 So first of all, we did receive a couple of public comments, so there's a pretty comprehensive public comment here submitted by the cannabis equity coalition. There's the link on that slide, it's a 31 page document, it encompasses topics including social equity as well as some other in the larger speaking of the cannabis regular sources that is there. Also, a member of that public can support this comment. Encourage members of the public to chime in and express your feelings and thoughts about the upcoming adult use Vermont cannabis program, there's a link to where to submit your public comment too. So if there's no further questions, please turn this over to Gina. Also, we need a motion to approve the minutes from the last meeting, so may I have a motion? Motion. Thank you Ashley. A second please. Second. Alright, the meetings from October 14th are approved. And with that, please welcome Gina. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you so much for that great introduction and getting us off to a good start. One of the things I thought we should really start with is what should be in a social equity application. And then we'll go forward into who should be in charge of that and then some of the roles and responsibilities of the social equity board so that we have a better understanding of who we really want on the board by determining what they should be covering. The application didn't include but not limited into the following and this is all the stuff that we have discussed over the past few weeks that we really wanted to see from applicants, which is the proof of residency, a proof of court documents, probationary documents to show if one was incarcerated, if they are going towards that one section or proof of their family member being convicted, incorporation documents, so showing that the business that they will be starting, that they have ownership in it and a description of what their role and responsibility will be in the company as we have agreed to. We wanted to show that they have a responsibility and duties on a daily basis if they are going to be on the rest. Race ethnicity identity zone indicating that on the application. Many of you wanted to know how they were harmed on the war on drugs to kind of share their story and number of years residing in Vermont. Is everybody okay with that? It's just the starting basis. It will not be limited to that. Julia? Yeah, I think that's fine. Ashley? I think it's fine. I know that of course municipalities continue to be a hot button and I just want to be sure that we get as many things, as many steps in our role as possible for any applicants applied, but perhaps in that incorporation, talking to the concluding article about operating agreements showing ownership, have they reached out to municipalities today depending on if it's cultivating. Do they have ideas of how they're going to be affected in municipalities? I know we're not going to drill down too much, but I want to make sure that we include those. I think that it should be included in their application for a license itself. This is just an application for them to be able to submit their application as a social equity cabinet. Are you okay with the separation of the two? Great, thank you. Susanna, how do you feel? I'm okay with it. Okay, great. Just for the record, we are okay with that. A social equity application needs to make sure to incorporate at least the following documents. Okay. So, as we talked about the application, who should be in charge of approving a social equity application? Should it be the Canada Control Board? Should it be the new Canada Social Equity Board that we have been discussing last week? Or should it be a combination of both actually yourself, practically, and then thinking sort of philosophically in the sense that it would be great for recommendation three. There's just going to be so much to go through that. I'm wondering if there's some way for the social equity board to start the process, and then when there's a collection of candidates that meet the Canada Control Board, I guess what I'm trying to specify is fielding through application is kind of one subset, and then, you know, approval from there is another subset, if that makes sense. So, I think a combo would be great for starting with the Canada Social Equity Board and then moving on to do the Canada Control Board. Can you explain further what you would like the Canada Social Equity Board to be in charge of? Just making sure that all of the documentation is there. And then, once it did that, it has happened. And if it isn't for one way, for one reason or another, that's immediately before going in front of the Canada Control Board for approval. Okay. So, helping or assisting one with their application, making sure it's complete, and then moving into the other. That's a great recommendation. One thing I do want to know, I know what some of our Social Equity representatives, one of them was a licensed Canada Social Equity, three of the representatives. So, we may have to start out with looking at the licensees without those people, or maybe reduce potential licensee holders if we're going to try to get numbers to. I know that there was a strong contention of that on last meeting, that they needed to be Social Equity representatives. Putting that out there. Luya, your thoughts? I think it has, I mean, I think, ultimately, I think the decision has to come under the statute from the Canada Control Board. And so, I think recommendation three is the way to go here. I don't know that, I mean, recommendation three doesn't say whether everybody's voting on it together, or whether it comes from the equity board, and then goes to the three members. And I'm not sure it really makes that thing of a difference. But I think, to me, I think the only realistic options would be recommendation one or three. I don't know how under the existing statute you could leave the CCB out of the approval process. So, I would go for three. And this is just a social equity application. It is not the licensee application, Luya. Are they entitled to this benefit? One of the questions, are you in agreement with sort of athletes on standpoints where the Canada Social Equity Board used the application just to make sure that it's the person who needs assistance that they've received it and that the application is completed with all the necessary documentation and then or to the Canada's control board for final decision making, which will reduce the Canada's control board effort if there is any documentation that has been left out. I think a different way of phrasing what you just said is the Canada's control board would review all, review access to all applications that are