It is my position, as a Commissioner, that we owe an obligation of transparency to this state’s people.
By Ralph Chopoco of the Alabama Reflector
The Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission voted Monday to defer granting licenses in the areas of production, manufacturing and growth of medical marijuana until a third-party reviews the scores given for license applications earlier this year.
After a meeting on June 16, where the commission opted for a delay due to controversy surrounding the application process, the decision also indicated a rejection of the calls to completely restart the applications.
Two commissioners, Loree Skelton, an attorney in health care, and Charles Price (a retired Montgomery County Circuit Judge) voted against the delay proposal.
The commission awarded about 20 medical cannabis licenses last month. However, it decided to delay grants a few weeks later, , citing possible irregularities in the scoring of applications.
Skelton, after the Monday vote, criticized the process by which the commission awards licenses.
Skelton stated, “As a Commissioner, I was not given the opportunity to consent in an informed manner on the issues that were brought before me.” “I raised my first concerns about a contract review almost a year ago, on July 15, I believe. Where can we find the information needed to make an educated decision?
Skelton criticized the commission for granting anonymity of those who evaluated applicants’ qualifications.
The University of South Alabama who assessed the licenses brought in evaluators to review the applications and determine the credibility of each license application. The evaluators provided the commission with the results of their analysis and scoring but did not reveal the identities of the evaluators, or the criteria that they used to rank each application.
Skelton stated, “We were not given any criteria as to how their numbers were derived.” “We saw no analysis. “We saw no summary of where their numbers came from.”
The evaluation scores played a significant role in determining the license.
Skelton stated, “They would tell me when and what they thought I should know. They also told me that I needed to listen and follow their advice.” “That’s not how I read the law, and I made it very clear to that meeting that my position as a commission, we owe the people of the state a duty of transparency.”
Skelton stated that she expects to be able to access the evaluations in order to make an independent decision incorporating the findings of the evaluators.
Skelton stated, “When you are denied the chance to do your job and receive the information we need, we may not be able to provide that information, because we must protect the integrity in the process.” It is my understanding that it is our responsibility to protect the integrity and fairness of the voting process.
Problems began for the Commission shortly after its meeting on June 12, when members announced the recipients of licenses to conduct different activities in the medical cannabis industry. Soon after the meeting, officials called for an end to the process and announced that there had been a mistake in the way scores were calculated.
John McMillan is the executive director at the commission. He said, “We realized immediately that certain things did not add up.” “Rather than trying to hide that, which would have probably gotten us away with it, the right thing to be done was to admit the mistakes and then fix the problems.”
A lawsuit was filed to determine whether the Commission has the right to stop the process. In a hearing, a Montgomery Circuit court judge ordered a suspension of the appeals process in favor of applicants denied a license.
A second company filed suit and asked the Montgomery Circuit Court for a preliminary injunction, as well as a temporary restraining orders to stop the AMCC from delaying the awarding of the license. The court issued an order on July 6 to stay the AMCC’s delaying of awarding the license.
The Commission has hired an auditor KPMG based in Montvale, New Jersey to review the scores.
The commission will then consider a motion after KPMG has completed the review to nullify the scores of the first award. This will most likely occur at the meeting scheduled for 10 August.
Skelton and Price wanted a subset to review applications for integrated cannabis facilities, which grow, process and disperse medical marijuana. Then, they would bring 10 of the best qualified applicants to the commission who would then give licenses to 5.
The motion was defeated.
Skelton’s second motion requested that the commission do not review the application by KMPG and instead meet the applicants to come to an agreement on how to proceed with the awarding of licenses.
A second was not given to the motion.
The decision of the commission was criticized by those who were denied licenses on Monday.
David Ware of Greenup Corporation in Kellyton (Alabama), who applied but didn’t receive a license, said that the process of starting again would be fair. “Nothing is lost.” The application fee is not lost if you give it to the applicant, and then say “hey, let’s do this again, everyone will be back at square one.”
Mike Dowd of Specialty Products of Alabama of Foley, Alabama was also denied a licence. He said that his company had invested 25 million dollars in its facilities. He stated that he has “lots” of questions about the KPMG report.
He said, “You can’t keep doing the same thing and expect a different outcome.” “My question is ‘what will they do?’
This article was originally published by Alabama Reflector.
Maryland Announces $40 million program to help marijuana social equity businesses open shop
The post Divided Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission votes to delay licenses as application scoring process is reviewed first appeared on Marijuana Moment.
