September 11, 2023 — Cannabis Licensing Advisory Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:00] You wanna read the Certainly virtual meeting and rules of defar public participation at the Cannabis Licensing and Advisory Board meeting. The city is engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. This vision supports the physical, emotional, and sorry. The physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and board and commission members, as well as democracy. For people of all ages. identities lived experiences and political perspectives. More about this vision on the project's community engagement process can be found at the link on your screen. The following are examples of rules of decorum found in the Boulder revised code and other guidelines that support this vision. These will be upheld. During this meeting

[1:00] all remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats, or use other forms of intimidation against any person. obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behaviour that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited. participants are required to sign up to speak, using the name they are commonly known by, and individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online. Currently, only audio testimony is permitted online. correct. I shall move on to Member roll call. Member Anderson got no response. Back. Member Christie present as previously noted. Member Daniel, will be absent to day

[2:00] as well as Member Green Vice chair. Keegan present chair. Kuntzmann. present member. Noble. Sorry about that. I'm present. Ex official member Thompson. present ex officio member Bailey. present chair kinsman. We have a quorum. but we will. I'm hoping and assuming that everyone, all the 4 official members, are going to be here for the whole meeting. I know Allison has to go at 6 K. You're good for the duration. Awesome. true, excellent. Alright, thank you. So let's take a look at the minutes from August seventh. Are there any comments, corrections

[3:09] not all. Entertain a motion to approve. Chair. I move to approve the minutes from last month and a second on that. I'll second 5 s and handbook. all approved. Oh, Michael. can you can you stick a virtual hand up, or or Michael? See.

[4:04] Michael, can you hear us? See if he's having more problems. Sorry, Tom. I'm just trying to navigate through this. What do you need from me? You need me to approve the minutes. Yeah. II second the approval. Oh, Brian, did that, Evan. Well. welcome! We're just approving the minutes from last meeting 7. But I believe you were not here, so I don't believe I can't approve the meeting from, or the minutes from last meeting. Michael, do you approve the meaning minutes.

[5:07] Evan? Will you be able to get a camera going for this meeting. Yes, for a portion of it. I am in the vehicle. I'm in my vehicle right now, so I suppose it would probably be smarter for me to turn my video off, but I am physically present here. Sequel. a chairman. It's it. It would be fine. I mean, we would have a quorum. If evan just abstained, he can be recognized as a vote. You would still have a majority vote approving the minutes. So. Kevin, do you abstain? Perfect? Thank you. Alright. Alright now, general public comments for the Board. Certainly. Agenda. Item number 2 general public comments from the board.

[6:03] Public comment will be limited to 3 min per speaker. You can elect to speak by raising, using the raise. Your hand function at the bottom or top of your screen, depending on your format. I don't see anyone calling in by phone. and I see one such individual. Let me pull up my three-minute timer. Mister Bat, are you able to hear us?

[7:03] Yes, I am able to hear you. Can you hear me so? Certainly I will start your timer now. All right. Well, thank you so much for opportunity of these 3 min. I just wanted to say that I was curious. If the new recommendations that health and human services might be making about tax structuring a if that might make an impact on non profits. Starting up cause a non profit would be able to receive a or profit companies would be able to receive tax benefits from donating the non profits. I don't know if that's a topic that could be put on the agenda or for discussion. because I am, I am interested to see non profits come up into the business jist to help with education and and all the wonderful things that non profits can do.

[8:05] and I won't take my 3 min. But I just wanted to commend you guys on your work? and just keep encouraging. The non profits to come on board because there was last time I remember there was a woman who had talked about her concerns about cannabis being in the hands of youngsters and being in abusing it, so non profits can come in and do the education, and they can receive the benefits by getting donations from the for profit companies. All right, thank you. Andy. Do you want to comment at all about that, or or have you been following that? That? Have you been following the news? The Hhs. News?

[9:02] II haven't. I'm happy to to look into that a little bit more. But I have not. I think some of us have read a little bit about it, but we're not experts. How anyone okay, or anyone anyone feel confident and and enlightening the rest of the board as to it was from August thirtieth Hhs has been talking about easing the restrictions or easing the go ahead. I was just gonna say, the talk of of rescheduling from a schedule. One substance on the Control Substance Act. Our controlled substances to a schedule. 3 and so you know it. Ease up some of the 2280 tax restrictions for canvas businesses. I don't know the implications that it would have, for you know, nonprofit donations. But obviously, if you are able to make exceptions and using, you know, 2 80 exemptions. Then

[10:07] obviously, there will be more benefits to those businesses to be able to provide to nonprofits. So the assumption is probably yes. But again, that is just a recommendation from the first kind of organization that's come out and said something. We, you know, hope to hear something in the, in the, in the coming months from the Federal Government about how they may. Wanna proceed doesn't mean that we'll have an actual answer. But that's about all I and I know, unless there's something else that they're referring to. But that's been pretty much the the hype. You have a sense of the next steps. If there are next steps that might happen, cause it's right now it's just Ajs recommend. I don't even know if the recommendation yet. Well, Biden did ask, you know, for movement right on it earlier this year. And so II mean, II would be speculating with the hundreds and thousands of other people that are writing articles about which way it would go, and and what it would mean, and what it could mean. And what will the FDA FDA do? And what will the da do? And what will this? Not? I mean, it's

[11:14] yeah. My opinion would just be that his opinion? So I mean, I think it's definitely interesting. And worth kind of checking out some articles. There's some good ones out there that kind of show that the pros and cons of, you know, rescheduling versus descheduling But I'll leave that to to y'all I'm happy to maybe put something in the the agenda packet or the the meeting packet for next time. On a couple of articles that I think are valuable. but all in all, you're just gonna get, you know, wherever wherever the money's coming in from whoever's talking, that's typically what you know, the direction that you're gonna kind of here. And Tom, if I, Tom, if I may just add, I believe that the Dea is receiving that recommendation from health and human services. So then they will analyze it.

[12:02] and then make the recommendation or the policy. I should say. Okay, well, thanks for putting it on our radar. Alright. Thank you so much guys appreciate it. Did anyone else on the board have any comments they wanted to? And I can't. Evan or Michael. I can't see you. So anything you want to say about that. hey, Pam? I think you're up. Ii think Evan was. I don't know if Evan was talking, but he turned his camera on. Not the not the first health and human services. Recommendation for rescheduling won't be the last. Nothing will happen from it, and we do not want recreational states do not want reclassification to schedule 3. So

[13:03] hopefully it doesn't go anywhere. That's what I will say as a a business owner. Great. Thank you. Chair Kunsten. I'm not seeing anyone else for public comment. Okay? there's some notification at the top of our screen about a person. The participant. You probably see the same thing. I'm seeing captioning. I do. I can jump in that just indicate that someone is turned on goes captioning. It doesn't affect the meeting. Okay, thank you. Continuing on matters from the Cannabis Enforcement officer Officer Gignack. Goody. Yep, well, I guess it's good after So seized

[14:03] Ids have slowed down a little bit, but they're still above the average of the previous quarter. The trend now is that a lot of them are actually out of state folks that have come here to visit. and decided to try and buy marijuana using a bad license. So I have been able to track down a few of those and give them their summons. only 7 referrals to see you judicial affairs and other than that, it's and business as you. So it it's staying at a heightened level, but not

[15:00] accelerating. No. there was just a big jump from April to May. and so now it is evened out. and at least it's not increasing anymore. So is there a seasonality to No cause? Even the the dispensaries were just shocked by it because it it didn't coincide with this students being in town or not being in town, it was hopefully it was just an anomaly that well. go back to the lower numbers. I don't anyone have any. Okay? Sorry. It's okay. Just a question about, do we? Do we know that they were actually out of state people, or whether the Ids were just out of State cause I was able to track them down family members and actually talk to them. Some are students from out of the 10 like East Coast, a lot of them. But yeah, they were all

[16:13] out of staters visiting. Got it. Thank you. How how far? Oh, Robert. that's okay. II guess I just had a question about had. Was enforcement stepped up at all, or were there more, you know? No? Well, it the just, the you know. Staff were catching them through the the normal routine of checking the id and watching for telltale signs of nervousness. And and the and this is one advantage marijuana has over alcohol is that there are those software programs you use. you know I can tell a check and other ones to verify if it's a valid id that that really is

