The emergency meeting of New York’s Cannabis Control Board (CCB) called for last Friday (December 29) started 20-minutes late, a seeming eternity, but that was forgotten as soon as the meeting began and it became clear that something was off in New York Regulatorland, where even the worst of times are called the best of times. The meeting lasted all of 30 minutes when all was said and done – and a lot was said, with little done – but within that brief window a curtain was opened that revealed a palpable tension not only among the board members but also between the Board and the Office of Cannabis Management, whose Executive Director, Chris Alexander, participated in the meeting.

At times it felt like an old west bar fight, with participants taking metaphoric swings at anyone within reach, and a reasonable first reaction was that it was little more than an airing of dirty laundry, a release of frustration following a long, hard year. And that may have been a part of it, but what seemed at first like whiny complaints about poor scheduling and not sticking to bylaws that people hated in the first place soon began to sound a lot more like legitimate concerns about a vote they were being asked to take under emergency circumstances for the benefit of only two companies. And then, more to the point, beneath that concern there seemed to be a profound if unexpressed lack of faith that these companies, each of which is owned by a multistate operator, will behave in ways that benefit New York’s local cannabis farmers. But were those concerns as ominous as they were made to sound, or, as Alexander suggested, were they being overblown?

There were only two orders of business on the agenda for the 1:30pm ET meeting, which was streamed live and which two board members joined remotely. One of them, Dr. Jennifer Gilbert-Jenkins, mentioned her displeasure as a point of order following Board Chair Tremaine Wright’s brief opening remarks.

“I’m a little bit frustrated that after we pushed to have a meeting before Christmas, and then there were questions that were asked and those questions weren’t answered, then there was this push to have another meeting this week that I didn’t find out about until last night,” said Gilbert-Jenkins. “I’m on vacation with my family. As a Board, we are not an at-will Board and meet whenever somebody wants us to meet. We meet every month. We’ve had our December meeting. There’s no statement of [why this] is an emergency for this to happen right now, and on top of that, we’re being asked to consider things that we could easily be considering in our January Board Meeting in two weeks.”

The first order of the day – No. 2030-50 – was, as the title screams, a “RESOLUTION TO GRANT A REGISTERED ORGANIZATION ADULT-USE CULTIVATOR, PROCESSOR AND DISTRIBUTOR LICENSE OR A REGISTERED ORGANIZATION ADULT-USE CULTIVATOR PROCESSOR DISTRIBUTOR RETAIL DISPENSARY LICENSE TO CERTAIN REGISTERED ORGANIZATIONS.”

The resolution was made up of several WHEREASES and two RESOLVEDS, the first of which said that “that the Board grants a ROND (Registered Organization Non-Dispensing) or a ROD (Registered Organization Dispensing) license to every applicant that received the Chairperson’s aforementioned preliminary determination to grant a ROND or a ROD license, subject to payment of required license fees pursuant to 9 NYCRR 120.4,” and the second further resolved “that upon payment of all required ROD fees, a registered organization who was previously approved as ROND, can transition to ROD license upon submission of the required licensing fees and any other requirements for the ROD license as determined by the Office and set out in 9 NYCRR.”

Two Registered Organizations, each of which had provided OCM with the required documents and submitted all the plans required by the regulations, were recommended for approval by the Board: Fiorello Pharmaceuticals Inc, whose “highly coveted” vertical license was purchased by Green Thumb Industries (GTI) in 2019, and Citiva Medical, LLC, which iAnthus closed on in February 2018.

But for some reason, the question of why them, why now, was front-and center for Gilbert-Jenkins from the get-go. “There are emergency things that we could be talking about, like the push that people are asking us to consider extending the Growers Showcase,” she said. “There’s nothing on our agenda about working with the legislature, working with the state government to be able to extend the Growers Showcases, that is actually helping our farmers here. So, I’m really confused why I’m being asked to come off vacation with my family to do this normal business that could easily be taken care of during our January meeting. So, I would just like to inquire what’s so important that I need to be here right now?”

Chair Wright said there was an agenda in front of them but agreed that there was a “lack of process” when and why to call a meeting and suggested that “at this moment it’s really up to the Board to decide what they would like to do as they move forward.” It was at this point that she essentially lost control of the meeting, which quickly descended into what can only be described as chaos, with people talking over one another, and the other remote board member, Adam Perry, pleading time and again for order and a return to the agenda.

