To whom it may concern,

After 2 years of this ridiculous, nontransparent rigged, convoluted process. It has been brought to my attention you have decided to scrutinize my economic empowerment application review process even further. As I attempt to get clarity and an understanding as to why I am still amiss. I personally requested a copy of my background check to review the report myself and compare it to your own laws/ rules and regulations. To my delight, as I was already aware, I have never been convicted of a felony in my 51yrs of living. I do on the other hand have multiple incidents resulting in non-convictions from 1989 at the ripe old age of 21 to 2009 to the ripe old age of 41. As stated in the CSI background report, and I quote ” multiple incidents resulting in non-convictions (other than distribution of a controlled substance to a minor) ARE NOT disqualifiers for licensure and would not automatically result in a presumptive negative suitability determination according to 935 CMR 500.800.

This is also stated in M.G.L. c 94G section 4 (iii), (iv)

(iii) qualifications for licensure and minimum standards for employment that are directly and demonstrably related to the operation of a marijuana establishment and similar to qualifications for licensure and employment standards in connection with alcoholic beverages as regulated under chapter 138; provided, that a prior conviction solely for a marijuana-related offense or for a violation of section 34 of chapter 94C shall not disqualify an individual or otherwise affect eligibility for employment or licensure in connection with a marijuana establishment, unless the offense involved the distribution of a controlled substance, including marijuana, to a minor; 

935 CMR 500.800(4)(c)

(c)   If the Executive Director institutes a suitability review, the staff shall send the written notice of an adverse suitability recommendation that identifies the Person or entity subject to suitability review, the particular offenses or conduct relied on and whether that the offenses or conduct results in a Mandatory Disqualification or Presumptive Negative Suitability Determination, or supports a Negative Suitability Recommendation, and reasons for that determination. 

The commission has been in possession of my completed application, background check information along with the completed documentation required as of July 2019* https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2019/07/17/regulators-sign-off-on-initial-license-for-first.html based on this report. So much for Priority review. I did not get my letter of completion until October 2019. Please see attached CSI report. I have not been notified of the receipt of the information until I was persistent in calling and inquiring as to where we are in the process. It was brought to my attention today, December 17, 2019, by Kyle Potvin (Director of licensing) that my application has been forwarded to the enforcement council Paul for review. When asking if this was a normal process he could not say. When asked why is Paul reviewing my application, he could not say.

With the lack of transparency and priority review process I conclude, it is under further review.

In accordance to 935 CMR 500.800.4.e

(e)   The notice of an adverse suitability recommendation shall provide the subject with the opportunity to request an informal proceeding before the Suitability Review Committee.

I will conclude that Kyle’s limited notice to me via the phone conversation today of my sustainability review being underway, apparently for 60 days. I am requesting an informal proceeding before a suitability review committee to get to the conclusion of these matters under review.

935 CMR 500.800(8)(a)

The Committee may make a Negative Suitability Determination in the following circumstances:

(a)     On the receipt of the staff’s Negative Suitability Recommendation that there is credible and reliable information in the five years immediately preceding the application:  

1.     The applicant’s or Licensee’s prior actions posed or would likely pose a risk to the public health, safety, or welfare if a License or registration is granted or renewed;

2.     and the risk posed by the applicant’s or Licensee’s actions relates or would likely relate to the operation of a Marijuana Establishment.

(b)   On review of this recommendation, the Committee shall consider whether the staff has carried its burden of demonstrating: 

        1.   The applicant’s or Licensee’s prior actions posed or would likely pose a risk to the public health, safety, or welfare if a License or registration is granted or renewed; and

       2.   The risk posed by the applicant’s or Licensee’s actions relates or would likely relate to the operation of a Marijuana Establishment. 

So, as a Veteran who has served her country, as a woman of color who has been disproportionately and adversely effected and affected by the war on drugs, whom has never been convicted of a felony of any kind, a Veteran with a license to carry a concealed firearm which was obtained within the last 10 months, applies for a license to sell cannabis is a now, suddenly, a suitability threat, to sell cannabis. The same woman who holds Mass state licenses, for general construction supervisor for 10 yrs., A Code Compliance Inspector for the state of Massachusetts, 5 yrs., a special Inspector for concrete, rebar, epoxy grout, and soils for 7yrs., a woman whom has been a certified Cardiac Sonographer for over 10 years, a woman whom is a homeowner in Roxbury (Fort Hill) for 20yrs, a woman whom developed the Energy Efficiency curriculum for the city of Boston that is still being WIA funded today, a woman whom worked closely with Mayor Menino and renew Boston on a city block grant 10yrs ago, a woman who started the first green jobs summer program for young black boys and girls in Roxbury, a woman who trained and mentored well over 30 children through the ABCD summer jobs program in environmental awareness.  This is a most aggreges insult the CCC could have delivered.  And you (CCC) are having difficulty with there inclusion of Economic Empowerment applicants receiving licensure to sell cannabis.

CMR500.801.1

500.801:   Suitability Standard for Licensure

(1)     In accordance with M.G.L. c. 94G, § 5, the Commission is prohibited from licensing a Marijuana Establishment where an individual who is a Person Having Direct or Indirect Control has been convicted of a felony or offense in an Other Jurisdiction that would be a felony in the Commonwealth, except a prior conviction solely for a Marijuana offense or solely for a violation of M.G.L. c. 94C, § 34, unless the offense involved distribution of a controlled substance, including Marijuana, to a minor. 