completed, but not all submissions that might be received. And then that wouldn't be involved in that process. I think that's fine. Great. Does any of them? Their body does, you know, maybe has a more diverse make-up of people and a better, broader perspective on social equity. Thank you, Julie. And actually, I just threw your handbrake. Well, I'm curious, just kind of thinking sequentially how this can go. If it is up to the social equity board, is that also going to be a time when the application for intent is going to happen? I see some symbiotes happening there where, you know, let's say two to three years from now, there's social equity applicants coming in to apply as the applicant, but the board can be like, well, we still need a lot of delivery drivers or we still need a lot of cultivators, and that would be a great letter or a great application for intent to go with. I mean, we're waiving all these fees anyway, so I feel like that makes it a lot easier in and of itself, but I feel like there could be a lot more of the board, of the social equity board, to really help steer these applicants into the right direction as far as where the need is for the industry. Yeah, that would be a great responsibility for them. So I think that's still core-on-side with sort of recommendation three, and wait your revisions on top of it, which is the Canada Social Equity Board is the first to review applications in its entirety once an application is complete and then goes through the Canada Control Board. So, Isalia, would you like to make any revisions to that statement? No. Can we make a vote to make a recommendation that both the Canada Control Board and the Canada Social Equity Board work with reviewing the application that first goes through the Canada Social Equity Board to be reviewed and ensure that all the documentation is completed and then goes off for final approval to the Canada Control Board. Ashley. Yes, your recommendation is great. So, Isalia. Second, Isalia. Thank you. Please now for the record to use yeses on recommendation three with the editing. Social Equity Board responsibilities, what would we like them to be in charge of? So we are ready to approve Social Equity candidates, which is the last bullet point there. And we will provide that to say, you know, helping them completing the application and ensuring our documentation is included and what license they are applying for is completely understood. Another one, we have just some examples that we can discuss is aid and ensuring funding for the program. You know, looking out for grants, so nations that can be adjusted. We have spoken about creating a social equity grant fund to allow, a trust fund to allow for donations to be given. Also aid in the development and deployment of a social equity educational program. So they don't have to do with themselves, but, you know, formulate a program. Once educational workshops are needed as a social equity candidate, what would be beneficial to them? Overseeing funding of the programs or initiatives to candidates and overseeing the candidates disproportionately impacted to community funds, which I've discussed with you about creating, which would be giving candidates tax funds back to those communities that have been disproportionately impacted on those war on candidates. Leo, you're gone. I think that the bullets that are on the screen are good points. In the second bullet point, when it talks about the development and deployment, I think maybe it's a subsection of that area of assistance or I think the board could have a role in educating communities about the program and about the social equity aspects of it. So that if there is any community concern or opposition to operations in their county or town, that's based on a lack of knowledge about the program or assumptions about how the program actually operates and who benefits in the short and long term. I think the social equity board might have a hand in providing some of that education. I think it'll be a collective education effort, but it seems to me that some or all of the social equity board could outditch in that role because they will have a lot more direct involvement in how the program is running for the social equity part of the market and what the experiences are being reported back from folks who are participating in the program. Yes, that's a great addition. Can we summarize that as marketing of the social equity program? I would put it more in the realm of education and community outreach. Community outreach, okay. I think there'll be separate marketing that will be going on, which will get more of the classic understanding of marketing when we're talking about commercial marketing. I think communities will still have to make those decisions, but I think making the most informed decisions and getting to a point where they can make those informed and fair decisions would be a role for a board like the SE board. Wonderful. Okay. So I'll have that down as education and community outreach about the program. Okay. Okay. And actually, how do you feel about these bullet points and then adding education and community outreach about the program? About the social equity program. I think all this is a good start. And yes, I do like that addition. I mean, of course, I'm hoping for first just an equitable fair industry with lots of social equity licensees. One thing I brought up, and I feel like this is a full circle moment from the very first time we all met was understanding that, you know, we create this environment where we don't want to see discrimination. But what happens when that does occur, it's a social equity board then going to more or less represent that individual or corporation, or I think it was, maybe Ben brought it up about we applicants. I want to say it was in a company who had spent all this money and an application process and had secured a space and was still waiting and or was denied a license. And so I'm curious when that occurs, where does the social equity board step in to advocate for that individual or would that be their responsibilities? I guess I'm just kind of trying to start a dialogue on that. I think that if there were any comments of discrimination, it should be for the Vermont Canada's control board. And then if they thought that it needed to be addressed in the social equity board because then it would be a violation. So in Illinois, there have been a couple of problems. So they, I believe that the case that we're speaking about is based on the merit and point system. So they had to have a number of points in their application and then they have to spend all this money creating a proposal for the application to be recognized and then in Illinois there's also