[17:09] of great use to this industry. thanks are back to how that goes back before. Well, before the pandemic. I'm sorry. What was your question? How far? How far back do you have data? And does it go back? Well before the pandemic? Yeah, they're it was interesting during the pandemic there. Not that many licenses ceased. so I don't know why it would. You know now that people don't have as much free time on their end? You think it would be the other way around, but

[18:01] not me really basketball masks, masks and plastic screens and visibility issues and lack of desire to look somebody really close in the face. If somebody standing right now. it teaches away. You can tell if that color, or if you but if there. dropping a mask for 3 senses of you, actually identifying a fraudulent id or significantly reduced. I did have a question for you, though Pam was all of that a result where all of the confiscated Ids, as a result of staff identification? Or was any of it a part of operations by the city to identify fraudulent ids? Or was it just turnovers by by the dispensaries. Majority were turnovers. and just a handful were some ops that we were doing outside the businesses. So

[19:07] outside the businesses, though, but not inside right watching them when they actually first pull up into the parking lots. Understood. Thanks for doing that. By the way. the old parking lot hand off. Yeah. Well, we we have always. We have always fought to prevent those, but they're difficult to do. Cameras can't cover everything. but the the industry really is is doing a really good job. So good deal. Thank you. Just so, I understand. I mean, Evan clearly understands. But someone has real Id. They go on with the real Id, and then they hand off to maybe a

[20:00] yeah. Think think of the the underage Kid asks the guy to go into the liquor store and buy him a beer, and then he hangs out off camera in the back of the parking lot and walks out outside that that's been an issue forever. We've had many, many incidents of catching people doing that. But it's it's really, really difficult to completely eliminate. So, knowing that the city police is aware of that and keeping eyes outside. I mean, we can't afford to staff people to hang out outside and standing staring at cameras outside is practically impossible. So we identify we ban people for life. But the truth is, it's impossible to truly eliminate that. So if you guys are doing it, and you're being successful with it. That's great to hear. Thank you. Good. I think we're ready to move on. Do we have any policy suggestion forms?

[21:01] We should have a hand from Kate here, too. It was just I was just gonna ask a question. A a about the Id. Do you actually differentiate the fake ids from the in possession of ids separately. Do you track those differently or different trends? Yeah, the I mean the main room. The the problem is fake ids nowadays with technology. they are extremely hard. If you're just looking at it, to be able to say, this is a fake versus. This isn't. And like I said, the new trend is that they'll put their picture on a Id. That is somebody else's information. And so like in telecheck, that process is having issues because it doesn't see the picture. It sees information and goes. Yep, that's that's real. And that's where the staff is catching it.

[22:03] So kudos for them. But it it still floors me, you know, going back to our time with the shoulder tapping for the alcohol is how they just don't find somebody who's legal agency. Go buy me some some marijuana. but they don't. They take the chance with these fake ids been happening for decades. least of the alcohol problem. I guess this is kind of a question for both Pam and you, Evan, because we've seen these really drastic reductions in medical cards for people between the ages of 18 and 21, because those requirements were increased so much by that 2021 legislation. And what I'm wondering is, are you seeing more?

[23:03] You know. Fake ids because you have this younger market that's still trying to gain access. I mean, I don't know if you have any way of knowing that. But II wondered if Evan had seen anything along those lines that he thought was interesting to share. I think it's the the intersection of the 2 forces. You know the the fake Ids are easier to come by, and medical gives you less benefit. So if you have a higher confidence and a fake Id. That costs you the same amount as a doctor's prescription. That doesn't get you as much product anymore. There's a I mean, sad to say it, but 18 to 21 year olds are conniving and careful and calculating when they are seeking to get what they want, and the end of the day they're going to, and the system is designed to try and alleviate it as much as possible. But as rapidly as we improve our reduction and availability. They improve their access to solutions that work for them, and make it more difficult for us. I will say that what Pam is saying is, is definitely true. The the quality of the fake id from 10 years ago to today is

[24:12] it's incomparable. Mean. You could tell from the texture of the laminate 10 years ago these days. If you're not using black light scan, micro print, micro feature or micro print identification and magnification, you're you're you're basically not able to do it unless your staff can just tell. And I can tell you that the vast majority of our confiscations do not occur as a result of technology they reserve, they results as occur as as an event where somebody says you're not presenting right? You're anxious. You can't answer very simple questions. actually say, Hey, I'm gonna break out this grow thousands magnification or 100 times magnification.

[25:02] and identify the micro print that's wrong on this. But that is something that's a couple of minute process, and what's generally giving it away is used to be you? Somebody handed you a fake Illinois Id. You could feel it and know in 2 s that it wasn't real. But that's not the case anymore. They are much, much more difficult to identify now. So it's it is. I think the the accessibility of training or being able to identify this stuff is is hugely important, and it we had a big stretch of time where it was readily accessible, and there was a lot of programs being advertised, since businesses were able to capture them a little bit more easily. But that's reduced a little bit, but I think it's still it's something we need to be promoting to all of our dispensaries, because if we're seeing reductions in total confiscations. That's probably because ids are getting better and people are getting a little more lax. So

[26:05] thanks, Evan. And can you enlighten us? What are the current consequences, for, like a 16 year old, being caught with a fake, id trying to sell or trying to buy canvas. Well, it it's a mist in your criminal summons is issued. Just go on their record, then, or or not necessarily go. They go in front of a judge. Yeah, it's a mandatory court appearance they can't just pay their fine. So parents involved. Usually I'm sorry. Is that parent involved usually, then well, he accidentally, when I get hold of Mom and dad, and ask him if their child is same. So, and they were in bold or on a certain date. And then I explained to them, I need to talk to them about trying to use that fake Id to buy marijuana.

[27:04] So. But yeah, the the majority, you know. See, you handles it their own way. I know they make them do a certain number of community service hours, and attend some classes and and things like that, and municipal court kind of does the same thing. you know. Make some do some community service hours and and a few other things. or they can just. you know, put their plea in of guilty paid the fine assessed by the judge. Thank you. You're welcome. So now do we have any policy? Suggestion forms. policy. Suggestion forms there were none received for the September meeting.

[28:04] and then go ahead. Moving on to our next agenda. Item will be the discussion regarding the clab rules of procedure are in the package from pages 19 to 31, I believe. Yes. However, there was an updated version emailed to all cloud members and post it on the web with some additional edits. and if the chair would like, I could share my screen to just walk through sort of the rules real quick, at least, as they currently stand perfect. Want to share your screen. Yeah.

[29:00] let me just go. Oops. That's wrong one. Okay, you should be able to see this here. Now. yeah. We we circulated the draft rules, I think. Back we we prepared a version that was discussed briefly in August. Ask the members to get back to us with different revisions, and then we went through and integrated some of those additional revisions into this latest draft which is part of your packet. I wanted to just sort of walk through the the changes that have been made, but also if if it suits the chair, just open it up to the members to, as we kind of go through this. If you have any other additional changes or comments, concerns questions just to open that up for discussion. If if that works, Tom.

[30:13] Yeah, let's let's go for it. Andy, can I just ask you to increase the zoom on your document lower, right hand corner 150. Yeah. thank you. Yeah. I can even get a little bit more end. So these as we've discussed. They're modeled off of the the bla rules. So they were in pretty good shape. We just had to adapt them a little bit for Cloud's unique circumstances. I don't think there's anything really worth discussing up here, but I did want to call out this new change. So this was actually suggested by Robin, which is just adding our mission statement here? and in fact, I'll just

[31:02] Are there any thoughts or concerns about having that mission statement included here. Okay? And so, scrolling down, there was a couple. There was an error that was caught here by somebody. We got rid of this, including by way of limitation. By way of example and not limitation. So so basically, this just says, now for incomplete applications, applicants must respond to all required applications, questions and provide all required information, documents, plans, and details. We just didn't think it would be. I guess, appropriate or worthwhile to go through and enumerate all the instances in which there could be an incomplete application. So I mean, they need to complete an application or risk having it rejected. So

[32:01] that was that change we get down here? There's a couple words that some of the members recommended. We put in, including Just there was some capitalized words and things that we just uncapitalized. You'll see those changes here. Those are in your packet. not to material. And then this is kind of a change that we wanted to call attention to, just because it implicates the order in which things will be done for these applications. And so the essentially so notice appearing, so the hearing shall be set. Following the city's receipt of complete application and all required application materials, the applicant receiving all permits and initial city approvals and all inspections perform. So we struck that because I think the staff wanted the ability to perform inspections to verify certain information is correct.

