POT BOSS: NO NEED TO NAME NAMES
Priority bids still secret
A move by state pot regulators to grant priority certification to 20 companies without revealing who was granted the head start in the process to secure a coveted recreational weed license is a “troubling” move that could sow distrust, open government advocates said.
“You have 20 companies that were secretly given priority status for a brand-new industry and given a leg up, and the public has no idea who these companies are, what their backgrounds are, and has been provided no opportunity to object,” said Justin Silverman, executive director of the New England First Amendment Coalition. “That’s very troubling.”
The commission voted yesterday to approve priority status for the nearly two dozen companies already registered with the Department of Public Health to sell medical marijuana. Priority certification gives them an advantage over other applicants once the pot commission starts approving and rejecting licenses.
During the meeting, CCC commissioner Britte McBride suggested the names of each company be read, but chairman Steven J. Hoffman said that was unnecessary.
“We will post this list on our website either today or tomorrow,” he said.
The list of applicants had not yet been posted at close of the business day yesterday.
Hoffman told reporters he didn’t think it was necessary to name the companies that were receiving priority status.
“I don’t know I see a need for that,” Hoffman said. “We’re not hiding anything, we’re just trying to do things as efficiently as possible.”
Greg Sullivan, the former state inspector general, said the vote may have been a violation of the Open Meeting Law.
“The CCC conducted an official act, they’re required to do so in a public meeting, on the record, in full view of the citizens and the press,” Sullivan said. “They did that except for one thing, they didn’t say what they were voting on. I think they made a serious mistake by not announcing the names.”
The attorney general’s office, which oversees enforcement of the Open Meeting Law, declined to comment on the vote, and said they have not received any formal complaints.
In a statement, CCC spokesman Cedric Sinclair said the names of the companies were not being released in order to notify applicants and protect personal data.
He added the commission is “dedicated to a transparent certification and application process” and following “best practices in data retention and sharing.”