then change to a lottery system. So it's much more tell me about this story and we'll see if we're accepting where here is a little more their type if people need those two points either you know you represent you are from a bi-talk community or you have been you know, by the war on drugs I mean incarcerated. So I think it's a little different. I think it would be faster Jeffrey if you want to go into it I'm not exactly sure of the case that has been identified. But those cases do have existed in Illinois with the changes in this other one that you spoke about. Yeah. So as far as it feels like Ashley you're talking about an appeals process. That is outlined in Act 164 of how the field is handled and directed to the executive director of the DCB to the FD board and maybe they may not happen to see these guys at all. As far as it feels that was that's the main part that's just the in the middle of the process and that was what was detailed and applied to the plaintiff or by then I applied under both of you and then the grounds it was underneath the plaintiff and they applied. And with what they have in the statute of that it goes through the Canada's control board. Yes. Thank you for that interpretation and to clarify and with that I think it continues we're going to have to talk in a minute to you Dana what are your thoughts. Yeah I think that it is really important that we have that talked out because what we all want is to really proceed through in propriety or bias or confusion about who can what and who's advocating what we perhaps so I just think that we should just have this really clearly carved out I appreciate that you reminded us that the enabling statute does have the appeal process laid out in it and I guess that's probably one of today's questions as you can tell because I'm trying to think about the balance between us getting lost in process and how many eyes we need to look at something versus too much power or decision making authority being put into too few hands and I just think about in America people's life outcomes are shaped by like whether a single judge has had lunch yet and it's irritated so it's just thinking about how few is too few reviewers and how many is too many and I don't have answers for that but I just wanted to give you an answer with it we have three great points we want to make sure that we get enough eyes on these actually we lost you a little bit thank you I just wanted to say that I would be addition from Julio that I like this useful of the responsibility okay I would like to vote on that the social equity board responsibility includes these things not limited to these things with that added point by Julio that they will also educate and have community outreach about the social equity program please vote Julio yes or no yes we can actually one as well so do yeses for the minute with that additional duty and responsibility of educational and community outreach so knowing what they should be doing who should be on the cannabis social equity board I know we kept on going back and forth we've gone from 13 members to now 15 members it's a long list great amount of social equity people will be represented in the cannabis social equity board which is so very much important so the first one is going to be a representative from a disproportionately impacted community another one is another representative from a disproportionately impacted community this one in who is really experiencing community development as that's what we want to make sure and try to do a person arrested, convicted, or incarcerated for a Kansas Relief offense a family member of someone arrested, convicted, or incarcerated for a Kansas Relief offense a social worker from a disproportionately impacted community an advocate from a disproportionately impacted community a business owner from a disproportionately impacted community a licensed social equity candidate who represents the retail one from the retail area one from the processor sector and the cultivator that all of these people should be social equity candidates we actually wanted a licensed non-social equity candidate representative someone from the department of racial equity and diversity of persons from the agency of commerce and community development and a member of the social equity caucus and a member of the cannabis control board and some notes that we have spoken about is that at least 50% of our representatives come from cannabis in impacted groups 25 from the cannabis industry representatives 25% from state representatives we should have an odd number of people possibly 15 and they need to be geographically diverse is preferred I think we need to watch actually moving on how do you feel about this update of this I guess the question really for me is with a follow up to your last comment about having a further definition of why the representative from a disproportionately impacted community is we can that think we want that to reflect representation or advocacy on behalf of communities or individuals who are have been historically marginalized in the state of Vermont that's racially diverse and so forth I in our last meeting I imposed language I think from you know one from statutes that that ensures that you know that racial and community diversity factor is overlooked so that's really where I'm zeroing in on because if you if you're just saying it's a representative of the community that's really like a geographic qualification and to me that would be enough that you would want to see people who are within that community but also have that further in their experience or background in that community so that would be my only question about how that is itself defined because I think just saying you're from the community body like the mayor of the city who's lived the only banker in the city that wouldn't be somebody I would consider to be the spirit of these recommendations so what would you like the representative definition to be do you want someone who resides or has resided in your background I don't know if you have access to the chat from the last session I'm trying to look at that because I've provided from diverse backgrounds you represent the interests of communities of color throughout the state who have experience working to implement and implement racial justice reform that was he took it from 3VSA section 168 right I don't know that it has to be specific involvement in racial you know working in racial justice reform but it involved them I think so unfortunately with the access that before I was I know I am right here so I think we should say that it's just to be diverse drawn from diverse backgrounds to represent the interests of communities of color throughout the