Members take up problem of costly and inefficient registration process for cannabis industry workers
At a hearing of the Joint Committee on Cannabis Policy held in April in Boston, Native Sun Chief of Staff Charlie Yon pleaded for lawmakers to simplify the state’s cannabis agent badging system. Holding up a small library’s worth of commonwealth-issued ID cards that he needs to enter his company’s various buildings and regulated areas, he testified in favor of bills that could make things easier for operators and everyone else involved.
“These proposed reforms offer a chance to modernize what has become an unnecessarily burdensome process and to align cannabis licensing with other professions where Massachusetts has already refined credentialing such as healthcare, education, and the trades,” Yon said.
According to the Cannabis Control Commission, every individual who is approved to work for a CCC licensee has a “unique industry identification number” for “each licensed establishment at which they are employed.” But for each establishment they work at, an individual like Yon may need a cascade of badges—separate laminates for entering different sections, buildings, verticals, and locations of a workplace.
Separate from attempts to change the process through the legislature, at a public meeting of the CCC in January, members addressed the long-festering confusion over badges, signaling a willingness to finally hit the subject head-on. Introducing the agenda item, commissioner and acting Chair Bruce Stebbins said, “We’ve all heard about this issue,” acknowledging that he’s been contemplating badging since it came up during a hearing on outdoor cultivation last August in Great Barrington.
And during this week’s CCC meeting, commissioners again put focus on what they’re identifying as an “ongoing regulatory burden.” In a slide show outlining “challenges from existing regulations,” Stebbins walked his colleagues through the need to “align” agent registration “with other regulations,” “create registrations that align with existing licenses and new license types,” and “provide opportunity and continued employment” for badge holders.
Adjustments aren’t likely to come quickly, but after years of complaints, badging is squarely on the table. Commenting on the amount of feedback that the agency has received on this topic, Commissioner Ava Callender Concepcion said that numerous requests to “tackle this issue” have crossed her inbox. Also in agreement, outgoing Commissioner Nurys Camargo said, “This is a no-brainer.”
The cost of the current Mass cannabis badging system
Industry stakeholders have voiced their frustrations about badging since the first laminate was issued for medical employees—back then, under the purview of the state’s Department of Public Health—a decade ago.
In addition to mass confusion, the commonwealth, and by extension taxpayers and license holders are burdened by the sheer cost and breadth of physical badging. Over the past three years, the CCC spent more than $400,000 on agent-only badging costs. It costs $7 to produce each badge.
And then there are the direct fees that license holders must endure. First, there is an initial $115 registration charge for any Marijuana Establishment Agent “or any other position designated as an agent by the Commission,” multiplied by however many badges the agent has, then renewed annually for another $115. Plus background checks, mandatory vendor training in some cases, etc.
Melissa Rutherford, a compliance specialist who has analyzed CCC employment data, explained “the human cost” of the current Mass system in our article on badging last year (which used research from EzHire Cannabis). In addition to the financial toll it takes on businesses of all sizes, she said the difficulty around getting badged or rebadged is pushing people out of the industry and leaving them with negative impressions. Plus, “When you cease to be employed, your badge goes away, and so does all the education that goes with it.”
Commissioners appear to understand these problems, and centered this week’s discussion around them. Stebbins said that he hopes to address badging with the goals of retaining industry workers, and helping workers transition between jobs. Acknowledging how someone in the current system could lose out on at least one whole week of work (or probably more) by switching companies under even optimal conditions, the acting chair said “someone shouldn’t have to go for a longer period of time without a job in the industry.”
Making changes ahead of social consumption
Commissioner Kimberly Roy said that the current badging system isn’t business-friendly, and doesn’t appear to contribute to safety either.
It’s all part of the broader discussion around badging. And with the CCC currently drawing up regulations for the social consumption of cannabis, Stebbins said it is important to apply the registration conversation to any new rules they roll out.
“The time to address it is now,” he said, referring to “if we go ahead with social consumption where we add more license types.”
Without such changes, people who already have multiple badges could have to get even more if their company secured licensing for a consumption establishment.
As they consider possible reforms, one question will be whether agents should be able to apply to the state directly for their own registrations, as is the procedure in some other markets. Currently in Massachusetts, employers do the paperwork. Commissioner Concepcion noted this critical tangent, with Stebbins saying that he likes the idea of an individual holding the license, but of the business paying any fees.
All conversations considered, it will take additional research and further discussion before they find a path forward. Stebbins said that when they bring the badging issue up at a subsequent meeting, the body will have access to more relevant information. They will also be inviting “feedback” from the public about “temporary license type” and “agent registration transition.”
