The Legislature needs to act so the agency can effectively regulate the state’s $7 billion cannabis industry.
More than seven years after the Legislature created the Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission, the organization remains dysfunctional. In order to operate effectively, it needs an organizational overhaul.
As widely reported,the CCC, which was created to regulate the state’s cannabis industry,has experienced a litany of problems, even in foundational areas such as self-governance and day-to-day operations.
It need not be this way. While lawmakers did not act upon my suggestion, as the state’s inspector general,last summer to appoint a temporary receiver to provide much-needed stability for the commission,I continue to believe that correcting the course demands a sense of urgency and there should be legislative action to restructure the CCC.
For more than a year, the CCC has operated without a permanent executive director, a permanent chair, or a fully comprised board. The inaugural executive director resigned in December 2023. The CCC then spent a significant amount of time recruiting and hiring for the position, only to have its first choice decline the job offer in November 2024. During that time, three different commissioners served as acting chair.
Newly appointed executive director Travis Ahern is expected to begin his tenure in March, and a new acting chair has been in place since September. But any suggestion that a change in leadership is enough to fix the commission’s troubles and “right the ship” is overly optimistic.
The CCC has struggled with self-governance. In July 2024, after months of work, it finally issued a draft governance charter defining the roles of the commission, the chair, and the executive director. Yet more than six months later, the CCC has not approved the charter.
The agency has struggled with instability attributable to employee turnover, vacancies, and workplace complaints. It recently took steps to fill other critical leadership positions, but only after spending more than $1.1 million on legal expenses and salaries for suspended employees.
The CCC has struggled with day-to-day operational issues such as timeliness in processing applications; conducting investigations of growers, labs, distributors, and dispensaries; and completing enforcement actions of licensees. There are also allegations of inconsistent cannabis testing policies and procedures, including false test results for potency and mold; lab shopping (finding a lab that will provide favorable test results for potency and contaminants); lax enforcement; and conflicts of interest.
Additionally, there are problems related to licensing, renewals, billing, and accounts receivable that suggest a lack of competency in establishing processes as well as in accounting and oversight. We should all expect that the CCC, as a revenue-generating agency, will be well-versed in the basic business practices of billing, collections, and reconciliations.
These yearslong systemic problems highlight the struggles the CCC has experienced with leadership, governance, and accountability. They have resulted in waste and abuse of public resources.
As inspector general, I work to mitigate fraud, waste, and abuse of public assets while helping state and municipal agencies work better. I continue to believe that the CCC’s governing structure is not suitable for running the day-to-day operations of a state agency with the breadth of the CCC’s responsibilities.
Recent legislative hearings on the cannabis industry inform this view. Industry experts and policy makers testified last fall on the differences between decentralized and centralized models of cannabis industry regulation, frequently referred to as “commission” and “executive director” models, respectively. Under a commission model, leadership and accountability is shared among commission members. An executive director model — the method of governance in two-thirds of states that allow adult-use cannabis — centralizes communications and accountability in one leader.
I am compelled to ask why Massachusetts created its own bifurcated model with shared leadership between a commission, chair, and executive director when a strong executive director model works for the majority of states that allow for adult-use cannabis. A revised structure featuring a stronger executive director and a commission with responsibilities limited to public policy matters would seem to honor the original core concepts of the Commonwealth’s model.
The Legislature and its leadership have taken great interest in the problems at the CCC. As the next legislative session begins, I look forward to seeing decisive action to meaningfully restructure the CCC so that it can effectively regulate the Commonwealth’s $7 billion cannabis industry. Legislators have the opportunity not only to establish the optimal framework to ensure that cannabis products meet regulatory and safety requirements but also to help the cannabis industry prosper while protecting an important revenue stream for the Commonwealth.
Jeffrey S. Shapiro is the Commonwealth’s inspector general.
The Legislature needs to act so the agency can effectively regulate the state’s $7 billion cannabis industry. Read More
