With a ‘revolt’ of Independent Testing Labs afoot, Massachusetts cannabis regulators grapple with vacancy amidst hiring freeze
The Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission’s latest hire for the critical director of testing position resigned after about two weeks on the job. Kyle Hoegen started as DoT at the CCC on Sept. 15, but has since returned to his previous job at Analytics Labs in Connecticut.
The CCC has struggled to retain a DoT since August 2024, when the occupant of that position departed in the wake of complaints about potential conflicts of interest.
The commission’s laboratory and testing manager circulated an email to Independent Testing Lab (ITL) operators on Oct. 6 to announce that the DoT had “voluntarily resigned … effective Oct 2nd.” Sources first told me the DoT was quitting about one week prior, only two days after a meeting between ITL operators and CCC staff. One participant in that Sept. 23 meeting described it as a “revolt of the labs.”
I dug into the details of this apparently pivotal event.
“Non-information” sessions between the CCC and testing labs
Since the beginning of this year, the CCC has held bimonthly video meetings with all operators of ITLs statewide. These meetings have been presided by Director of Enforcement Training Armond Enos, who two operators complained to me “knows nothing” about testing. The meetings have not included participants from the CCC’s testing staff. I asked one ITL operator about these “information sessions with the CCC.” They quipped, “You mean non-information?”
In the Sept. 23 session, the CCC was represented by about six people, including Enos, Commissioner Kimberly Roy, the agency’s chief of staff, and the newly-appointed DoT. I communicated with four of the lab operators who participated, but none wished to speak on the record. They permitted me to summarize their accounts of the meeting anonymously; one also read to me contemporaneous notes they took, while another shared relevant emails.
The meeting opened with Commissioner Roy introducing the new DoT, who briefly described his decade of experience in ISO-certified labs and six years in the cannabis space. Then Enos took over. The director of enforcement training’s first question was about a survey of ITLs done by the CCC. One of the operators explained to Enos that no further responses to the survey were likely.
Another participant from the lab side asked about the timeline for an overhaul of testing regulations. Many hoped that major changes would come this year, but in part because regulators remain busy completing the rules for a new social consumption license class, there hasn’t been much movement toward the desired tweaks. Recognizing the delays, Commissioner Roy said she is working with the newly returned Chair Shannon O’Brien to prioritize the rewriting of testing rules before the end of 2025.
Following an exchange about the ITL survey, one operator asked the incoming DoT about his priorities. As they later recalled to me, Hoegen’s response was basically, Finish onboarding, and then figure out what to do.
Mystery consultants and the debate over original testing guidance
One of the questions asked most aggressively in the September ITL session concerned the identities of two consultants hired by the CCC to assist with testing enforcement. The consultants have been acknowledged by members in recent public meetings, but their names, qualifications, and firms of employment remain a mystery.
Some ITL operators have expressed concerns about the agency seeking paid outside advice while they say their input is largely ignored. When they asked for further details about the procurement, lab owners were reportedly told that the CCC can’t share that information at this time.
That tense moment gave way to an extensive discussion of the so-called Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP), a guidance document concerning the testing of cannabis that was issued by the Mass Department of Public Health (DPH) in 2018, before the DPH handed control of all things marijuana to the CCC. It’s important to note that the QAPP is not a proscriptive set of standard procedures, but rather a description of what acceptable procedures for testing might look like.
An operator asked whether the QAPP is “a living document, or obsolete?” Enos said he’d make a note on his spreadsheet to check. Some found the response to be lackluster. Roy asked if the question about the QAPP had been submitted in writing, and operators said it had. They then explained that statements within the assurance plan are still cited by some inspectors, although they have been contradicted by more recent CCC administrative orders and emails to individual labs.
Enos then asked what specific discrepancies or unclear procedures existed. Responses included that procedures for retesting are not clear, that ITLs don’t know how to make requests for additional sample materials, and that remediated biomass which has been resold can be owned by entities unable to name the method in official documents. Discrepant interpretations of some regulations have been cited in the notices of deficiency that initiate enforcement actions against ITLs within the last year.
The email chain with these questions, going back to June, has been shared with me. In the following discussion, no conclusion could be drawn regarding whether the QAPP remains enforceable or not. Since then, ITL operators received an email from the CCC’s laboratory and testing manager on Oct. 6 clarifying: “To the extent that the QAPP conflicts with Commission laws and protocols, it should not be followed.”
Demand for centralized communications
A central message of the September gathering was reflected in one operator’s statement: “We need a consistent way to communicate with the CCC.” In response, DoT Hoegen said, “I recognize that need.” Another participant suggested that ITLs get assurance they wouldn’t receive any fines while he got “up to speed.”
That general lament took different forms. One operator complained that ITLs get differing verbal guidance depending on which agent is their contact. When Enos reportedly suggested that lab operators come to their own consensus on interpreting the regulations, one of the owners shot back, “You’re supposed to give us guidance.”
With time running out, an operator asked, What do we do until the next meeting? Do we just follow the regulations the best we understand? Do we communicate any differences with you and resolve them later? Enos reportedly responded, We’ll get back to you. The operator persisted, The next meeting is two months away!
As of Oct. 14, the commission had not posted a job opening for a director of lab testing on its careers portal. In the Oct. 1 public meeting, Executive Director Travis Ahern’s progress report noted: “The director of testing position was considered outside of the hiring freeze due to the prolonged recruitment phase of a very difficult position to fill.”
Also at that meeting, recently returned Chair O’Brien added herself to the working group which conducts these bimonthly meetings with ITL operators, so expect them to change in the future.
This analysis is not endorsed by the board of directors of the Institute of Cannabis Science.
