 And everybody, thank you so much for joining us today. I would like to call to the meeting to order and I because I've not done this fairly before. Do I need any type of motion for that Julie? No, you can just call to order. I know that sounds silly, but I guess I'd like to ask if we could get a roll call please on everybody, Gina Cranwinkle? Present. Nader, Ashene? Present. Jeffrey Gallegos? Present. Ashley Reynolds? Present. DeFanis Davis? Present. Right, and we also have Julie Holberg, Nellie Marbles, and Megan Howe, who will be recording minutes today. Awesome, I am going to do a quick share screen if everybody will give me just one moment so I can bring up today's discussion guide. Do we have any people from the public who are joining us today? Or anybody else that we haven't seen as of yet? Yep, Chair Pepper is here, Bryn Harris here, and it looks like we have four members of the public. Five members of the public. Thank you all for joining us. For the kick things off, this is going to be an ongoing document, so some of the document you may have seen. But I would like to summarize the public comments that came in, a priority review of applications, cultivation of licensees, a last sale, wholesale to MMJ dispensaries and integrated licensees, and with dispensaries 25% of cannabis products from social equity licensees, and then the liais of waiving of license and application fees, additional license awarded based on demonstrate capacities, reduced cost burden, of bringing additional employees on, immediate recensing and record expungement of nonviolent cannabis offenses, in addition the CCB should join the cannabis community in asking and petitioning for the legislature to include nonviolent felonies, cannabis charges available for expungement, and then in subsidies, the comments surrounding subsidized purchase of green technology, social equity, a general fund generated from cannabis sales tax and reinvested into social equity businesses, eligibility for the fund to be reviewed after three years of participation in the program, utilize a percent of cannabis tax revenue to generate a cannabis workforce development program, and then as the market matures, we will have diverse artisans and scientists available to hire, improving the market quality as a whole, similar to the minority from medical marijuana pre-planned, sorry, that was hard to say. So, does everybody have that? It'll be in your packet as well if you would like to review those on your own. So, I am going to move this over to Gina and Jeffrey to go with the discussion guide and then we'll get started. Today, we're going to be discussing who is a social equity candidate. What does that look like? You know, we're going to be also talking about, you know, what are the qualifications? Are we going to be, you know, doing this by region and proportionate impacted areas and how can we make those different determinations? And in this discussion today, we're talking about, you know, do we want to do this by income? Do we want to do this by five-pronged communities or opportunity zones? And this is all in our discussion today. So, I know that last week, we left off this about thinking about creating two separate programs, one program with social equity and then another program for diversity, equity and inclusion. At this time, we're just going to slowly focus on social equity and then we can come back as we make a determination about social equity and with the guidance from the remote control cannabis board on how we, if we create a diversity, equity and inclusion program as well. Any questions about that before we move on to today's discussion? Okay, great. So, NACB has done a comparison chart from all the social equity plans all over the different states. And we have, there has been many consensus for most states determined by geographical errors who have a high rate of arrest and incarceration for cannabis-related crimes. These, they feel, have been high-impacted and have injury due to the war on drugs. And as we spoke about last week, we really need to have that scrutiny test again and again. You know, who has been impacted by the war on drugs? What is their injury and that we can show that and have proof of that? And that's normally how a lot of these are making their determination. And so for today's discussion, I've brought some reports and information that we've gathered to really talk about how we can prove that injury and show that here in Vermont. So according to the proposed law, Vermont age 414, they indicated the following, which is social equity needed to meet the following criteria and it needed to have at least 51% ownership. And we discussed this last week, but we're unsure. Do we want to have someone have to have prior residency in Vermont in order to become a social equity applicant? In age 414, they do recommend the individual resigning for at least five for the preceding 10 years and just proportionally impacted area. Now, NACP is also in agreement with that based on what we've seen in different states. And a lot of different states do have this criteria as well. The major factor for that is the you want to help the people who were currently impacted in Vermont. They're the ones who sustained the injury for Vermont. With that being said, that does not mean that we have to have a residency requirement. I really think it's up to you to really make that determination. So just going from on the top of the people that I see on my screen, I have Ashley. Nathan, do