[33:09] Kristen, if you're on, if you want to elaborate on that. Just so. the cloud has some context in terms of the timing of when this kind of how this whole process will work. sure. So the reason why we removed this section is because Staff would propose that we actually perform the inspections after the hearing. There's a couple of reasons for that number one. It provides the opportunity for the board to make any recommended changes to the applicant prior to the inspection, and then number 2. it allows us to do the inspections after we know a license has been approved. So we're not spending staff resources going out and doing these inspections if license is going to be denied at hearing. So that's why we recommended removing that section, perform the inspections after the hearing, which is also consistent with the way we do, inspections for the beverage, licensing authority for new with the licenses as well.

[34:15] And so I think how this would work as a practical matter is, your approval is going to be approving the license on the condition that it passes inspection. And if there's an issue with inspection staff would need to bring that back for Cloud to to reconsider the application. If that works, so are there any questions, comments or concerns with that. I know that's a little bit more substantive of the change. But we thought it was just important to direct your attention to it. So okay. so we'll keep moving the again some good catches. I don't even remember who who this was that caught. Some of these sort of is versus our

[35:09] another good change here that somebody called energy impact offset fund versus the climate sustainability account. And then this is kind of another substantive change that this was actually another one of Robin's comments that we thought would be worth discussing. And I'll I'll say this in with with kind of the caveat that I think there's going to be additional discussion that happens around these hearings and what they're like. And I think we're gonna have a script developed that's similar to blas script that just helps us walk through the process of these hearings, because obviously these are quasi judicial hearings. So everything that said is recorded on the record. Everything could ultimately be reviewed by a judge, and could be important to understanding sort of the collapse decision making

[36:01] with respect to a given application. So this is all important, and I'll I'll show. First of all, the the section is this, hearings, decisions, and appeals. This is section 6 point or 6. One rules of evidence. the statement. So they're basically talks about admission of evidence. So the rules of privilege required by law shall be respected. In other words, attorney, client privilege. There's some other privileges that may be applicable. and the chair may exclude incompetent a duly, unduly and unduly repetitious evidence. And then it goes on, questions concerning the competency of witnesses to testify on behalf of, or in opposition to, the issuance of the license, the materiality, relevancy, or competency of their testimony. and other evidentiary matters shall be determined by the chair. The chair shall rule upon questions of evidence and procedures subject to being overruled on motions sustained by a majority vote of the members present of the cloud present. So

[37:07] this is procedural right? It's just setting forth the basically saying, Hey, you know, there's going to be at least some application of the rules of evidence. and the chair makes these rulings on evidence. And so Robbins. Good Point was essentially just asking, how often does the pla chair determine that someone's testimony is not material, relevant, or competent? Besides, the majority overruling the chair, is there any remedy for a board member if they believe the chair was wrong and keeping someone from testifying. And so we just thought this merited more discussion so. and quasi-judicial proceedings. and this includes even proceedings where people are appearing in front of what's called an administrative law judge. So somebody who's trained to rule on matters of evidence.

[38:02] There's a variety of rules and principles that basically say the rules of evidence are very liberally applied. So it's not like it's a District Court proceeding. where there's a District court judge that's stringently ruling on on the rules of evidence to exclude testimony and exclude evidence and make evidentiary rulings ideally. the cloud would be very liberal in its application of evidence, it would allow. You know, the only 2 parties in these proceedings are. The city and the the persons who are applying and having their application reviewed. And so I would just really strongly encourage the cloud as as a board, to just let people say their piece present their evidence, you know, present their testimony. I think the collab's approach should really be

[39:03] just allowing it to come in considering it, and if it's something that you think is well, it's hearsay, you know. She's saying what this person told them, and we haven't had an opportunity to this person. That's all fine that all goes to the weight of the evidence. You know, if it's some document that you're questioning how probative it really is. Again, it goes to the weight of the evidence. I don't want to completely foreclose that. We would, you know. restrict evidence in some fashion, but but I would just encourage the cloud to just let it let let it come in as evidence, and have a discussion as to how probative and how much weight you give that specific evidence, whether it's somebody testifying a document, whatever it is. Just have that discussion open on the record. you know, that can help you all sort of formulate your own views and opinions. And that way we're not sort of precluding people from coming into what's supposed to be a less formal

[40:02] presentation and proceeding. So that is a long way of saying exactly what we have here, what we've added here, which is setting expectations for the people that come and appear before the cloud, while also giving the cloud just sort of some wiggle room about this liberal interpretation, which is the Colorado rules of evidence are not applied stringently. though the clouds membership changes, the cloud generally consists of medical and industry. Professionals, not attorneys or judges, and therefore the cloud allows introduction of evidence liberally. Persons appearing before the cloud are strongly encouraged to raise arguments concerning the deficiencies of evidence and testimony, rather than attempting to formally object and obtain a ruling from the chair. So we're just kind of saying, you know, the chair's presiding over the proceeding. But we're not. We're not judges or lawyers here, at least most of us. And we're we're kind of setting that stage for, hey?

[41:01] Come in, say your piece, present your argument and let the cloud consider it and weigh the evidence. So I know that was a long sort of tangent, but I thought that was important, and I don't know. If anybody has any comments or concerns or questions, but just wanted to throw that out there. So. but probably before you, before you go on 1 s and it just to echo what I heard you say that in almost all situations there's only gonna be 2 parties testifying applicant and city. And that would be city staff or city lawyer who would be representing the city. Yeah. So it depends on the issue. It's potentially just the documents like the cloud, reviewing the application materials and the actual like words on the page. I mean, that's submitted by the applicant themselves.

[42:01] Staff might have other documentation that they want to introduce that are is pertinent, so I don't know what what all that might be, but it Kristen, I don't know if you want to speak on that in terms of what you guys usually see with bla. But yeah. sure. So typically for bla, we provide the application materials in the packet. so members will have the opportunity to review those prior to hearing, and then for Vla. In the hearing itself, the applicant has an opportunity to present present their application, share any details. They that they that they think the Board should take into consideration and staff is typically just available to answer any questions and just kind of support through their process. But typically doesn't present any testimony to the LA. Typically.

[43:03] I'm I'm just trying to anticipate what I don't. I'm not even sure whether it could happen. But because the application includes a what is it called neighborhood Or is that neighborhood responsibility plan that includes details of the neighborhood out outreach that has occurred? What if somebody from the neighborhood shows up at clap in opposition to a application. So every public hearing for a new license application is, is going to be a public hearing, so there will be opportunity for members of the public members of the public to provide comment on the application. So we'll be. We'll be noticing the hearing by publishing it in the newspaper. there will be a public notice poster posted on the license premises prior to the hearing, and then, as part of the neighborhood responsibility plan, the applicant will be doing outreach and alerting neighbors to the fact that there's public hearing as well. So there's there's a very good chance that you'll hear from neighbors during the public hearing, and that's all part of the process.

[44:17] But there, that doesn't necessarily make them a party to the proceeding, if that makes sense. So if if you all deny and there's an appeal, it's the city of Boulder. That's the party to the proceeding that has to defend the Board's decision making so probably. and thanks Andy and Kristen and Andy, when we talked about this particular point on my first question, does this happen in the bla? Often. I believe your answer was, no, it doesn't happen that the chair says this person is not material, and can't give evidence as part of the proceeding. So is, that is, that still, did I hear that right? And so I would just say that this language really satisfies what what was on my mind so.