state over arching you want to expand I want to expand that communities of color or marginalized individuals because we have some newer modders who have come to us from other countries who may have found themselves facing challenges as they try to integrate in the US and it may not be their color perception maybe their nation of origin that has put them either marginalized or victimized position in the state so I would want to have it a little bit broader than that because there's those experiences are very similar and you would again part of that language is to get diverse backgrounds and that's the immigrant community in Vermont I think does offer an additional valuable perspective here definitely so Julia if we say members should be drawn from diverse backgrounds in geographical locations to represent the interests of communities of color and other marginalized groups throughout the state of Vermont yeah okay we're at that the heading I just can't see anything I look like you wrote there we're at that so what do you want from the representative because I just want to make really sure when we talk about the representative from this before showing impacted communities do they have to have lived in that community or are currently living in that community well that's what I understood from to me that yeah that they are that they have that they're living yeah not people who live there 20 years ago and have you know moved to Wall Street or Park Avenue or so forth so representative from these disproportionately impacted areas need to be currently living yeah I mean I think they represent a part of the year or two now I would want people who are in those communities that's what I favored and that's what I thought was being recommended I think there are two dimensions of that one is to get feedback on folks from that community who may be entering the market or participating in the market and then the other side of it as the program starts to grow hopefully we'll have feedback from them as to how revenues raised from that the market is affecting their community is it going in the right place or is it and if there's money that's being reinvested in those communities is it that the pipeline is just again a real valuable you know personal connection to that I mean like kind of the street experience on the block or on Main Street that's to you know what investments are worthwhile continuing to support and which ones might not be and might not be the right ones having every kind of years on the ground to use a better metaphor because I think it's really really valuable yeah that's a great point one of the things though when we say representative we want them to currently be living, residing in these areas for the social worker and the educator I want to say that the social worker is working for those disproportionately impacted communities and that educator for I don't want them to have to reside there facility yeah I mean that might be a preference election if they're actually from the committee but I don't think it has to be a requirement but you know but certainly that they work in this community so that they again I think they have you know someone different but very it leaves a possibility very tangible feedback to get from those communities working in this that's right thank you we're going to break for public comment and then hopefully come back to this topic and any public comment do you have any public comment public comment well thank you we're going to go back to this discussion actually how do you feel about that when we're marching and then including that part because there's currently reside in those communities I don't think that they have to necessarily reside in those and I also wanted to one of the best chance for that license social equity cannabis representative and they accept it not for me to process our cultivator or include delivery as part of that requirement so that we can okay I'm going to turn off my stuff and put it in the chat if you can hear me okay I can hear you but if you're having yeah okay turn that off Susanna what are your feelings and then we're going to go back to Ashley in a moment I I agree with you about wanting to make sure that you know people from the community or you know like the geographic diversity and that point that you were making and I think that when it comes to the people like educator and social worker I agree with also not requiring them to live in but to serve the community and I actually had a question because we're thinking about what's the type to live in the community currently or youth and cool with I'm cool with making it currently live although I know yeah I'm cool with that but I wonder should we be thinking about housing instability is that going to be international effect I mean I don't know I don't know a whole lot of people who are housing unstable who are who also have to see the capital start but just in terms of proving residency we may want to think about it one of the things that we also are trying to do is to get an entry into the industry so it's not those two will have a disproportionate impact it doesn't necessarily mean that they're licensee holders we made sure to add those on the licensee social equity portion because you know these representatives can also be helping towards what programs they want to see in order to be educated to be able to successfully enter the industry and any additional on that is that not on the topic of the hall from the representatives to the disproportionally impacted community no I'm comfortable with what we've looked at so far okay thank you and Ashley are you there now I hope so can you guys hear me now geez I have three different so I put in the chat just my addition to perhaps shortening the definition of a licensee social equity candidate representative and just leave as that for making sure we're also including who will but including all the different facets of the supply chain so not just to retail counter-cultivator but also delivery and then I'm sorry but I don't know what a social equity caucus is I think that from the legislation so the Vermont representatives from the government have a social equity caucus a steps committee group within the Vermont legislation thank you thank you Santa for that and so I thought this is a comprehensive list but again I feel like I need a little bit more time and I know we're running out of time here to review this and make sure that we're getting all on all the facets we need to yeah I think this is a good point if we take out if we just say the licensee social equity cannabis representative and they can be from any sector of the industry that would bring us down to 13 members instead of 15 are you okay with