you want to just raise your hand? Do you want to go first? All right, I'm really sure if there was a order or anything. Yeah, I just have a quick question. Are we thinking of having the five years? Do they have to be consecutive? Or could it be that somebody's come back and forth over the course 10 years? Are there any thoughts on that? Yeah, so right now it's just five years. So they could have come back and forth in that determination. So they could have gone away for university and then have come back. They might have gotten a job in a different state, but came back and now in Vermont. But how do you feel about that criteria? I mean, I'm I'm still I'm kind of mulling it over. I'm trying to weigh between the idea of trying to prevent outside multi-state organizations, you know, for these large box companies from coming in, but also assisting the people who may not have been here for a long time and may have only been here for two or three years. I'm just weighing that in my mind. Would you like to make a different restriction of residency requirements that they'd be there at least one year before 2021? Yeah, I'd say two to three years. But I'd like to hear what other folks think. And it would be good to hear what other states, how other states have handled this with residents who may not have been in their state for a very long time. If there's any data on that. And just one question before we move on to Jeffrey, with how do you feel about a candidate has to have that is the social equity applicant has to at least own the 51% of the company? Are you okay with that? I'm fine. Thank you. Jeffrey? Thank you, Gina. Yes, I can answer. Right with what was not just said, the way that the city of Denver deals with it is they have a timeframe from 1980 to 2010. And they say that in that timeframe of 30 years, the candidate must have lived in the area for 15 of those years. It can be, it doesn't have to be 15 years consecutively, but just within this larger timeframe, 15 year resident is what Denver, Denver, Colorado does. Thank you. Then also is that social equity, they're dealing with limited puzzle. So they're trying to use those funds for the people of their state who sustain the injury in their state. And I think that is often why there is this residency requirement. Ashley, your thoughts on this? Yeah, I'm torn, you know, I feel like 15 of the year, I mean, that seems like a really long time. Although, you know, we forget what it was like in Vermont in the 90s, where a lot of these things, a lot of these larger convictions were going on, a lot more trafficking was going on. So, you know, I'm torn only because, you know, that public comment specifically, I mean, Zach, I mean, he's a lawyer, he has a cannabis company disease, like, you know, I'm fully aware of him and his, you know, desires to come into the industry. I don't know, I think he's from Vermont, I don't know how he's living Vermont, but I mean, like, those are the types of things that come to my mind, as Vermont to myself, is like, really making sure that there is some position put in place to require a residency. But like what we discussed last week, I don't want to make potentially a small pool of candidates even smaller. So I'm a bit, I'm a bit torn. I do like what he was mentioned in public comment about prioritizing certain demographics to get employed by certain retail. I think that's a really great idea. But yeah, I feel like I should have more definitive answer here, but I don't. I'm torn based off what the applicants are at our disposal now. I mean, do we have ideas about, you know, who not necessarily who is going to be eligible, you know, names necessarily, but like, do we, can we start talking about sort of who on a broader set is eligible? I mean, I'd like to push the dial a little bit in this conversation today on that front. Well, I think right now that's what we're determining. So I think we have to define what that means to really see what the pool of candidates would be. And if I had a residency specifically, like, is that like either it lets us 100 people versus 10 people if we require it or not? Well, I do not have any of that information. And I'm not sure if I'm on cannabis control board does. Julie, which do you have any of that information? I'm sorry, I missed what your question was, Ashley. If we have any idea if, you know, potential pool of candidates is like 10, if we have a residency requirement or like 100, if we don't have that, I would say that we don't really have that data right now. If I may, I'm Gina to put it in perspective, I just pulled up from Pew Research, and this is just to give without the residency going in. But in 2018, Maca Chief has identified 122 women, minorities, and of course, veterans who would have gotten first crafts that says when it became legal. Of those 122 applicants with economic empowerment priority, only 27 submitted applications to the state and eight have receded a license and none as of the writing of this new article on political or open for business. I'll send those articles out to you guys as well with the next piece with Gina. But I do think that's interesting, just to note, especially with the population size of Massachusetts. Thank you. I think one of the things that we need to determine and I think you think a really good point, Ashley, is that we don't want our pool of candidates to get even smaller. Are you okay with a two year suggestion as leader? I have suggested earlier is to get a better one. I