Public Meeting of the Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission, July 28^th, 2025, approximately minutes 65 to 78. Transcribed by Jeff Rawson, Institute of Cannabis Science.

Commissioner Roy: “I’d like to go to page four.

The definition of ‘Commission Delegee’, which I brought up. It was. Sure. So I’d like to, rework this definition, so I feel it’s overly prescriptive, and it limits, it’s self-limiting on who we can partner with to effectuate our ‘Secret Shopper’ program. So I would like to expand it so it could be outside individuals or agencies.”

Commissioner Concepción: “Commissioner Roy, do you mind restating which definition?”

Roy: ”Sure. It’s page four and it’s the ‘Commission Delegee’.

Concepción: “Okay. Thank you.”

Roy: “The bottom of page… on the word version. I guess, if I may…”

Stebbins: “Go ahead.”

Roy: “So as it’s written, it’s self-limiting. In what- in whom we can partner with to effectuate Secret Shopper. And my question is for enforcement based on the current version of ‘Commission Delegee’, how is it possible to do identification-check requirements if we are unable to partner, say, with college students? Or how how are we able to execute that with the current definition?”

Chief of Investigations Nomxolisi Jones: “If I may, Acting Chair, Commissioner Roy, before we go to that, definition for ‘Commission Delegee,’ Attorney Baker, I, I have a suggestion for us to consider. We have it here saying ‘prepared by’ maybe we should say ‘submitted by,’ for the—”

Roy: “For the previous thing?

Jones: “for the previous thing.”

Roy: “Yeah. You put that in the chat.”

Jones: “If the event plan means a document. […] Some documents ‘prepared by’ maybe should be ‘submitted by’ because then the ones that, you know. Right?

[…]

Stebbins: “Right, so removing ‘prepared’ and exchanging it for ‘submitted.’ or actually back [inaudible].

Roy: “That’s right.”

Stebbins: “Okay.”

Jones: “So then well, ‘Commission Delegee’. Okay. So let’s come back to that.”

Jones: “So, Commissioner Roy, your suggestion is for us to expand on the discussions—

Roy: ”Yes, I feel it is self-limiting and it limits, who are able to coordinate with to effectuate the program.”

Jones: “So your suggestion is to include what?”

Roy: And so as it reads, a plain reading makes one think that we can only partner with other government individuals or agencies, which is very– I’m not sure how we are able to effectuate 500.303 identification checks requirements. Part of the ‘Secret Shopper,’ based on a plain reading, I can’t see a scenario of how we can execute that unless somebody can explain otherwise how we’re able to do that.”

Jones: “Yeah, I think this one would have to defer to the legal department because the question is more about our authority to effectuate the regs and regulations. So I’ll defer to the Legal Department.”

Attorney Michael Baker: “Thank you. Chief, and thank you for the prior amendment as well. I think that there might be a way to not change the definition, but to go into the ‘Secret Shopper’ program and amend the language there, because ‘Commission Delegee’ arises in the context of the court, and other places throughout the three hundreds. And so I would I think that we could surgically amend that ‘Secret Shopper’ program section to exclude ‘Commission Delegee’ and try to come up with a different language there.”

Roy: “which would allow us to expand our resources—”

Baker: “for sure. While not infringing on the, the sections in which the ‘Commission Delegee’ arises, that is, you know, very specific for that definition.”

Roy: “do you think currently it’s kind of conflated, the term, because it’s using, it may like, for a court delegee. So it’s really almost not appropriate where it is? There is probably better, um, vernacular, if you will?”

Baker: “There, there’s many ways that we could go about addressing this. and, I think the way that you’re suggesting might infringe on the existing sections in 300, in the three hundreds.

Roy: “Okay.”

Baker: “Where it arises. So if really the goal of this amendment is to change it so that the shopper program can partner with private entities, that let’s go to 303 and see how we can—”

Roy: “we could tweak it there. Yeah. I guess my concern is like we have this identification check provisio. Right? And I don’t know how we can do it based on the language of ‘Commission Delegee’. How do we how do we execute that? If someone can explain me? So I think we do. And I’d be grateful if we could tweak it within that definition.”

Roy: “Just knowing, it’s so self limiting the way it is now for us.”

Baker: “I could, I could I make a suggestion that when we break for lunch that we convene to try to mark this language—”

Roy: “And I would invite Commissioner Concepción because she’s the sponsor on the topic.

Concepción: “I just, Acting Chair, if I may, because I know I don’t want us to get, go astray what we’re doing right now.”

Concepción: “What I’m understanding from you, Attorney Baker, is that that’s something that we can tackle separate to the conversation today. And that would go underneath the language where we talk about ‘Secret Shopper.’ You’re not suggesting that we make any amendments to the language of ‘Commission Delegee’ as it is right now because of what it impacts across our regulations.”

Baker: “As far as the definition, I would definitely suggest reconsidering that.

Baker: “I think I understand Commissioner Roy’s approach here, but I think if we can be narrow with our amendments in 303 to effectuate our goal.”

Concepción: “So I guess what I’m, I just want to make very clear is I want us to continue with the social consumption conversation today and let’s, you know, try to get that done today if possible, tomorrow, that would be awesome. But then I do welcome a conversation with us to address those concerns, because I do think that they’re valid. But I don’t want us to get sidetracked on what we’re actually doing right now around social consumption.”