going down to 13 members having only one social equity cannabis representative I'm trying to mind I mean I feel more representation is better I would like to see there be more social equity cannabis representatives I mean this is for them by them I feel like it seems odd just to have one but again I don't know that I that I know what's best either here Leo I'm sorry how did we get from 15 to 13 again I'm sorry that's that far actually you've recommended the possibility of only having one license social equity candidate representative instead of having it from retail processor or cultivator or if we were going to have it from those sectors we wanted to add delivery which I think is really important and I on top of that would add co-op as well or any other special licenses that we have spoken about which would then bring it up to 17 members that you would want to add to to make sure that every social equity cannabis sector is represented that being said there could be someone who is completely integrated so they are dealing with retail processing cultivating as well and we do not know what our cannabis social equity pool will look like how do you feel about adding two more members or creating only one membership for the license social equity cannabis representative so it's actually going down so going to now instead of starting where we are talking about 15-17 is that kind of some concerns about wielding this for that side of the body something that Susanna brought up last time 15 to me seems like you know on the larger end I don't know that I think that as this board functions there is no question to me that folks who either work in the market or want to work in the market with or without the social equity benefits that are provided that the board is going to hear from people in delivery in cultivation and processing so it's not clear to me that you need those additional license representatives for each sub-sector for the board to be responsive to the market I think that the challenge when you introduce any member of a board who's a participant in the market is that other members may be discounting their viewpoints in part because they may be beneficiaries of what they're advocating whereas because they may have a direct financial interest in what's being supported or opposed which the other members way it'll be much more direct interest in it and so that's my concern about increasing the number of representatives who are license holders and thus market participants potential beneficiaries potential winners or losers to put it in a stark way so that would be that if we were going to increase representation from the communities that really this part of the program is directed to it, it wouldn't be through the licensed individuals for me I think having some representation we have two I think is is sufficient for me so I would be I would be more inclined if the tide were moving to push the 17 which in my view is too large I would be moving for additional representatives from the communities who are not license holders that's my reaction to that one of the suggestions we don't have on here that I just realized is having a social equity candidate who is not a licensee so you know how they feel about education you know or how are they doing in the industry themselves so I think do we want to maybe adjust this to say two license social equity candidates representatives from any sector of the industry and then adding one social equity candidate who is going to either the educational program or in the industry just widen the perspective because we have a lot of candidate perspectives from the industry but as a licensee but not to the other group that we are trying to to represent as well, Julio yes my reaction to the first proposal which is just to say a license representative I think it's fine because I'm not sure we know enough to know which sector would be the better sector and a person might have multiple licenses as for the second the applicant I still adding an applicant representative I think for me presents two issues and maybe we can resolve them but the first is that your status as an applicant may be temporary, you may be appointed when you're an applicant and then you become a license holder and now are you removed from the board because there's only room for one social equity license holder and now we have two and then the second thing I think is again there's that potential conflict of interest issue because the applicant may be a direct beneficiary of whatever the board is voting for and in theory there could be some decisions including decisions on applications from which they would have to be recused and other people that may mean whether it's a competitive market so it's not we're not running a utility here so everyone who has a license for a given sector could well be a competitor and that's my concern about adding the applicant so I find that if one license social equity representative and one non-social equity representative both that's worrying and so what I just wanted to clear is that it's a social equity first candidate that worked in the candidate sector so they got they went through that educational programming and now they have a job you know to really say you know what these educational programs beneficial do we need to make some changes you know we definitely need someone who is going to give us feedback about the program as well and who can seek for that on the committee so we need to end it for today I would love to continue this for another hour I just see your hands raised if you want to send me an email we're going to go back to the drawing board about this but we're going to it's going to be great and just my final announcement to everybody and especially the public if you're hearing this you know please as we said on our last call this is step one of the social equity program the second step is when we come and we meet you we hear your stories we hear what you would like from social equity program and then the third step is to give all the recommendations from the subcommittee and from the public to the Vermont candidate control board to make a final decision of what this program will look like so please look for me we'll be sending stuff out by the end of our hour to talk about two days where we'll have town hall that we can meet us virtually and we can hear from you and we will remain quiet so that you can speak so truly excited to have the second part of it it's always a joy to hear your stories and to tell us how we can back serve you so thank you everyone can I have a motion to adjourn this meeting? Motion Thank you so much and I will see you on Thursday and if you find some views by the views of that we can talk about Bye