[45:09] But Kristen's more familiar with the bla so I'll let her speak to that. But I would imagine it is. Yeah, it would virtually almost never happen. I mean it would. There has to be some preservation of the decorum if somebody starts doing something so strange that just doesn't make sense. You know, I can't predict what that might be. But so we do have these rules of evidence that are applied. But yeah, I would imagine it's hard for me to envision a situation where we would preclude somebody. But yeah, Kristen. I would agree with that, Andy. It's this is not an issue that delay deals with very often. It would be very unusual for them to have to deal with a situation like that.

[46:08] You're you're muted, Tom. Does anyone have any other questions about that part, or do you want to go on in? I can keep go. Oh, I'm sorry, Edward Thompson. Yeah, sorry. It's just I just pop it popped up. Is this the language, then, is that meant to replace the language that's there, or it's in addition to the language that's there. Just to make sure that's it's an addition of the language that's there. Yeah. great. And thank you. Robin, for that comment. so the next substantive change. So this section 6, 4, this is actually actually, I think this might have been another Robin common. I but I know we discussed

[47:05] Kristen and myself. and Rewa discussed this a little bit. We decided to strike this last part. So this is obviously in the agreed upon conditions of approval, so the language previously said in it still says, the cloud may impose conditions upon conditions of approval on any license permit, or action when agreed upon by the applicant and other parties, provided the cloud independently concurs with the proposed condition. And so this is another one that I think one of the obvious conditions would be that it passes inspection. But there could be other conditions where there's some uncertainty that the cloud is still relatively. You know certain that that something is the case, but it needs additional information. And so this is sort of in my mind. It's sort of a stopgap where the cloud can say, Okay, applicant will grant your application. But

[48:02] you know we need proof of this, or we need confirmation of this, and the applicant can go back and do it, and we're not required to hold like a separate hearing. you know, or to deny, and then just come back and do a separate hearing, we can kind of process that once they provide that proof. So that's this part. And then the second part is, which is now stricken. The cloud may separate from the agreed upon conditions directed anytime that any license renewal be changed to non administrative approval. That's removing renewal from possible administrative approval. So we? We struck this just because the Clouds authorities. So the the Blaz authority is much more involved with license renewal. The clouds authority under the boulder revise code is pretty specific that, at least, for now it is for the issuance of denial of applications

[49:00] and renewals are processed administratively. And so. That that was this striking? A I hope I didn't inadvertently set expectations that you all would have a much like a more involved. you know. Annual renewal process. I think that's not supported by the Brc. You know, at the time, I think, when we had this language, I was originally thinking, well, maybe there's a chance that you know the cloud could do in a conditional approval that just wants to make sure. The first year, for instance, goes well before it, it, you know, authorizes renewal. But even that, I just thought was too much of a stretch of the Clouds authority under the Brc. And so that's why this section was stricken. And we just we wanted to call that out so.

[50:00] And from a from a cloud time management perspective, that's probably a good thing as we get. The cloud gets used to doing these hearings. But I'm sorry. Chair you were. Gonna say something. Oh, no. I was gonna ask you if anybody had any questions. Okay, Nope. probably. Thanks, Andy, II guess II had asked the question if there was a particular licensee that was running up against a lot of problems. Chris, when we talked, Kristen described sort of the administrative straight of process for dealing with that. And I do understand why it is not gonna be part of collapse, responsibility to look at renewals. But it was worthwhile for me to hear how those kinds of issues are handled. And so, Kristen, I don't know if you can just briefly speak to. That might be of interest to the cloud.

[51:01] For instance, if there's a problem with a particular licensee with an underage sale or any other sort of violation of their license? Sure, so any license violations or compliance issues any kind of enforcement actions would be continued to be handled administratively by staff. So right now, we handle those administratively. We issue notices the violation. We issue fines and penalties when needed, and that will not be changing with this quasi judicial transition, since the Board is only going to be reviewing new license application. so, Robin. I don't know if that's if that's what you were looking for. Yeah, I think so, Kristen. I just think, you know, if there was any expectation. And I sort of partially did have this expectation that Cloud was going to be part of that process. But it's kind of clear that that's not our role.

[52:09] Yeah, yeah. And that that goes to it's it's basically once you grant a license, it's II guess I would say, the due process rights are heightened. And so if there's an Enforcement action that's taken that goes before the municipal court where it's handled with again going back to the rules of evidence where those are applied a little bit more stringently, and it's treated a little bit more like an adversarial court case, where you know the city is preparing evidence and and everything else. So it's that was some additional context we had discussed, Rob, and that the rest of the cloud might benefit from knowing so thanks very much

[53:03] and so continuances. I think this had maybe this change, maybe, had been made prior to the last version. But in essence this I had tried to keep this door open in case we don't have a quorum at a hearing that basically, so that the bla rules say just this first part the hearing shall be continued. and I had thought, well, maybe we could, if we didn't have a hearing or a quorum. that if the applicant consents, we could still move forward with the hearing without a quorum. But we just decided, for a variety of reasons, that it really makes sense just to continue it. If there is no quorum. part of that is to ensure there's diverse perspectives that we don't try to either put push through decision making with only 3 persons attending. But

[54:01] anyway. So that that's that's a change that we implemented, that we really just need to have the quorum. you know, 4 voting members and have diverse discussion, and hopefully have people prepared for the hearing. Enough that we can have sort of meaningful discussion about about the the matter. So decisions. So this is something that's worth hitting upon. So the cloud will render its decision. And then in the background, I will work with staff, and we're with Tom or with Brian, or whomever else was the chair at the hearing to finalize or written decision that we actually deliver. And it's the written decision that it basically memorializes the findings of the cloud. And it starts the clock for judicial review is when we issue that initial or that written decision. So

[55:03] wanted you to be aware of that, that that period. But we basically extended the the period in which that occurs 60 days versus 30 days. I don't think we'll need 60 days. I'm hoping we can turn around these decisions pretty quickly. both as a courtesy to the applicant and just to to keep keep things moving. But that was a change to be made so. And that is pretty much all of the material changes. And I'm oh, sorry. Member Thompson. Thank you. Yeah, I guess. The question was, I watched the you know, like, listen to the audio from the October Vla meeting and you know they went through like a motion right emotion to approve or deny. Does this mean that this comes that we don't do that in in our hearing. And this decision comes after. Or this is just, this is this is the

[56:01] the longer version, or the more detailed version is why the decision was made one way or the other. Yeah, I wouldn't even say it's more detailed. It's you'll still do the motion. I mean, we still need a very clear record as to exactly what the decision was, what the voting was. We need discussion about the justification. So that's all. Still needed. The the written decision is basically just a memorialization of what occurred. Yeah. thank you. Yeah. And so unless the chair has anything else that's that's the clap procedural rules, and I in terms of process. I mean, I guess we should open it up for any additional changes now, but I think in terms of process moving forward. we would prefer to finalize an additional draft that's cleaned up and then have that available for a specific section of

[57:04] Kristen. I can't remember, if we said the October meeting or the November meeting for public comment, to have one last sort of opportunity for public comment following publication, and just. But I, in my view, I think we're in good shape with the current draft rules, and we'd be curious about everybody else's thoughts. So so Andy or Kristen are on section is especially 6, 6 and 6 7, which. or rather rather seem rather trivial. But I just wondered, does it ever come up in the bla that time limits are imposed, or and then does it ever come up that one needs to get a stenographic recorder?

[58:01] Oh, go ahead, Kristin. Oh, I was just going to say it's it's not. It's not common. especially the text. Demographic reporter. There may be instances. If you have a an application that's particularly controversial. If you have a large volume of comments. That might be something that you want to limit or if you you know the cha as the chair. You have someone presenting their application or their attorneys present you the application and you feel like it's going on for too long, like you do have the ability to set time limits. It's not something that we see very often, but it's this section gives you the ability to do that if you need to. Yeah. Now, I'll I'll add I mean the centigraphic reporter. Nobody will use that as long as the meetings recorded. So as long as we have a video recording of the meeting with audio, anybody who wants to challenge us can go back and have that transcript prepared after the fact.

