt

the licensee has 15 days to contest by

filing a response to the board and

writing and that response has to include

the same information that um

that

was provided on the former slide about

facts supporting their position

failure to contest within 15 days again

constitutes an admission of the

violation and it’s an acceptance of the

penalty

and then the board has 10 days to

respond to the licensee’s response with

a final decision

um and if the

if the penalty associated with the

violation is a revocation or a

suspension

once again licensee can request a

hearing

as opposed to just a written response

and that hearing has to be within 10

days

of the board receiving the request for

the hearing

that’s supposed to 20 days

for the for

yep as opposed to 20 days

again evidence has to be

in accordance with the statutory rules

of evidence for contested cases

under the

administrative procedure act

and then the board can either issue its

final decision on the record at the

hearing or in writing within 10 days

after the hearing is complete so 10 days

as opposed to 15 days

if the violation doesn’t pose

a threat to public health or safety

and again same thing the board’s final

decision either um

after the hearing or just in response to

the licensee’s response to the violation

notice

can either revise the penalty to be less

severe or it can be the same

penalty as imposed in the original

notice of violation or the board can

dismiss the violation altogether

and the appeal process is the same

that’s it

before

just uh i have just one question about

the

the hearing shall be within 10 days

unless way by the licensee

what’s the effect of it not happening in

10 days um if not waived

do we is it default against the state

you don’t provide for that that’s right

the rule does not provide for that i

mean

yeah you could add something if you want

it well i i just you know i’m trying to

think of just the worst case scenario

these are the worst case scenarios right

and you know i think about just like

i don’t like to really go down that path

um necessarily but like

you know there was a quarantine of all

vape products during the evali scare in

massachusetts

and so that was in order i think it’s

not it didn’t come from the cannabis

commission and it came from the governor

um but i wonder if we did something like

that to all retailers in the state um

you know having to do all of them

within 10 days might be difficult

so you know i just wonder if there’s

some like for good cause

extension or something along those lines

that might allow the board to extend

um to a reasonable amount of time for

cause for a good cause

we came out something like that does

that take us out of line with the apa or

anything else i mean it’s not really

this is only

this is our own

process the apa only fully fully applies

once you get down to the appeal in

accordance with the statute yeah

so i think we’d have flexibility to

add some language about the consequence

that the board doesn’t

meet those deadlines or you know

where how much flexibility there might

be okay

does that make sense i mean do we do we

care i mean i’m trying to like i don’t i

hate to be like the doom and gloom kind

of like worst case scenario but i think

it’s prudent to

at least acknowledge that that is a set

of facts that could play out at some

point in the future whether we wanted to

or not better to explore it now and i

think yes there should be some sort of

second option or

or pause

if if there’s something major like that

yeah okay

and just think um

thinking about the appeals process and

and um

three vsa 840 or sorry 7vs847

i do think the consequence of the board

not

meeting that

10-day deadline could be that the

appellate not the appellate the um

the administrative judge could throw out

the boards

yeah penalty because we didn’t follow

our own process

yeah i mean and it’s unique that’s not

necessarily

that

scenario wasn’t really hinting at a a

bad actor in respect to a license holder

but more so

product issues

industry-wide right

um god forbid but

well

when i read that initially i just

thought that there might be some good

cause that the board might show that the

you know licensee might not agree to my

you know to waive that deadline but

there’s a good cause there’s a good

reason for it as long as we’re moving as

quickly as possible

it can also provide for consolidated

hearings it’s the same issue as

affecting multiple licensees yeah they

don’t all have to be they don’t have to

be separate hearings necessarily if it’s

one issue right that’s true yeah

okay

is that is that right if we leave it

there do you need more discussion no

that’s good okay that’s fine

that’s the only thing i didn’t notice

i think everything else looks

great

agreed okay

so that um completes your discussion on

rule four if you don’t have anything

else so we’ll move to rule five and take

a final look

this is the rule that you walked through

on wednesday

um i wanted to flag that in response to

the board’s um one of the issues that

julie raised

there has been one amendment to the

language of rule five and that is here

under the initial inquiry section in

subsection b

so this

the change provides that legal counsel

once

he or she has been directed to institute

an inquiry

they have to provide notice

to the chair and the participating

member of their initial written findings

so this is the um

the issue about notifying

oops no this is the participating member

so this i mean the subject the subject

right oops

so that should just say

i made the same problem same mistake

do we want to put it in i’m sorry if i’m

just not seeing this language do we want

to add any language there that unless it

you know

unless it gives an opportunity for the

subject member to

become too close to the investigation or

yes something along those lines

wait a second this is the same

i think

yeah for some reason the sections aren’t

showing up in what you have up there

which is

confusing

let me look at the draft i have here no

no is it

no that’s not there either okay we may

just have a different um version that

we’re looking at so just

hold on for a moment

i’m gonna do this

i think you had even mentioned that like

they should receive notice if there’s a

complaint being investigated against

them unless

the nature of the complaint and the

nature of the subject

i’m sorry about that subject number but

put itself for his or herself in a

situation

of actively

doing something nefarious with relation

to that violation yes

in terms of like doom and gloom like the

way i have seen that to this play out is

that it gives an opportunity for