Precipitating Issue:

Open/Unresolved Criminal Proceedings:

Any outstanding or unresolved criminal proceeding, the disposition of which may result in a felony conviction under the laws of the Commonwealth or Other Jurisdictions, but excluding any criminal proceeding based solely on a Marijuana-related offense or a violation of M.G.L. c. 94C, § 32E(a) or § 34.

NO

Outstanding or Unresolved Criminal Warrants

NO

Submission of Untruthful Information to the Commission Including, but Not Limited to:

Submission of information in connection with a License application, waiver request or other Commission action that is deceptive, misleading, false or fraudulent, or that tends to deceive or create a misleading impression, whether directly, or by omission or ambiguity; or

making statements during or in connection with a Commission inspection or investigation that are deceptive, misleading, false or fraudulent, or that tend to deceive or create a misleading impression, whether directly, or by omission or ambiguity.

NO

Open/Unresolved Marijuana License or Registration Violations (Massachusetts or Other Jurisdictions)

NO

Open Professional or Occupational License Cases

NO

Sex Offender Registration:

Required to register as a sex offender in Massachusetts or an Other Jurisdiction.

NO

Felony Convictions in Massachusetts or another Jurisdiction Including, but Not Limited to:

Felony weapons violation involving narcotics; Felony involving violence against a person; Felony involving theft or fraud; and Felony drug, excluding conviction solely for a Marijuana-related offense or solely for a violation of M.G.L. c. 94C, § 34.

NO

Conviction or Continuance without a Finding (CWOF) for Any Distribution of a Controlled Substance to a Minor

NO

Firearms-related Crimes

NO

Multiple Crimes of Operating under the Influence

Two offenses within a ten-year period; or Three or more offenses within any period of time.

NO

Multiple Crimes

During the five years immediately preceding the application for licensure that separately may not result in a negative determination of suitability, but may, if taken together and tending to show a pattern of harmful behavior, result in a negative determination of suitability depending on the type and severity of the crimes.

NO

Crimes of Domestic Violence Including, but Not Limited to:

Violation of an abuse prevention restraining order under M.G.L. c. 209A

Violation of a harassment prevention order under M.G.L. c. 258E

NO

Crimes of Domestic Violence Including, but Not Limited to:

Violation of an abuse prevention restraining order under M.G.L. c. 209A

Violation of a harassment prevention order under M.G.L. c. 258E

NO

Marijuana License or Registration Violations (Massachusetts or Other Jurisdictions)

The applicant or a Licensee held a License that was revoked, a renewal application that was denied, or a similar action taken with relation to their Marijuana business in Massachusetts or Other Jurisdiction, whether by administrative action or stipulated agreement.

NO

Marijuana License or Registration Violations (Massachusetts or Other Jurisdictions)

The applicant or a Licensee held a License that was revoked, a renewal application that was denied, or a similar action taken with relation to their Marijuana business in Massachusetts or Other Jurisdiction, whether by administrative action or stipulated agreement.

NO

Preceding Five Years:   

The applicant’s or Licensee’s prior actions posed or would likely pose a risk to the public health, safety, or welfare; and

the risk posed by the applicant’s or Licensee’s actions relates or would likely relate to the operation of a Marijuana Establishment.

NO

 

The manner in which the CCC has handled or lack of handling this matter has violated my due process and has caused grave detriment to the future of my company earning potential. The lack of priority review has hindered my ability to participate in the nearly 400mill dollar opportunity of revenue generated in this industry. For by the looks of the approved applicants my odds would have been more fortunate to have applied as a general applicant be it that most of them entered into this arena 1yr after me and are up and running their businesses. The state has approved 227 licenses  (2) are priority EE and (69) are General applicants  (156) are ( medical cannabis conversion to recreational)  so much for the 1 to 1 priority. Let me make this situation clear as this process works some quickly and expediently.  6  applicants submitted there completed application packets in June 2019. All of which have been issued a provisional license (2)( General Applicant – license numbers – MC282198, MPN281693,) 120 days- (4months) total time from submittal of a completed to provisional-  Now that is priority status total time from submittal to provision  (4) RMD priority – (mp281702, mc282211, mc282243, Mp281715) (11) EE applicants still pending with completed packet submittals since:

1.     November 28, 2018 –                                     385 days – no license ( 1yr +)

2.     July 30 2018                                                   506 days – no license  (1yr 3months)

3.     April 19, 2019                                                 608 days – no license  ( 1yr 6 months)

4.     January 30 2019                                              322 days – no license (8 months)

5.     April 21, 2019                                                 241 days – no license  ( 6months)

6.     April 19, 2019                                                 243 days no license     (6 months)

7.     September 20, 2018                                        454 days – no license  (1 yr. 2 months)

8.     January 30, 2019                                             322 days – no license  (8 months)

9.     April 17, 2018                                                 610 days – no license  ( 1 yr. 6 months)

10.  April 18, 2019                                                 611 days -no license (1 yr 6months)

11.  January 30, 2019                                             322 days – no license ( 8 months)

 

I will conclude with this.

This grave and willful violation of the State law is either one of three things and maybe all of the above.

1.     Gross incompetence

2.     Willful with the intent to cause undue hardship

3.     Blatant and unchecked  discrimination of applicants civil liberties

– Leah Daniels, Alchemy League

Categories