think a year prior to everything like to prior to 2021. Yeah, like they can't establish a residency. Well, I mean, I mean, but we can just put one year. I don't know if we want to do 2021 or later. I know that there are hopes of bringing more BIPOC community to Vermont. And so if we don't make a determination of saying prior to 2021, the thing you have to have one year of residency, then that would allow for if people do move into the state. So one year, not two years. Okay. Susanna, how do you feel about that? Yeah, I also agree. And I may not have expressed this that well last meeting, but I agree that, you know, for me, it's mostly about I want to create the minimum possible barriers so that we can manage the MSO without excluding people at the individual level. And I don't know what is the correct answer set walking that fine line. I don't think that there should be no residency requirements, but I also don't want it to be sobered and some that it shuts out too many people. And so it is it is that sweet spot. I'm afraid I don't have any good answers to offer you. But that's that's where I am on this. Well, thank you, Susanna, that I think is really helpful. Now, these are just starting points, you know, that's why we're having this conversation. So I do like the one year requirements. Susanna, would you be in favor of that? One year? Or do you want no years? How are you feeling about this? Yeah, I think one year. Okay, you are happy about the 51% ownership. Correct. And I actually are you okay with the 51% ownership as well? Okay, great. And Jeffrey, you have your hand up. Yes, thank you, Gina. I just wanted to flag one, one thing for the for the advisory committee is that there's this trend in litigation starting up. That's bringing challenges to these residency requirements under the dormant commerce clause. And there's a couple cases that have actually gone through. I disagree with that position myself. But just to be aware that that sometimes residency requirements can attract legal challenges. Okay, thank you so much, Jeffrey, about that. It's a very good point that you raised. I'll be yes, Inika. So I also wanted to tell you I just pulled up Michigan's application, and they do it a little bit differently. They ask if you've resided in one or more of the disproportionately impacted communities for at least five cumulative years of the last 10. And then they do, I think what may help them on the MSF front is that they require that you prove your residency as well each year. Yeah, majority of states require residency. Thank you for that information, Inika. I think it's helpful when we're going through this. The next one is, for 51% ownership, it would be someone who has been arrested or convicted of or have had a conviction and been expunged for a cannabis offense. Are we okay with making that official equity candidate, someone who has been arrested, convicted of a cannabis related charge? I see Ashley and Susanna, Nader, how do you feel about that? Everybody I'm shaking their head. Yes, how do you feel? I agree with it. I have one thought regarding arrests and convictions. Did we also want to take it to consideration? Civil offenses, because there are people who receive tickets for hundreds of dollars for possession. And, you know, 200 to $300, that's a lot of money for some folks. And although they're not getting handcuffs, but on them, you know, going through that process could have a disproportionate impact. So is that something we also want to consider? I think that's up to the committee here. I mean, how do you how does everybody feel about that? And, you know, Jeffrey would love I know he's done extensive research into this morning. How do you feel about that, Jeffrey? Well, I think that's definitely relevant to measuring the impact that thankfully, some people don't have to deal with the handcuffs, but that $200, like Nader just said, it is an impact. And there's also that sounds like that would be something that would be eligible for expungements based on the Vermont law. That's a thought, I don't know, correct me if I'm wrong. That's one of the things I want to bring up as far as this this criteria is if there are felony offenses that are not eligible for expungement yet, to not limit those people as well, so that someone may have a conviction or past incarceration that's not eligible for expungement as of yet, but still should should be eligible to join the industry of my feeling anyway. And then if Vermont wants to address that in a different way, how to make these people eligible for expungement, that's enough. I agree, Jeffrey, and we will be discussing expungement in a couple of sessions from now. Nader, I do understand the concern about that. And I do believe that sometimes, you know, a couple hundred dollars can can greatly impact someone. But it definitely would be to a lesser degree of someone being arrested or convicted of of a charge. So I would love to hear Ashley Zuzana. How do you feel about that? You know, someone who's just gotten a ticket violation? I agree with Jeffrey. I kind of feel like that falls on the day expungement. But, you know, I think one thing I wanted to maybe address as well. I mean, yes, you know, the particular person who is convicted, but do we want to include any family members? I know that obviously has to be proven. But is that is that something we're we're interested in and discussing as well? Yes, that comes actually later on in this thing. It is will be the last one of