Baker: “Sure. I think if we can meet over break, maybe we can mark it up.”

Roy: “Yeah.”

Concepción: “But, but I guess that’s where I’m getting confused. Mark what up? Mark up.”

Baker: “Three oh three.”

Concepción: “To mark up?”

Baker: “The ’Secret Shoper’.”

Concepción: “So we, so that that’s where it’s throwing me off because the suggestion is to tackle social– I mean, not social consumption, ‘Secret Shopper’ today.”

Roy: “I think it is germane because we would want to execute the ‘Secret Shopper’ when these social consumptions are open. When to read I.D. verification is completely germane to enforcement around ‘Secret Shopper’ and this license type. So I do think it’s it’s appropriate.

Concepción: “Oh, I’m not– no doubt about that. I’m just saying today because I think we would have to tie in Chief [unintelligible], you have the tie in a few other people to make sure that what we’re providing is aligned with the overall objective. And I think that would take more than a few minutes of conversation. Chief, I welcome your opinion on this as well.”

Jones: “Yeah, if I may, I don’t think 30 minutes is going to be sufficient during a lunch break for us to tackle 303 right now, because there’s other nuances, things that we need to talk, to think about, we would also have to include, enforcement council, include G.O.I.[?],… I think that maybe what we can do as a suggestion is now that this has been brought up it’s something for us to think about outside today’s social consumption regs discussion. And maybe, you know, we can possibly see if it’s possible for us if we have time around to get into it. But I think it’s more nuanced than what meets the eye. You know, there’s a lot more that we need to think about in terms of how would be able to tackle what Commissioner Roy suggested here, but we won’t be able to do it today.”

Stebbins: “Thank you, Chief. Go ahead with your question.

Roy: “Is it possible to get it to a point when we put this out for the public, because what happens is if it doesn’t happen in this round then it’s months and months away until we do it again.”

Concepción: “April would be the next timeline, just considering our next regulatory round. That’s around exclusivity.”

Stebbins: “I would suggest this. And again, I apologize, you two have been working on this. So I just what I’m picking up, is there a sense of—a tweak to make sure that, whenever the ‘Secret Shopper’ program is developed, there might be contracts or agreements with other parties, other agencies to enact that?

Concepción: “But if I may, because this is a conversation that the ‘Secret Shopper’ group can and will have, I don’t think that it’s right now, this is a concept that makes sense, but you’re talking about a change to our regulations that’s not been conceptualized by the legal team or anyone else here who’s been doing the work. So what I’m saying is, instead of holding up the process of what’s already been is being presented in front of us, is that we just take time. It doesn’t mean that it doesn’t happen. It just means that today, let’s focus on what’s in front of us.”

Stebbins: “Go ahead.”

Roy: “Okay. Looking out for public safety, public health, what I’m saying is that if we are pushing this aside or putting it out here, we could have a scenario where social consumption licenses are open and we have no means to do Age identification through ‘Secret Shopper’ because this is so self-limiting, so we are unable to execute that if we leave it alone and we have cannabis cafes and events and hospitality and we can’t do these like the ABCC does, which we’re trying to mirror a lot of this after the ABCC and we can’t do that. That’s a real scenario because we are, we are putting this aside, where I think we could tackle it over the next couple of days.

Concepción: “I think, Acting Chair, I’m not in disagreement with you.”

Roy: “Okay.”

Concepción: “Let’s do it.”

Roy: “Well,”

Concepción: “What I’m saying is today and 30 minutes, that’s not wise. If we’re making any regulatory changes, if we’re talking about a legal review, if we’re talking about getting enforcement council, the Chief of Enforcement and Investigations, 30 minutes is not sufficient.

Roy: “But, may I, just for the record, this isn’t the first time I brought this up. I’ve brought this up many times—”

Concepción: “-finishing. Thank you.”

Executive Director Travis Ahern: “Let me. First of, or as well as the timeline came up, one of the things I’d like to cover as we move forward with this conversation today or tomorrow is after the promulgation schedule, the implementation schedule for social consumption.”

Ahern: “So I do think that, given the timeline here and the understanding that not having it available at the time that folks begin social consumption in, in the Commonwealth, I think that we can align those timelines and have that discussion as well. So I’ll bring that timeline forward as well as we talk about what it looks like next steps for implementation beyond promulgation. I think that may close the gap there.”

Stebbins: “Okay.”

Concepción: “Thank you. Executive Director.”

Stebbins: “Thank you. Thank you for, both colleagues, for talking about the issue. And again, this is the reality we all live in is two commissioners can work on something. And this case, I might duck out, but appreciate the viewpoints. And ‘Secret Shopper’ is something that we have definitely tried to navigate and to find a way to, to, to bring to, implementation. So I appreciate you bringing it up and I can appreciate my colleagues for, sharing their concerns about it as well. It might be interesting to look at, you know, the implementation and again, fully anticipating we need to do another round of, regulations. We’ve talked about that, talked about it, one, around exclusivity. You talked about it in other terms or just generally kind of updating. And if I can characterize it as modernized, like some of our other regulations. So, I want to say there’s a second bite at the apple, but there’s certainly another, regulatory period, kind of, on the horizon.”

Author – Jeff Rawson 

8/11/2025