Lawmakers on Beacon Hill said they are frustrated with the dysfunction at the Cannabis Control Commission, but they were wary of what they called the "nuclear option" – following Inspector General Jeffrey Shapiro's advice to place the agency under a receivership.
"I want to underscore, as someone who has been in the government for a long time, that receivership is a really big deal," said Rep. Rob Consalvo of Boston, one of the vice chairs of the Joint Committee on Public Policy. "I would argue it's the nuclear option, hence why we've heard today that it's never been done on a state agency. "
Rep. Daniel Donahue of Worcester, the chair of the committee, said he wasn't surprised by Shapiro's proposal. "This letter, though its timing might have been surprising, was not a shock and echoes concerns we have heard from other avenues," he said. Rep. Michael Soter, a Republican from Bellingham, was far more blunt. "This is a $7 billion operation," he said. "The problem I have is that I'm afraid we are running like the Wild West down there."
Both Consalvo and Donahue pushed Shapiro to explain why he landed on receivership as the correct option as opposed to other fixes to the Cannabis Control Commission's problems. Consalvo even brought up alternative options – bringing in someone from outside to review personnel issues or bringing in a human resources expert to advise the agency.
Read more at commonwealthbeacon.org