[59:03] and then the time limits. I think the big thing would be the cumulative evidence. So that could be a type of thing. I would guess that would only happen if it's a really contentious hearing where somebody just keeps repeating the same thing over and over again, and is just stuck on something. You know. Basically, we don't have to continue and hear their argument over the same thing over and over and over again. So I agree with Kristen. I mean. II don't think you would ever need that, but I guess there is a risk of something becoming really contentious and just. Some attorney coming in and just harboring on one issue over and over and over again. And so, yeah. okay. are there other comments our concerns about

[60:03] rules of procedure? What did you answer the when are we thinking for? Kristen put it out to public comment. how we love to include this in the October packet? If the board is comfortable with the final version. you know. I'll take a boat. But any more discussion. not from the city attorney's office. Not seeing any do you want? Would you prefer a motion to have it? October? I'm I'm seeing yeses around the Virtual room. Do we need a vote? II don't think we need to vote unless somebody actually is objecting. I don't.

[61:03] I think we can just add it for the agenda for the next meeting, and go through the publication and take formal public comment during a section of the meeting for it to make sure there's a record created surrounding that because we are adopting rules so. but otherwise I think we're good. Any objections to putting it on the October meeting schedule? Okay, hearing none so ruled. Great. Thank you. No, I need to find. Go ahead. Continuing on in our agenda is number matters from the city attorney. Okay, I'm back on the the only item I had was just to remind and I had actually shared it on the screen. Maybe I'll share it just real quick.

[62:04] The the basis for board member attendance. And I wanted to hit on this, because obviously. a quorum is going to be really important when we start actually reviewing these applications. And it could I'm I'm not sure how heavily involved this process will be just yet. but there is a world in which people are worried about getting approved, and they retain counsel, and they prepare a case, and they prepare witnesses, and they're very organized and expend a lot of time and effort and resources into. you know, getting a license, and that's where it would be a shame if every if cloud

[63:00] members prepare and we go into a meeting, and we realize we don't have a quorum And so, just out of respect for those participants. Out of respect for the applicants, out of respect for the public. I wanted to show this portion of the boulder revised Code. It's 2 sects 3, one. It's just the general provisions, and it's obviously there's this part, a the City council. and it's this, well, a 2 may remove any member by a majority vote for conflict of interest. any other violation of applicable law. regulation or policy, non attendance to duty, failure to attend 3 consecutive, regularly scheduled meetings without leave of absence. approved by a majority of the Border Commission. or any other cause. And so this is the key part. It's the City Council can remove a member for failure to attend 3 consecutive meetings. and this is the standard

[64:04] consecutive, regularly scheduled meetings without a leap of absence approved by the majority of the Board or Commission, so I hope we don't have to get to the point of having the Cloud members, I guess. Consider that for a member. but that is the standard. If if you're a member and you're not attending meetings for 3 consecutive times, and you haven't obtained a leave of absence that the Cloud could move forward with. Requesting that the city Council removed you from membership as a part of the cloud. And so so again, not trying to be, I guess, unduly negative about this. Obviously you all are volunteers. Everybody's contributing valuable time. you're appreciated. This is an important role. So I don't mean to undermine any of that. I just want to reference that as we move forward

[65:01] as a board, and as we undertake what could be a pretty consequential task for the city in terms of litigation and in terms of just sort of the the boards overall role and prerogative within the city. So does anybody have any thoughts on that? Well. the last? Oh, can you keep it up there for a second? Oh, Yup. I can find it again. Yeah. Okay. So the last clause, or the the last 2 lines of section 2.

[66:00] We don't. as a habit. approve someone's leave of absence we don't vote on. And is that what it's implying that make sure we have a partner agenda where we decide whether somebody's absences proved or not. II don't know that you need to to go there, but I think it's II would suggest you all do the reverse, where, if there are 3 consecutive, regularly scheduled meetings where somebody does not attend. that the Board have that discussion whether their absence was approved, and maybe requests that they discuss what happened with those with not attending so and and that this is, I mean, it's ultimately up to you all how you want to treat this. I just I think we owe it to the, to the public to regularly attend, unless there's a valid reason for us not, and to communicate that and make sure the boards on. Okay with that so

[67:11] awesome. I was just interpreting that leave of absence as something like if someone was going to be traveling for a few months, or if they had a family medical thing or something that you could say, Hey, listen! I'm not gonna be here for the next couple of months, and then have that be an agreement that that would be outside that'd be approved outside of the bounds of this missing 3 meetings. in a row. I do think it makes sense to maybe have this a practice not necessarily in this, but just as a practice that maybe after 2 in a row that the chair reaches out. Or maybe there's a conversation. I think to Andy's point. It's unlikely that it would. It would get to this point. But maybe that's something we can do as a just sort of a practice versus a written policy.

[68:05] Do we want to put it in writing what you just suggested? I don't think that's necessary. Just think, it might be something to think about. Okay. others we still have. Okay. Alright, still have 5 numbers, right? And our. this is already part of the city code. It's already true, we don't nothing to approve. Right? Yeah, it's already part of the code. It's applicable to all boards.

[69:00] and I see Member Noble has hand raised. Thanks. I mean, I think what I'm hearing you say Andy is is, if you're if you're on this board, you're taking on a stepped up responsibility. There's people who are running businesses, who are spending money, time, staff resources, hopes, etc., and there needs to be some reasonable assurance that there'll be a quorum. and I don't think that's an unreasonable thing, and I don't think it would be unreasonable for our group to make a group decision about. Maybe it's a pro process, for if you're going to be absent some sort of notice or some sort of way of reaching out and making that clear. II think that's really reasonable, and and I don't see you providing this as any sort of thread of being left off the board. But I what I'm hearing, I think, is.

[70:03] you know, if you're gonna do this, you ha! We have to have a reasonable expectation that people are going to show up, and that there's gonna be a quorum, and that seems really reasonable to me. And you know, I think we could have some sort of agreement and maybe chair. You can explain how people let you know that they're not going to be at the meeting right now, and how much time people are giving you for that I know. Sometimes you start the meeting and you start off by calling people or texting people to see where they're gonna be, and that sort of thing. no complaints here whatsoever, I you know, for those sorts of things. But When you have somebody who's coming forward to try to get their license approved. That's a very different thing. Well, you're right in the sense that it's highly variable. and sometimes it goes to staff. sometimes it's I'm CC'd

[71:01] sometimes we find out the day of, or the day before. and then, as you notice, sometimes, I'm texting people. At the time of the meeting, too. I mean the the more advanced notice? Obviously better quick. Well, Kristen, Teague and and Kristen, I mean, do you guys have a suggestion? Is there another board that lets you know about attendance any ideas I I can. So with beverage licensing authority, they with as much notice as possible. Those authority members email, licensing online. our main licensing online email address, usually. And then whoever the bla clerk is, and then the chair

[72:00] of that board. As soon as possible, and that's the procedure that they tend to usually follow. because it would be ultimately, if if there's not a a quorum to be held. You know, there's there's certain things that kind of need to be done. As well. Has that been reasonably effective for that board? Yeah. they're very diligent about it. If and when there are absences. okay and at the smaller board, too. right 5 less room for absences. Okay. that's all I got chair. So thank you for let me post that

[73:11] I have put my agenda somewhere else on my screen. Now. Hmm. Regulatory licensing office. Yes. The next item on our agenda is matters from the regulatory licensing office. Licensing manager changers. Thanks, Kristen. So I just had a couple of scheduling things I wanted to mention first wanted to talk a little bit about a board retreat. We've been kicking around this idea the past few meetings. Staff would like to propose that we schedule an in person board retreat on Monday, November sixth, in lieu of the regularly scheduled Cloud meeting. We think this would be a good option for a few reasons. Number one. We don't have any other pressing matters scheduled for November, so it seems like a good opportunity.

[74:01] Number 2, we we would give us some time to do some training before we transition to quasi-judicial in January. and then number 3. We've spoken to the cannabis inspection team, and they've confirmed that they are available to attend that meeting and provide a presentation on inspections and answer any questions about that process. So it just seems like, at least from a staff perspective. That's a really good opportunity to schedule the retreat. So I just wanted to put out that proposal and then open it up to the board for discussion. November sixth. Yes. alright questions. conflicts. concerns. Where? Where would it be? Roughly do? Do we know? Yes, so it'd be at the Brenton Building, which is where our licensing offices right at 11, and for Broadway and Alpine. So we can send instructions for parking and how to access the building. But it's right next to like the hungry toad.