discussion, which is a family member has been convicted, or arrested as well, that that would you would be eligible under that criteria. One of the things that I will show you later on is some research that we have found that if a BIPOC person is often a higher arrest rate and higher conviction rates for cannabis versus, according to the stats, a white person in Vermont, who has often gotten that a ticket. So I guess when we discuss that portion, we might have some better information to provide you with. So a fuller, maybe we're answered that one once we get to that slide. Zuzana, is there anything else that you want to just mention before we move on from Nader's point? No, I think I'm on board so far. And so as you just raised, Ashley, part B part two of B would be if you are a member of an impacted family. So it's not just the person who was arrested. But if you're part of that family, is everybody okay with having that inclusion? Because obviously, family members are highly impacted when someone is incarcerated, or has been arrested for these convictions. I'm assuming we're going to have a clear definition of the constitutes family. We can have that discussion right now. I would feel weird if it was like, yeah, my, my ex brother in law, one time, you know, I would say someone who that person was living in so mother, father, sister, brother, if you can show proof of maybe a cousin that has lived with you forever, but is a cousin, but really considered more like a brother. I mean, those are elements that, you know, we really haven't taken into account. But what is your definition of family? Well, I mean, I would say of particular salience here are going to be children of incarcerated person or children in general, right? And, and then and also parents, spouses and siblings, right? So the so called nuclear family, I think is an obvious first step. And then especially in communities of color, we often have multi generational households where maybe a grandparent is raising children or what have you. So, you know, I would say that that makes a lot of sense. We have, I mean, you know, there's a bunch of different laws that call family something different depending on what you're talking about, right? So like tax law, who can be your dependent? Well, you know, there's a rule for that, or who's a family member when it comes to adoption protocols, right? So I would just stick with something that really speaks to the nuances of marginalized communities and the ways in which families look, which includes maybe some non traditional family. But what I don't want to see is just a whole bunch of loopholes. It's just like random, you know what I mean? And then at that point, you're not really getting at social equity, you're just getting at equity by association. So we can say mother, father, or parental ownership. So, you know, whether that be an aunt or uncle of that was the parental figure. I mean, I'm sure that there would be proof of that. You know, if someone was in forced to care or forced to family, or they would be able to document that correct? In Vermont, I know in other states, they are able to. Okay. Ashley Neider, I'm on this topic. So are we also going to have a definition of what impact it is? Or is that implied with the definition in B, which is an individual has been arrested, convicted of or adjudicated to Lincoln? Is that where the definition is? Yes, that's the definition for June. So it's just extending it out to somebody in their family. And so for C, we are trying to extend this to include other people to say, we may not have an applicant who steps forward for a license. But if a licensee holder can employ multiple social equity candidates, that that could be a type of social equity candidate. So it's a minimum of hiring 10 full time employees. How do people feel about having that? As like having that as a social equity candidate, if you're willing to hire 10 full time employees who would be social equity candidates? Susanna, your thoughts? So many mixed thoughts. Yeah, I mean, I think that's that's good. I think that could be good. But of course, one, you want to see parameters around that, right? It's like, you know, you don't want somebody to hire a bunch of people, and then the soonest date that you're allowed to fire them, you know, you do that so that you could have gotten your license. So we got to set parameters around that. Also, I mean, I appreciate the numerical benefits that this can provide. Even though some degree, it does a little bit of tokenizing because it implies some morphing of quota. But but at the same time, under represented means under represented. And so to some extent, numbers are going to matter. And so maybe you're going to need to get over that. So we do want to say it's a minimum of 10 full time employees. And that 51% of the current employees have to be so she'll have to be a candidate. Now, what about there would need to be a plan on how they were going to include them in their organization. And then we would obviously have to write protocol around that as well. If we choose that as a candidate. And so now this wouldn't apply to smaller operations that have fewer than 10, right? This is just according to the proposal and BC 440. So we can think about if someone has smaller than 10 full time employees. But I think what they were trying to do for this license here was to be able to provide the most benefit of getting people may not want licenses, but to get candidates and create a more diverse