“I appreciate that you want to get to the agenda,” responded Gilbert-Jenkins finally, “but I really want to know why I’m being asked to be here, because this is not our monthly meeting and I want to know what the rules are. What is the organization with which we decide when we’re having a meeting and not just being told by somebody else that we need to have a meeting? But as a board, what are the rules for how we decide that, yes, this is the time to have a meeting? I agree it is difficult to move forward when this is not on the agenda, but I think it’s a really important thing that we discuss. We can’t just be pushed by outside forces that say you need to meet now because you have to do this for us. I’m sorry, I don’t work that way.”

Board member Jessica Garcia responded, “If I may, we are a government board, we are not an independent body, and there are factors that influence how we operate. We have been asked to meet to address the current agenda, and I think that it is our responsibility to answer to that.”

More chaos ensued until Chair Wright at long last forced a vote to approve the minutes of the previous meeting, which passed quickly. She then tried to deftly segue to the vote on Resolution No. 2023-50, but Garcia announced that she wanted to “go on the record that I am recusing myself from Resolution 2023-50.” She said she was doing it out of an abundance of caution, and that despite having no direct conflict of interest, she had sought guidance on the matter “from counsel at OCM and the New York State Commission of Ethics.” She got up and left the room for the discussion and vote on 2023-50.

There was a somewhat awkward pause after which Wright asked for a second on the motion to consider 2023-50. “I will second it but I’m not happy about it,” said Gilbert-Jenkins after no one else spoke up. OCM Executive Director Chris Alexander, who had sat silently the entire meeting, took the floor to briefly explain that the ROs in question had fulfilled their requirements, and then he took questions.

Gilbert-Jenkins had a question. “I want to know why after the last time we said that we wanted more information, more information wasn’t given,” she said pointedly. “I know the Chair had asked for information about whether or not there were direct contracts. So, this was stated to me that the fact that I was not ready to hold an Emergency Meeting meant that I was anti-farmer. And I’m really angry about how many times in the past three weeks I’ve had to defend my stance about how I support New York farmers. And I know the Chair had asked if there were contracts that said that the RO’s wanted to or had in place to buy from farmers, because they are vertically integrated, so they don’t have to do that. So, I want to know, have those questions been answered?”

Alexander replied, “Board Member Gilbert-Jenkins, I’m not sure who called you anti-farmer, but a contract will be in place after or before the resolution…”

“Chris,” she cut him off. “You did. It was in your email.”

Now the chickens were coming home to roost! Or were they? Alexander reacted with a quick parry to deflect the charge. “Contracts with a registered organization and an adult-use conditional processor or adult-use conditional cultivator before today’s vote would have been illegal because a resolution has not been approved to transition to the adult-use market and they are not authorized to purchase products from adult-use conditional cultivator(s),” he said evenly. “Today’s action, should the Board vote in favor of the [requested] transitioning, would allow such a contract to be developed and secured.”

But Wright, having already been included, jumped into action. “I think what was being identified in our conversations last week, as well as by what Dr. Gilbert-Jenkins just said, is that transactions don’t begin overnight,” she said. “They don’t begin after the fact. We have a triggering event happening at this meeting and it is extremely commonplace, even when anyone has purchased a home, that you don’t walk in after the triggering event and then suddenly see your mortgage for the first time.”

Alexander tried to respond, but Wright cut him off. “Please,” she said, “the Chair has not acknowledged you; please refrain.” After a pause, she continued, “I think some of the crux and the concern were in the assertions that were being made that this was somehow going to benefit people that are not actually part of this transaction nor any transaction that we know of. So, I think the question that we’re really trying to get to is has any new information been disseminated?”

Alexander reiterated, “Madam Chair, it would be illegal for a registration that does not have the authority to purchase product from the adult use market to have created, prepared, and executed an agreement with the conditional cultivator. The Board has the power to authorize or not authorize a registration to transition into the adult use marketplace, and at this point in time, that has not yet happened. So, such an agreement is premature until a vote has taken place.”

That seemed to answer Wright’s question, but Gilbert-Jenkins was far from mollified. “And since RO’s are vertically integrated,” she said, “there is nothing that says that this is going to help New York state farmers who are trying to move biomass.”