[75:10] I love that proposal. It sounds like a great use of retreat time, and of all of us being together in person. anyone have concerns or conflicts. Do we know whether Ethan or Stacy have they? Have we asked them. do you remember whether they said anything? We have not reached out to any board members yet? I'm happy to send them emails individually to see what their availability is. the Board would like to move forward with that date. and would it be hybrid? No, it would be completely in person, just like our last retreat. Kate, you're still gonna be in Michigan, I assume.

[76:01] Yeah. yeah, I'll I'll I'll do what I can and see what I can do. But I can't guarantee anything at this moment moment, but I'll I'll let you know as soon as I know for sure whether I'll be able to be there. Is it possible to have a hybrid option for someone who's out of state? III don't think that's necessary. I think it it should be in person and not be distracted between 2 different methods of of communication. I think if I can't make it, that's okay. If I can make it, that'd be great to see everybody in person but like, I said. I'll I'll I'll know in the next couple of weeks whether that's something I can swing. I'm just, I'm I'm I'm in a lot of meetings that it seems like most people are now in person, but yet, you know, one or 2 or 3

[77:01] are still virtual, for whatever reason might be a health reason or something like that. city city council do they have that option? I mean. I've noticed with the election forums that they're allowing those options. I believe so. Yes. I believe city Council does do hybrid meetings is the Brenton Building set up for that. or is it? It could be set up for a hybrid meeting? We just really felt like an in person once a year in person meeting would be really beneficial, and it also provides. like a good opportunity for board members, task questions and receive feedback, and a more like personal, more comfortable setting, Andy, did you want to elaborate on that at all?

[78:06] II don't think so. I think we were just wanting to encourage everybody to attend in person. I see. Rewa just raise your hand. So yeah. were you up? Well, I just wanted to respond to Tom's question, does Council allow Hybrid Meetings Council has 2 council meetings and 2 study sessions a month. Both study sessions are virtual meetings. Council meetings are in person with a hybrid option, if necessary, just to let you know counsel does allow its members to attend for any reason. If they're out of the country on vacation, if they're sick. You know, if their children are ill or anything like that, then a council member will have the option to attend hybrid, and that council members to give notice.

[79:03] Hey? I hear what you're saying. But I'm I value your input. Thanks, Tom. Appreciate that. Well, I guess there was. I've looked through you know, obviously haven't been at the last couple of meetings. I apologize for and there was a conversation about hybrid meetings like this is this is a retreat. This feels very different to me, than the meetings, but II guess you know. Ii listened to the the footage from the last couple of meetings. I did not listen to all of it. I did skip from different topics. So just in terms of I know. I saw that October would be a potentially in person meeting or hybrid. Maybe you're getting to that but I figured I just asked about meetings, but I don't wanna like distract from this conversation about the retreat specifically in November sixth. Well, that's good question, though. Let's take a quick aside. And what what is the plan for meetings?

[80:06] So that kind of depends on the way the conversation goes for the November retreat as of right. Now we do have a hybrid meeting scheduled for October. We were going to check in with the board if you do schedule an in person, retreat in November to see if you still want to have that hybrid meeting in October, or if you wanted to have a virtual meeting in October, and then the in person meeting in November. But right now we do have the hybrid feeding tenant will be scheduled for October. Others. Michael Evan. Brian Robin.

[81:00] I'm happy with the retreat on the sixth in person. And I would like the October meeting to be virtual. That would be my preference. Yes. Second. it's formerly Robin's. Statement. Yeah. I also like the idea of a retreat in person on 6, so it'd be great to have 8 there in person. If you can't be there in person. Then I don't think we need to bend over backwards. Sorry, Kate, and And then for the October meeting, yeah, I'm fine with that being virtual. Yeah, I agree with that as well. comes up Michael. So I'm I'm fine with both of those dates and the arrangement. And II do like the idea of us getting back together in person if we can make it happen. So, Evan, back to you. I just wanted to make sure I understood. October, yay, or, nay, on

[82:02] virtual versus in person. October virtual, and then in person for November. Okay. Allison, do you, wanna Wayne? I think November in person and then flexible on the second on October. Okay. but I hear I see 3 definite intentions to stay virtual on October. Okay. which makes the majority. I don't think we need to vote alright. And then do we need just aside now whether the form for the November meeting I mean the options for the November meeting.

[83:07] I assume the city's not gonna pay for Kate's plane flight. Right? Get her gas money. Kate. If you do come to Boulder, we'll we'll make sure you get a box lunch. Oh, wow! About as much as our budget can allow. Sorry. and everyone else gets one, too. They do. And coffee. some kind of box copy. Okay? Alright there. Anything more on that issue? Thank you very much. So we'll move forward with scheduling the In person. Retreat on November sixth, and then will plan on a virtual meeting in October. And that's all that I had. I think Kristen Teak has a couple of matters to discuss as well.

[84:03] So the next item under matters from the regulatory licensing is board submitted articles. So what we've been working on is trying to find a way to streamline the packet while still providing as much information and detail. At that board. Members, you know, provide by virtue of the articles that they submit. One of the things that we had initially thought was to provide a sheet with the links. However, as we're finding out. Some of those articles are behind paywalls which don't allow for anyone other than the individual that's providing it to us. Access to it unless it's printed out. So with that being said, the solution that city attorney and staff have have come up with to propose is that the Cloud member, submitting the article.

[85:04] provide no more a written summary of no more than one page with a link to the article at the bottom of that document to be included. With the with the board packets. It would allow that. A summary, and then anybody else that wanted to attempt to either access the article, or, if it's behind the paywall, do what's required to achieve access to those would be the the process going forward. Okay. So for not for this packet. Obviously, no, not for the packet that we just sent out. No. okay. And I only have one article submission so far for October, and that came from vice chair Keegan.

[86:00] And I see Andy's hand raised. And Andy. Yeah, Kristen, and and that's just for pay wall articles, right? That that have a summary. Or is that for all we need to have it consistent across the board? It's too difficult for staff it it I'm not gonna say it's too difficult. It's extremely difficult for Staff to to try and figure out which ones are and which ones aren't. So we need to just apply it uniformly. Would be our preference. But they would provide the link also. Yup. And then, if whoever's wanting to access that link they would be responsible for accessing that content on their own. Okay, Robin. I was just gonna say so when I get to an article that's got a pay. Wall, you can just write on that article and print it as a Pdf. On almost every system will allow you to do that, and then we can share with the staff the Pdf. And that's really for me an easier way to get around it versus asking board members to summarize, and then they'll provide a link, and then hope people will

[87:07] pay for a subscription to Washington Post, for instance. Sure and while we do understand that that that might be a streamlined way. number one. We're looking at the volume, the sheer volume that we receive. Documents that go into an electronic packet? So we're looking at space and the ability to do those types of things, but also with us accessing items that aren't you know. With that we really, technically don't have access to, and a paywall format, you know that kind of stretches it a little bit. Andy might be able to speak to that a little bit more than than more articulately than I can. or Kristen Chengaris. Yeah, and II don't. I don't know that I can, just because it's I think the license terms are all for those pay walled articles I'd be like. They're obviously pay walled for a reason, so I don't know what our rights would be to distribute those

[88:09] internally into the public, and how much were sort of unleashing those articles. So that's it's like a very, very, very small likelihood of that ever becoming an issue. But that's one of the issues we discussed. So to help it. I definitely can appreciate the the extra burden that we're that we're putting on staff when we send that I know we send a lot of stuff, your way to to include, and we appreciate all your work to do that. And II think there need. I agree that we should probably come up with a different way that works for everybody I concern with having the person who's submitting it. Write a summary. and then potentially, if there's a Paywall not be able to access that article is that if that's their

[89:03] interpretation, we obviously deal with things where there's a lot of different perspectives at at at times a very contentious issue. That I worry that. the person submitting it that there would be more of their own opinion and their interpretation. Versus when for example, when Brian's been able to been able to share some scientific articles. That we can also look at that ourselves. And II hear that we would have that option with a paywall. I think with the scientific articles that's a little bit different than maybe the Washington post one, just because that payroll tends to be a little bit higher. So I don't really have a solution to offer with my comments, but I think I have a little bit of hesitation with the with a written summary being the only way that some people might be able to access it, though I do think a written summary regardless is a really good idea, because I think it is a lot that will mean the bar of what we send to you is something that's really important versus something that we just think is interesting.