industry. And I think the minimum of 10 was to say, you know, we don't want someone who just and has to full time employees. And then they only have three or four and finding a pose on how well now they get all this benefit. So why not, you know, just bring someone else in. I think that was the determining factor here. But if you would like to discuss about something last week, we can, we can discuss that as a group. What are your feelings about that? Do you have any feelings about that? And are you just raised that? Did you want to make it less than 10? No, I just want to make sure that the committee has had a chance to think and talk about it. But I don't necessarily have strong feelings about about that. Ashley, your thoughts? Jeffrey, I think you have you raised it before I did. Just on full time employee friends, are we going to say like a full time employee for a year? And kind of fitting in the same thing of like the residents through environment, like, okay, you can play, you know, a bunch of people who, you know, have been affected on the war on drugs. But how long are you going to retain them? Is there going to be, you know, a cause that says they need to be employed for at least six months or? You see what I'm saying? Again, there will be criteria for all of them. The question is, are you open to that? And then we say, you know, you need to have these people for at least five years. And if you go under that 51, you know, under 51% of the employee of these candidates, then the money that you save by being considered a social equity would need to be returned. So that there will be criteria for anyone who's trying to do that loophole, or we can make it 10 years, or we can say that it is as long as you operate, as long as you operate, you need to adhere to that. So I think that that's our criteria. Right now, it's a generic feel already open to this candidate. As a whole, is that something that you want to see? Or is that something you're opposed to? I guess without having too much to go off of, based off of what the dispensary sizes are in Vermont currently, like 10 seems like a lot, I believe, to one to run one operation, but not if it's a giant NFL. So yeah, I don't I'm not being very contributed today. I don't I don't have a really great answer for this one. Well, I think that's okay. I mean, we, you know, you make important, you know, really bring up good points when you're saying, you know, most people would not be able to fit that criteria on their MSO. And I think that this one is here as an MSO. It's my feeling. That's why Vermont put that in. So I thinking that this would probably affect MSO the most. Are you okay with potentially having an MSO that fits that criteria? I guess I guess I would be. Yeah. I'm thank you so much. That was helpful. I believe I'm Jeffrey. Thank you, Gina. I think one, one important thing to consider for the advisory committee to consider in this part of it about the hiring percentage is to have that hiring percentage being tethered to some kind of a profit share calculation so that somebody can't just come in and say, okay, we're hiring 51% social equity candidates, but we're paying them garbage. Like we don't want to have that happen. And I don't want to see that happen personally. So have some, some kind of metric or something that if the business wants to participate in this program by by creating a workforce, that it doesn't turn into what we see not here in California with the agricultural business of paying people out and, you know, doing the work of harvesting a cultivation operation and paying them below minimum wage. And so that's just like something to consider as well that make sure that if this is a possibility that that the business owner will have to share some of the profits with the employees. Great point, Jeffrey. Great point. You know, we want to make sure that they're earning, you know, a piece of wage. Actually, I still had to see your hand raised. Is that from before? Do you have a new comment or question? I think. Okay. I'm Denisa. My question with answer. Thank you. But I also in the interest of time want to let you know that we're approaching the 20 minutes remaining of the hour. I just see that. Now, do you have on any thoughts on the full time employees? So when it comes to hiring employees, it's not really something that was in my expertise. But when I saw that number, I did feel like hiring 10 employees right off the bed would be challenging. I mean, that was my initial thought. And then the point was also brought up of MS loans coming in and handing it in, you know, creating this workforce that is derived from these disproportionately impacted areas. So those are my initial thoughts that I'm not sure quite yet how I feel about the 10 full time employee that does seem like a lot. And yeah, that's that's my feeling on that moment. Okay, thank you for that. I think that people really are in agreement with that 10. So we're come back to that and see how we feel. One of the things that and obviously this other one is, you know, just saying, you know, who that would incorporate based on what is the choice with the candidate. One of my recommendations is to have by pop as a group. So minorities as a group. And that's based on studies that I have recently been given that we can can see that there's a high rate of incarceration due to cannabis. And I just want to thank you, Dana and David share for that information. And report that they have found for me. And so we're going