A sliver of steam could now be seen emanating from Alexander’s ears. It felt as though this was not the first time this subject had been raised. “Board member Gilbert-Jenkins, as you recall, participating dispensaries are required to have fifty percent of their shelf space dedicated to adult-use conditional cultivator product,” he said, unable or unwilling to stop the mansplainer in him. “Such registered organizations, some of which do not have the cultivation capacity, are very interested in connecting if authorized to do so with adult-use conditional cultivators to secure that product and provide a process through which that product can get to New York’s consumers. They’re waiting for us to open more stores and get the supply chain operating as it needs to.”

Chair Wright then diverted the meeting to whet felt like an interrogation of Alexander on a variety of subjects that had seemingly been bugging her, such as the focus of the current meeting on the two companies instead of “a store that might begin ready to open in a community where they’re going to have far reaching impacts to say maybe ten to twelve families in that community and they actually change the dynamic of economics there?” Alexander replied, “We do the work simultaneously to advance what is the…most equitable cannabis program in the country as well as ensuring that our supply chain is functioning properly.”

Wright also wanted to know where people can email and call OCM for whatever question they may have, and her specific interest in where people can find out about about enforcement led to a back-and-forth with Alexander on the meaning of enforcement that was the definition of people talking past one another. Eventually, Alexander provided all of the email addresses and phone numbers people needed to contact OCM, but even as that extended conversation ended, Gilbert-Jenkins was still not satisfied. “Well, I want to clarify that I still ask what is so special about these that we need to have a meeting outside of our normally scheduled meeting,” she inquired of Alexander. “And I don’t think that that has been answered.”

“Board Member Gilbert-Jenkins,” he replied, apparently trying to bring the debate to an end, “the Office put forward in front of the Board the concept of a Cannabis Growers Showcase, acknowledging that the state had a lack of dispensaries, and it needs to increase access to legal regulated cannabis for New Yorkers. We also put forth that program acknowledging that supply chains are being held up by the injunction and that we had a hundred thousand-plus pounds of biomass that was waiting to get processed and onto store shelves. Right now, if the Board votes, the Board could add another dispensary to the count today as well as another organization that has the ability to process existing biomass to support New York’s small farmers, as well as the dispensaries that are going to have fifty percent of the shelf space represented by New York small farmers.”

That explanation did not pass muster with Gilbert-Jenkins. “I really think it’s such a lot of ifs and that it seems like the optics of this to me are that we are going outside of our way to help a small group of people and not others and that I find very problematic,” she said. “And if this emergency meeting is really about helping move more biomass, why aren’t we also talking about the extension and other ways of working with New York State government to be able to extend the Growers Showcases? That to me would be an agenda that said we are trying to help farmers altogether. This agenda just looks like we want to get this passed as soon as possible and we’re helping this small group, and I really have a problem with that.”

Alexander said he appreciated what the showcases had accomplished. “They allowed for us to move or to bring in approximately five million dollars of revenue to New York’s operators,” he said. “That is how much a dispensary can make in a couple of weeks, and so adding a dispensary is not counter to the Farmer Showcases. It’s supportive of a supply chain that functions. We need more dispensaries. We’re trying to add more dispensaries.”

With that, they had ground every listener to dust and the discussion was over. Chair Wright called for the vote, which took a matter of seconds. She, Jessica Garcia, and Gilbert-Jenkins abstained, and Adam Perry and Hope Knight voted yes. The resolution failed to pass, but succeeded in pissing people off.

The second resolution, No. 2023-51, on approving permits for two East Syracuse testing labs, passed easily and without debate by three yeses to two abstentions. Following the vote, Alexander provided a brief update on the licensing process underway that included the following bullet-points:

• Almost 70 percent of applications were social and economic equity (SEE) applications.
• CAURD updates are coming on the availability of sites, site approvals, and proximity protection.
• AUCC and AUCP transition window will be reopening in January or February.
• Type 3 Processor application window will also be reopening soon. There is plenty of opportunity for brands to attain this license type.
• A webinar released in the next two weeks will discuss the next steps for applicants.

The meeting was then mercifully adjourned. We reminded ourselves that the state’s adult-use rollout is under fresh threat from a new lawsuit that seeks to once again shut the entire process down, a development that could explain both the rush to hold the meeting and the manner in which it unfolded.

In related news, OCM has released its annual report. The complete report is available here. A Highlights version can be found here.