whoever’s investigating or other two

people yes to like

build a case that is unfair

okay and it has the right yeah the irony

of drafting this rule is we all never

have to use it

our future boards will never have to use

it like actually read it and that’s

unique

with respect to what we’re doing except

for parts of rule four hope we never

have to do

some of those scenarios or what you want

to call it but

not the right version now

so the new language is here in 532

sub b

will just notify the subject member of

their complaint unless notification

would compromise

the initial inquiry by the

legal counsel

thank you

so that’s the only change to the text of

it as we went through it on wednesday

there the board did have some

conversation about whether or not the

process should be confidential

so yeah i

raised the issue that you know

maybe these proceedings should be

confidential i had wrongfully assumed

that they were confidential in other

contexts

david kind of pointed me to the

official ethics bureau board

and this pretty well tracks what you

know is happens in other kind of

disciplinary actions so um i’m fine with

it not the formal proceedings not being

confidential

okay

subject to of course like public records

laws or whatever right and there’s the

carve outs for the personnel so that’s

already in there right yeah

so are you ready to vote out rule five

then yeah i think so okay

um i would

take a motion to

approve rule five as drafted as we see

here come over seconded all in favor hi

so i don’t know if we have anything else

on our agenda for today um other than

public comment i know that uh next

tuesday we are planning on having a

probably more of a marathon meeting just

to review the actual text

um line by line of uh

rules three and four um

so uh why don’t we just move towards

public comment for today we’re a little

ahead of schedule but if you

we have some folks in the room

start with

them public comment

nope

anyone who joined via the link

please raise your virtual hand if you’d

like to make a comment

first up we have jesse lynn

hello how are you all doing today thanks

so much for having us all and taking

public comment um i just wanted to

reiterate my request for you guys to

address

uh recep why can’t i say it um

reciprocity today um so if you guys

could you know i mentioned before i

think reciprocity is really important

for patients who are moving to vermont

from out of state who are coming

visiting on vacation who have second

homes so if you guys could please

consider looking at readdressing

reciprocity i think that’s an important

part of the program we’re missing also

wanted to mention having that second

sign-off for the ptsd verification we

haven’t had much discussion or chat

around that i would love to see if

that’s something you guys could

recommend to remove that second needed

signature because that is definitely a

barrier in roadblock for patients to get

their card

um and lastly i just wanted to thank you

and agree that i strongly believe we

need educated medical staff or medical

professionals or at least the medical

dispensary staff having a stronger

education and background and in my

opinion i um

like i said i appreciate you guys

pushing for that and if the dispensaries

or legislators are trying to work

against that that’s a larger concern

from the systemic kind of sense so so

again just hoping you guys can look at

the ptsd and the reciprocity as we move

forward and include that while you’re

making some of this rule making change

thank you

thanks jesse lane

next is tita byrne

um hi guys uh just a quick thought um

about um the

the current rule for caregivers um

going forward i think we really need to

see some clarity on

a caregiver who is also a patient

you know so the way the rule reads right

now it says they can have

two mature seven immature and two ounces

in between them

and that the way it’s written right now

that indicates to me in a vehicle

because clearly in your home you’re

allowed to have as much cannabis as you

want so it’s just it’s unclear there and

i think obviously a a caregiver who’s a

patient obviously has to grow their two

plants for themselves

and obviously they have to grow their

two plants for their the person their

caregiving for so it would just be nice

to see protections in there for

caregivers

so that they can grow their plants and

the plants for their caregivers or for

their patients rather in the same place

thank you

thank you tito

anyone else who joined by the link

do you have anyone to join by phone one

person on the phone so if you join by

phone and you like to comment um please

just hit star six to unmute yourself

uh jessie lynn raised her hand again um

jesse lynn we try not to do repeat uh

comments um during these meetings uh we

will be meeting again next tuesday and

have probably

at least two public comment periods then

um and

i know you know how to reach us all so

if you

would like to comment please um just

either submit it through the web portal

or email us or um

come back to us on tuesday

uh we had old growth organics just

raised their hand

old growth

i figured since this is such a quick

meeting now might be the time to do this

but there’s actually a shout out to

amelia i just want to

ask if you want to be my friend

um i always really respect what you have

to say but i don’t know how to get a

hold of you and i’m moving to vermont

soon so old growth organics on instagram

is spelled out just like in the

participant here with underscore between

um the words

thank you guys so much for your time and

for all the work you’re doing

thank you

anyone else

nope okay well um

just a reminder we do have

our another meeting on tuesday at 11 and

we’ll be reviewing rules three and four

and in greater detail then

so other than that i will adjourn the

meeting

thank you

Vermont Cannabis Control Board Meeting Video: Friday, December 17, 2021

More Vermont Cannabis Licensing Resources

Pass this post:

The Headies Cup 2023: Homegrow Winners Gallery & Rankings

Cannasations w/Kris: White Chocolate w/ Rosie’s Confections

Vermont Cannabis Sales Hit Record High Of $6.5 Million In February, State Data Shows

Cannasations w/Kris: Good Energy w/ Old School Weed Co.

Vermont Cannabis Control Board Meeting Video: Friday, December 17, 2021

More Vermont Cannabis Licensing Resources

Pass this post:

Related Posts

The Headies Cup 2023: Homegrow Winners Gallery & Rankings

Cannasations w/Kris: White Chocolate w/ Rosie’s Confections

Vermont Cannabis Sales Hit Record High Of $6.5 Million In February, State Data Shows

Cannasations w/Kris: Good Energy w/ Old School Weed Co.