to go to the the next slide. And on this one, this chart is from the Justice Reinvestment Initiative in Vermont that actually was created last year. And it does show that incarceration for black residents were 10% with double. So this is 10% for drugs. It's 5% for the total population. And then in this report, it was also found out that for drugs, that minorities were three or four times more frequently to be arrest compared to a white person in Vermont. This clearly shows to me. And then we have another race and sentencing in Vermont report that was created by Robert Weber, after the 2012 Vermont Legislation Act of 134. And they mandated doing research on their justice research, you know, who has been incarcerated. And this information was taken from 2001 to 2006. And it shows when they had equal amounts of life and minorities, that straight means they were incarcerated completely and split mass incarceration and probation. So here we have 14, 14 people as the same number of whites and blacks here. But they were hugely more being a minority greatly increased your chance of actually being incarcerated. And that's what they found out from this report. The probation team fine and fines also were relatively the same. Now, we also have to take into account that minority is about 6% of the population. So when you start thinking about this, this is really a huge percentage. And we can clearly show that especially for cannabis and also for the war on drugs, that minorities were hugely impacted. So I would like to make a recommendation that minorities have are added in to what a social equity candidate looks like. Based on that research. Nate, or how do you feel about that? I certainly think that makes sense. I agree with your record. Thank you, Ashley. Well, thank you for that. Thank you. Information with the CCB with the consultant rather and we've been slow, Kyle to to bring forward our full set of recommendations collectively. I should pause for a minute and mention that I'm also a member of a broader coalition called the cannabis equity, the Canada cannabis equity coalition, which includes trace, which also includes no full rural Vermont and Vermont Growers Association. We have been chasing this thing like a mad train since act since S54. We never wanted to see cross the finish line because we anticipated that we would still be running at this pace. Now, I think we were correct. We were still I was still looking on the website for releases of the meetings that occurred last week. Thank you for posting them. It looks like they may have gone up today. If not late last night. Thank you for posting them. We do understand that you guys are also running at the same pace. So it takes time to get these things done. I decided to come down today, mostly because I just wanted to at least show up at one of the equity meetings. Initially, I do see that the first equity meeting was posted. So hopefully we'll get a chance to see that. And then maybe be caught up with the other two or three meetings that have occurred, as well as the other four that occurred today. By the time we go into Thursday and have some more meetings. So again, this is at a very rapid pace for all of us. I have been in conversation with Dick Sears about this. We don't anticipate anybody on the executive side trying to bring this to the attention of the ledge. Despite the fact we've got a lot of ledge former ledge folks over here. I expected to see David sure as well. Hey, TJ what's up? I think I saw you in here somewhere. So yeah, I'm well good to hear all your phone call. So I think the long and short of what we're looking at is that, you know, yeah, we've sat down and we've had conversations about equity in a in a broader conversations with the consultants. Hi, Gina. Good to see you again. As well as um, you know, many I should be as well. Shout out to Danika and and Jeffrey as well, because you know, they're gonna get me if I don't say anything to them. And then of course, I got a holiday later and then I got a holiday at Susana. But the thing is, is that there has been a very, very fast paced and one of the things that we were working to that I was hoping to see was the standards or principles. And those are some of the things that Julie and I've been kind of kicking back and forth as well. And many of others have shared, Brent, I know you've been working really hard on the principles. And the reason why I was hoping to see these things get fleshed out is is I hope I hope that they they'd be out in front of these kinds of discussions. Because I think it would kind of be able to root us and guide us into these discussions, particularly surrounding equity. Specifically, it's insidious nature that it must occupy in the development and rollout of this market. This is this cannabis market is the first market created in Vermont, since the acknowledgement of the existence of and the commitment to the eradication of systemic racism. I'll say it one more time. This cannabis market is the first market created in Vermont. Since the acknowledgement of the existence of and the commitment to the eradication of systemic racism. For crying out loud, we just declared racism as a public health emergency and joint resolution. You know, I think what it said is that the legislative body commits to sustained and deep work of eradicating systemic racism through the state actively fighting racist practices and participated in the creation of a more just and more just and equitable systems. I think a