The L.A. Department of Cannabis Regulation told the county Civil Grand Jury that many of its findings were factually inaccurate.
OG Article: here
View our Fair Use Policy: here
The top cannabis regulatory agency in Los Angeles shot back – politely but firmly – at a county watchdog agency that blasted its performance as “inadequate” for social equity stakeholders in a public report issued in June, making clear in a detailed missive that the critique was largely ill-informed.
In a 10-page written response, which reads like a government version of a facepalm emoji, the L.A. Department of Cannabis Regulation told the county Civil Grand Jury that many of the findings in its June report were factually inaccurate, that it “strongly” disagreed with several of them, and that multiple policy recommendations would not be implemented – or had already been implemented years ago.
“The report contains a number of troubling inaccuracies,” the DCR wrote. “The Civil Grand Jury is mistaken about the role of DCR. DCR was not created solely to administer the social equity program. DCR was established to license and regulate the cultivation, manufacturing and sale of cannabis in the city of Los Angeles.”
The DCR response also took a cheeky turn in several spots, noting blithely that the Civil Grand Jury’s investigative committee, which authored the report, appeared to be ignorant of many basic facts that govern DCR’s mission and its abilities.
“DCR recommends that any future investigations by the Civil Grand Jury be guided by legal counsel who can advise the Civil Grand Jury on the relevant laws and regulations,” the agency wrote.
In one example, the DCR pointed out that the grand jury report “states that the DCR’s social equity program was created by the Los Angeles County Office of Cannabis Management (‘OCM’). DCR, and its social equity program, were created years prior to OCM.”
The DCR also “strongly” rejected an assertion by the grand jury that delays in compliance inspections were responsible for social equity companies losing control of dispensary sites prior to opening for business.
“Any suggestion that DCR eliminate or reduce the number of compliance inspections would jeopardize the safety of customers, employees, and the surrounding community of each licensed business,” the DCR said.
The agency also pushed back on the grand jury finding that the DCR failed to “adequately inform” social equity license applicants of possible pro bono assistance available from the city.
“Between Aug. 2021 to Jan. 2024, staff for DCR’s Social Equity Program sent 171,385 emails, made 42,406 phone calls and sent 37,989 text messages notifying Social Equity Individual Applicants … of the resources available to them,” the DCR wrote.
“These communications included specific, targeted information about grant funding, one-on-one coaching, online learning resources, live webinars, and pro/low bono legal resources.”
The DCR also suggested that one of the grand jury policy recommendations – that the agency should leverage its legal ability to keep confidential license applicant information from the public, including “predatory” actors – didn’t take into account the state public records law.
“It appears that the Civil Grand Jury is unaware of the California Public Records Act (CPRA), a sunshine law that requires governments to make records and information available unless a specific exemption applies allowing the agency to withhold or redact the information,” the DCR wrote, noting that it withholds “personal identifying information,” but the law mandates all license applications are “a matter of public record.”
“We appreciate the Civil Grand Jury’s attention on DCR – the second such investigation in five years – but we wonder if, instead, an examination into the systemic hurdles faced by cannabis entrepreneurs would have led to meaningful change across the industry and government,” the agency summarized
Comments