[90:06] So I think that I love that idea. I just worry about the pay wall piece. Ca, can I just quickly follow up and just say, I agree with you, Alison, I think a summary is not a bad idea, but and maybe, Andy, you could look into this. But in terms of the pay wall. you're talking about a very limited distribution. Yes, it goes into the packet that goes to the public. But, generally speaking, articles are shared. There's no commercial interest. It's kind of a fair use sort of idea in my in my mind, and if we could do, I like an idea of a paragraph summary with an attachment of a Pdf. And I just wondered how Kristen. how that sits, how that maybe feels. Andy, do you have a a response first?

[91:02] II don't. In terms of legality. II mean, II think I still have the copyright and licensing concern, but I mean one of the things, Robin, and that the city's going through right now. That's kind of a major effort is related to accessibility. And essentially, on July first there's an accessibility law kicking in that requires that governments make, for instance, all of their Pdfs 100% accessible. And I won't get into the standards. But it basically means that they're persons have for instance, visual impairment can access and make full use of things that are posted online for go by government. And so the city there's there's a tremendous cost to going through and making documents accessible.

[92:00] So II only say that that's not to say that that that should be the factor that says we don't make this like I don't. There's resource issues like I that's a whole can of worms that you know Kristen's C. And T. Can address. But I know there is some concern about liability associated with posting a lot of documents that we haven't made 100% accessible, and that we're trying to kind of. we're still working that out. But I anyway, that's a long way of saying there's that additional concern that you know Cloud should be aware of. If. as we go through this so sorry, Kristen, did you want to add something? The good thing about the scientific studies is that there's usually an abstract. So you could just 1 1 suggesting, and scientific article could just copy the abstract and

[93:06] or summary. Yeah, just this is speaking on my own kind of behaves like as someone who does try to sort of filter. And I set up like Google scholar alerts for like when there's need research, it comes out about cannabis and and things like that. I do like filter through those and skim through those I tried to send you like the cream of the crop out of those it is, I recognize the very real constraints that staff are under from both their own sort of I'm the way to pull different directions as well as sort of if there are new kinds of rules coming in like accessibility. Andy was alluding to my my intention was still, nevertheless, to like, have these be papers that could be through a fair use, claim to be something that could be read into, like the public record, be available to the public, even if not packets.

[94:00] but so yeah, it does feel a little bit chilling. I don't mean this like a but to just wait, but it does feel a little bit chilling like I won't be able to share as much, but I will still make an effort to summarize and try to make a slide deck or something, perhaps, but it it sounds like from whoever first presented. It sounds like it was a a done decision. Right? No, we're we're we were trying something. We've realized that the pay wall thing it just. But just by providing the links that that's not the most efficient, nor perhaps safe way to do those for for risk. In addition to the the requirements that are coming down the pike. So we're looking at, at, trying to find a better way. And the better way that staff is proposing is is a summary with the link that where someone can then access it on their own if they did so desire.

[95:07] Well. Evan, did you? You're on mute. Yeah. The the question of impartiality in the summary is incredibly concerning to me. I think that's a very difficult one. I also think the reality of accessibility concerns in the way I mean as as an individual. I think the best ideas look as Robin's, I think, printed to a Pdf. And share it so that we can all have access to the same information in the case that we do that. Yes, we have access and copyright questions, but it doesn't impact the accessibility modifications. The city has to do the whether it's behind a pay wall or not, it's still a Pdf. That needs to be made accessible. So II recognize everybody's argument here. I think the

[96:08] the the simplest solution, the one that provides the most information to all of the audience would be print to Pdf on anything behind a paywall, and providing the identical accessibility modifications as necessary, regardless of whether it's a free Pdf. Or one that came from behind a paywall. So I don't. I don't know exactly what the what the best solution is here. But I think everybody's got. Everybody's got a good argument, I think. At the end of the day the city's position is probably gonna have to remain. It's not legal for us to copy something off of or from behind to pay wall and distribute it to the public. and so I don't. I don't know that there's I don't know that there's a super functional or super valuable solution I can offer here, but I hear what everybody's saying. They all.

[97:01] I find myself compelled to agree with Robin on this one, but so it goes. III know for certain. I don't want to read an individual's summary of an article that I just that does not. That's not valuable to me, but especially if it's going to alert me to something I wanna be reading behind a paywall I'm not willing to pay for, so I'd much prefer to just have the Pdf. Accessible to me. or whatever that's worth. Sorry I'm trying to cook dinner for my family. My wife's out of town, so that's why I've been off camera this entire time. But so it goes. I'm here. I'm listening. but I'm I've been using to myself about. If someone wrote a letter to the editor or summarize the cloud proceedings from one month

[98:03] and put it in the daily camera. And and those pay walls seem to be time limits or time determined like on the first day. Maybe you can access the whole paper. and then it goes into a paywall. I think I don't know cause I don't pay for the daily camera. But it would be weird for someone to summarize someone else's summaryish of our cloud meeting. which you know, that's something that has come up several times. I don't know. I don't have the answer either is, there are there legal concerns about sharing Pdfs. Have there? Have there been precedents for people being sued for that. I mean. the legal risk is probably very, very small.

[99:02] right? But you are taking something that when you sign up for a license, you're purchasing the license on your own behalf of as a of an individual. And then, if we're just distributing that content, you know, we're subverting the intent of the Paywall. So it's it's like. is there? Is it feasible that we could get sued? Yes. Is it much more likely that if something, if somebody were concerned about something which you know again. as Evan alluded to, I mean. the city's position is we can't circulate copyrighted material that infringes on somebody's copyright. I think there's a question as to whether you, as individuals, can make that decision. but you know that wasn't frankly, that wasn't the the biggest reason why this got percolate it up. And so I guess

[100:04] I will say, with with with Evan's comment about accessibility, II think there's some surprising nuance with the accessibility there can be things like is the color scheme appropriate where somebody can visually read it. And like some of that stuff that it actually, it's not like just clicking a button to make something accessible. It's like there's actual. There's some nuance associated with that, and I don't know all of it. I don't pretend to know all of it. I just know that that's out there, and that's one of the considerations that's coming into play with some of this. So. Oh, I'm sure I'm sure it's far more nuanced than I'm aware of. I'm simply getting at the fact that if it's from a free source and you print a Pdf. And share it versus being behind a paywall, and you print a Pdf. And share it. They're both going to implicate the same complexities that we need to address for accessibility issues. So unless, unless, of course, every resource is

[101:02] applying the same accessibility standards which I would imagine they are not. So. Brian. yeah, my suggestion here as a path forward would be. maybe for the is there an option where we can distribute Pdfs to each other as a private group as a board. so that we sort of maybe are not running a foul of either copyright or accessibility concerns but are still something that we, as a board can read, circulate response to, and then those could be made available to the public as links to the things that were distributed. The board to fulfill our obligations for public notice and meetings. So that's a question the staff can we have a channel where the Pdfs go that don't have to fulfill accessibility requirements. But we, as a board could read, and then still notice the public that these were the things that was shared the board packet that aren't publicly available.

[102:06] Andy, you had your hand up. Yeah, II would. Just if it's if it's a communication between you. All that's between 3 or more bar board members. It needs to be public. so that's the restriction we need to be mindful of. And I think what you were giving up Brian as well, you know we would still announce it, or announce that it was shared. Or this is the document that was shared. II think that's fine. I think the question the public's gonna have as well. Why, if the Board members didn't have have access to it or sharing it, why can't the public have access to it and share it? Which I, as you, I'm sure, recognize, Brian. It's just II get what you're trying to do with figure out a solution. So we have to make a decision on this today. Was this intended for next meeting change of affairs?

