The story of the first suspension of a Mass Independent Testing Lab (ITL) by the Cannabis Control Commission (CCC) goes back to last June, and this week a new twist emerged.

In the CCC’s Public Meeting on Jan 27th, Commissioners challenged the authority of ED Travis Ahern to change the terms of the stipulated agreement the CCC signed with Assured Testing Labs last August. At issue was the extension of the deadline for the second installment of a $300,000 fine from Dec 12th to Feb 10th, the due date for the third and final payment.

The discussion marked another correction of ED Ahern’s course by Chair O’Brien after she recently overrode his conclusions in an investigation of the 2025 Industry Report. It also revealed that Assured has just requested a meeting to further negotiate the terms of their punishment, and concluded with Commissioners agreeing to add the special session to their calendars.

Last-minute requests

The stipulated agreement with Assured came up after the regular business of the day due to last-minute communication. At 4:55 pm the previous Friday the 23rd, the Chair and ED had each received an email from Assured requesting a discussion on the payments due on February 10th. Any discussion of the terms of the stipulated agreement would require a public meeting of all the Commissioners.

Before they considered whether to hold an emergency meeting before Feb 10th, the Chair wanted to discuss the previous accommodation Ahern had granted to Assured. 

Ahern described how, in early December, he and O’Brien had each received emails from Assured asking to discuss the payment about to come due. The Chair explained, “I was very, very careful to make sure that I did not get personally involved in this.” She went on to challenge Ahern, saying “It’s my understanding that you had a conversation with them. And did you ask for any legal advice from anybody in our legal team, that it was okay for you to have an off-the-record conversation with a licensee that was under a suspension order…?” 

Ahern stated, “I’ve touched base with both the enforcement counsel and general counsel separately on the topic.”

A minor change

Ahern explained his decision to extend the deadline, “They laid out a number of factors leading into what was the second payment, within the three payments laid out in the stipulated agreement.” Citing discomfort with publicly airing the reasons which compelled his leniency, he refused to elaborate.

Ahern claimed that the authority to change the signed agreement came from a Commission vote Sept 10th, 2020, that delegated authority to the ED to “approve minor changes and changes that need to be made on an emergency basis…”

O’Brien asked, “Why didn’t you alert us that you were making a unilateral decision? I don’t think this is a minor change.”

Referring to the stipulated agreement approved by the Commission, she continued, “This is a significant undermining of the vote.”

Ahern noted that the request in early December was to extend the second and third installments by two months each. His view was that allowing the second payment to slide would be “minor” compared with the broader request, and said he’d made clear to Assured that changing the third due date would require a vote of the Commission.

O’Brien was not satisfied. Referring to a recent meeting of the Red Tape Reduction Working Group, she continued, “I just fell back in my chair listening to the stakeholders … that we are not taken seriously as regulators because they think that we don’t enforce things appropriately.”

She concluded by requesting the legal team develop a definition of “minor” changes, and vowing to revisit the authorities delegated to the ED.

A special meeting to be scheduled before Feb 10th

Chair O’Brien turned the discussion to scheduling with an obvious lack of enthusiasm, “So, I would like to understand whether my fellow Commissioners are interested in holding a special meeting to allow the licensee to not fulfill the direction that a quorum of the Commission voted on.”

Each Commissioner reacted with a careful speech describing their willingness to have a meeting, along with their lack of commitment to changing the stipulated agreement. The CCC’s next scheduled public meeting will be on Feb 12th, and a ‘Public Hearing’ has been added to the calendar on Feb 10th.

In wrapping up the discussion, O’Brien requested “…the information that the executive director did not feel comfortable sharing in public …  I’d like to understand if they have the resources.”

Referring to the 2025 Industry Report, the Chair continued, “I feel as though this is the second time that … a decision was taken away from the commissioners that I think shouldn’t have been taken away from the commissioners. And now, it’s been put on us at the 11th hour. And I am leery about whether or not this company can fulfill its obligation.”

Testing Labs React

We contacted ITL operators for their reactions to the extension of the fine installment. None was willing to speak on the record, but several offered anonymous reactions. 

One said bluntly that moving the deadline was, “fucking ridiculous,” and followed up with a written statement saying, in part, “It feels like Assured is doing everything they can to exploit loopholes and take advantage of the system, and the CCC is just letting it happen.” 

Another wrote, “For years, Assured Testing Labs functioned as if it were untouchable, openly gaming the system while regulators looked the other way. … There was no deterrence, no accountability, and no protection for the public.”

When I asked an operator how they felt about a possible special meeting of Commisioners to consider further accommodations, they responded, “That makes me angry. … $18.5M annual revenue versus a $300,000 fine is a pretty good deal.”

Assured Testing Labs did not respond to a request for comment.