few years ago, there was a statement that was made in TJ. You'll probably find this familiar because I think it was you. And at the time, Karen that said that while slavery has been outlawed in this country for 150 years, the vestiges of it and Jim Crow and Jim Crow remain today in the form of systemic racism. Despite amendments to the United States Constitution in 1866 Civil Rights Act, which were intended to promote equality and opportunity. That equality remains elusive for many people of color, both nationally as well as in Vermont. I think it was you and the Human Rights Commission executive director that wrote that. And that was at 54 2017. And that was the Attorney General's and the Human Rights Commission's task force, the report on all systems of state government. There are racial disparities across all systems of state government. That is systemic racism. If it lives anywhere, it must live everywhere. That is the definition. I think we as a state have agreed that systemic racism is actually a thing here. And one of the things that what we're struggling with with this process when we have a conversation about deploying a social equity program is that I think we need to be mindful of the fact that we are talking about, you know, how do we get at starting up a market, a new market alongside of an existing market because we all must we always must be mindful of the medical industry. We'll have to come back to that. But you know, how do we start up a brand new market, take it into account that systemic racism exists. And by definition, I think it was Joe Fagan and Kimberly Ducey in the book, Racist America, that basically said that this is something that that we need to be mindful of from, you know, from the onset all the way through the, you know, not just not, well, I'll just step back for a minute. What I'm really getting at here is that it's not good enough to figure out how to clear barriers to market. We must build a market that is resilient to, to systemic racism. I hate to interrupt you, Mark. We've got about five minutes left. Of course, we're out of time. Of course, we are. Of course, we are. Because we're not, because we never seem to have enough. And so And we do want to make a policy. Okay, carry on. So, so, and I think this whole idea of being out of time is it kind of feeds into the very narrative that I'm talking about. There's plenty of time when it comes to spending the billions of dollars that we just got in from the federal government, but there's very little time to spend in creating this market when we're trying to avoid deploying it in a systemically racist manner. So I would say thank you for your time, but I'm not because I'm going to go on because I came to tell you something. What I came to tell you here is that I think it's really important that what we're doing here is, is we're not just focusing on barriers to market entry that we're focusing on the fact that by definition, most black people are poor. Although most poor people are white, because who we are as a nation, this is how this was created. So when we start talking about how to roll out an equity program, you know, our comments will be around, you know, we will have a broader conversation around this. We'll have more comments. Like I said, 414 is ours. You know, even the opportunity zones, it's all in there. And it was based upon, you know, how we understood this challenge as we were racing to keep up with the pace of S-54 when it was being deployed. We'll continue to add to this conversation. We appreciate the robust discussion that's ongoing. But I do, you know, I do believe that in every single one of these subgroups, I think there's maybe seven of them, that the systemic racism has to be an integral component of every single thing. It has to be taken into consideration. And it's kind of like the whole quality of life outcomes, Susanna. It all, you know, it kind of has to spread across the entire implementation of this cannabis, this cannabis market. So I will say, I will say that even the executive director of racial equity in her enabling statute is the language that says that she was brought in here to identify work to eradicate systemic racism within our state government. So I'd like the cannabis control board for the first time in Vermont's history to stop for a minute and pay attention to the fact that you are rolling out a market for the first time, having acknowledged the fact that systemic racism does exist and having committed to the fact that you're going to do something about it. Please, let's not roll this thing out in a way that we've been rolling everything else out. Let's let's do what we said we were going to do. So thanks, thanks for the time. I'll be watching you. We'll come back. We'll continue to consult to the legislature as well as to this body, as well as the advisory committee to the best of our ability, given the pace of what it is that we're doing. Thank you. Thank you, Mark. Thank you, Mark. Are there any additional comments? I don't think so. Well, thank you so much. I think we only have about a minute left. Can we just discuss the minutes from last meeting if we can approve those? Do I have a motion to approve last week's minutes on Thursday? The advisory committee? Yes, the advisory committee. Are there edits? I have everybody reviewed on the comments about the minutes that we sent from last week's meetings. Thank you, Nader. Does anyone second it? I can thank you so much and motion to adjourn this meeting.