[103:00] No, we can go ahead, and maybe revisit as of right. Now we only have one article. I'm not sure if it is a Paywall article yet or not probably is. But I will pilot submitted my slides or summary. When's when do you need that by staff? With this being a little bit shorter, the deadline for packet submissions for October is on one moment. Let me get my calendar open here. Monday, the eighteenth. I will try my best. Okay. alright, it's there's no. I only have one more. One more item for this section, and that is agenda topics for future cloud meetings.

[104:08] Right now we have for the month of October coordination with Alana Malone for discussion on concentrates. Okay. is there still a what? What page is the list on right now. Packet the packet list. It's on page 10. Thank you. We put check marks on the things that we already oh, presented to slash disguise. Sorry

[105:05] I had a a request or a question. If the rest of the board agrees. But Colorado marijuana enforcement division is going through rule making right now. And they will likely have some things that they will wanna change at the state level. And curious whether staff can plan on, or would plan on doing any kind of presentation of what those things are either in, you know, when when they're done. December, January, February, or a way that we can more formally discuss rulemaking at the state level. I know it's been here already, it says legislated rulemaking and updates. But just thinking about, you know, either December or January is usually when they come out with new rules, and if there's a process that we can have staff kind of give an overview of what they saw, or if that would have to be like 3 months later or just wanted to. That's that

[106:02] right? Or do you want to answer that staff first? So just to hear, make sure I'm hearing correctly. You would be interested in hearing staff interpretation, presentation on Med after their rulemaking, legislative sessions. Yeah? Or or have you know the med do? You know, we've had them come before? Just to give a summary of what the changes were. Just wanna put it on the radar right that this is the time year that happens. It'd be better if they could do it. Obviously but I just wanted to say, like, this is the time that that happens, and and when we could put it on an agenda would be great. Okay, Brian. One thing I just add to this list again, it doesn't need to be for October. I would just

[107:01] remain curious, or we want to get update from staff about sb, 23 to 90 natural medicine regulation legalization. Again, I recognize that the scope of our boards is defined by statute of concern only cannabis. But as there are other natural medicines online, if there's any movement from city council to expand our board scope, or for us, or other kinds of medicines to be considered by our board as well. And yeah. yeah, that that Brian, after you. I guess, Com commented about that. Originally we have been investigating, and wheels are turning to get a grasp of some of the complexities surrounding some of that, so I can't speak to any action by like city council, or whether that's under consideration. But I

[108:02] I do think you'll be cloud will be hearing more about this in the future. So. that sounds suitably vague. I know. I know. Yeah, I don't. I think that's all I can say at this point about that. But so that is, that is on the radar, Brian. Alright. Thank you for the update. And D, is there a timeline? When I imagine, probably after Council retreat in January, would probably be the next time we might here, that's something like this. Ii don't know that it's tied to council. It's it's honestly just tied to internal workloads and discussions. And so yeah. I would make mention that we are now down to 4 members. So if Mister Christie has to fall off for any reason, we would not have a quorum.

[109:03] Okay. One thing I'll mention about the Natural Medicine act. That we've been kind of following at the staff level is the State rule making the State will begin their role, making session and the beginning of next year, and their plan is to have the State rules finalized by May. So I'm not expecting any new information, probably at least for the licensing team until the State finalizes those rules. And we get a better, a better sense of what the State licensing program is going to look like what's helpful. And maybe we could save June 24. Perhaps we could have an update or request an Update from the. It's the state agency that's doing this. It's the to have an update from the state agency that's engaged the rulemaking. Yeah, I think that would be peaceful

[110:00] partner revenue. Sorry. Go ahead, Amy. Well, II do think that's actually the mad. I was just speaking to the attorney yesterday who who represents the Med with the car Roegs office, and he was saying that they that that's falling within that group as well. So I I'm sure we can figure out something or report and and back to Kate's comment, too. I mean reporting on the rulemaking and updates and stuff that's totally fine. I'm happy to to report on rule changes and things like that, or tee that up for discussion as needed. So including natural medicine. So. Brian, do you wanna mention the listening sessions that you shared with me. Oh, I think we talked about this in the previous session, but I think back earlier. maybe it was last fall, fall 2022 and I had attended a meeting with at Europa University.

[111:03] which has a psychedelic kind of therapy initiative and probably getting that name wrong. I apologize to hear from but the components of this. the Market ball initiative, and then the sort of so that was before the legislative session started. So let's listen. Session is closed, the bill pass, and I think we're now rule making. But I think that pausing on this until the rulemaking closes will have greater clarity on where there's an app type for city council to change our board scope. But those rules are how that implicates our other kind of regulations like from the Md. And so on. I guess I meant the ones from the Colorado department revenues, natural medicine divisions, listening sessions. Oh, I haven't been following those at all. Sorry there was one this past week that I didn't know about till after it was over, or I didn't open that email. And there's other topic related sessions coming up.

[112:08] or more times in the next 5 weeks I could send the same. This this email come from. It can't be. Yeah, yeah, I forwarded it up. I haven't attended any of them. Now. Okay. Andy, would you want to have that? Okay? Sure to you. You could share with Staff. Whoever's interested. Okay? any other suggestions for future topics? Do we need to pencil in more specifically. are we were even thinking about with Jonathan singer or I've lost that page. But Tristan Watkins or MA. Or met MA. Dd.

[113:05] We don't have a topic. but I guess we didn't have a topic for cinnamon. Good! Well, either Miss Jonathan Singer, working out something that I don't know about. I think Jonathan, through the Chamber was very focused on social consumption. And I'm not sure but beyond that. And Tristan Bawkins is just leading social equity efforts in the Governor's office. Okay. the one the impairment experts bullet at the top, and I wondered if Allison had anything from the the report that you attached was was really long and detailed. Was there an idea, or a a speaker, or a conversation that you thought might come out of that? Allison?

[114:11] Not specifically, I think, give us more thought if there was a speaker it was more just connected to. I know we'd had a lot of conversation around those issues. Are an impairment, and so wanted to share the updated information with the board. But didn't have a specific idea of what what's next. But I can certainly give that some thought. okay. okay. yeah. Just in terms of just in in, in kind of the progress of the hearings. I know that in the ble and and kristen you kinda mentioned this, too, but there's like a an Andy, do you do? Well, the hearing procedures outline, and the preliminary findings, report and report those things. I mean, obviously, we're we're getting the the rules of procedure kind of finalized in the next month or so. But obviously those things would be things that we

[115:13] would potentially want to see before we started the hearings in January. So just wanted to put that on the radar for a meeting in the next few months, or the training at the Retreat, or whatever it is, but just wanted to acknowledge that that was something I was interested in that I like to see in the packet and thought that it would be good for us to see before we start. Yeah, good, good, comment, Kate. And we we are working. And you will see that before we actually start hearing. So cool. Thanks. great are so is it the only other agenda item. the last agenda item. That is correct matters from the chair and members of the board.

[116:05] I have nothing to. I mean, I could. II thought about the article that I submitted. I thought about, you know, a virtual world. One could get get a professor from Johns Hopkins, but I have not proceeded in that direction. So, Brian. Well, I just wanted to thank the Board for your renomination, and electing me again as vice chair, apologize for missing less meeting could even vote for myself, or I thank you in person. But I wanted to take this time and thank you all, and acknowledge your trust. Hope to continue to act in your best interest of the Board and all that, but it's members the public. So thank you. Thank you for serving alright. Any other comments from other members of the Board in terms of articles or items of interest.

[117:09] Okay, are we actually done? Wow! Write this down. I need a motion. In order to do that. I'm I'm entertaining a motion to adjourn Brian Keegan motions to adjourn. And anybody second that Michael's back on. Oh, Michael is on second promotion. Michael's got it. Okay, any do. We need to have a hand vote on that? No, I'll just decide. Okay, thank you. And they're probably not all gonna be this quick. But maybe

[118:00] it was a weird day here in Kate. It was like. Felt like winter in the morning. Almost so sorry I missed it. You're just trying to extend the meeting to them. We are adjourned as a 507 pm. Thank you, Staff. Thank you. Members. bye.