December 4, 2023 — Cannabis Licensing Advisory Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:00] Okay. I was just pointing up the Andotape. I think we're ready. Welcome to what is today, December, the fourth. Addition of the cannabis licensing advisory board from the city of Golder. Do we have Quorum? We do? Alright, so in that case I'm trying to pull that up the agenda here. Do you wanna go ahead and read the instructions for virtual meeting and rules of Yes, thank you. Good afternoon. The city has engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversation. This vision supports 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.

[1:05] More about this vision in the project's community engagement process can be found at the link here. Following our examples of rules of decorum found in the Boulder device code and other guidelines that support this vision, these will be upheld during the meeting. 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 behavior 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. You ready for a member roll call?

[2:01] Certainly. Remember Christy. Member Daniel. Present. Remember green. Vice Chair Keegan. Person. Is it? Present. Present. Chair Coonsman? Remember noble? Ex official member Thomson. Present. Exe official member Bailey. Chair Coonsman, we have a quorum. Did you guys get anything from Alison? Don't think I remember seeing. Did we get something? Okay, so she might be joining us too. Let's look at the minutes from the last meeting, which was September eleventh or yes. I wasn't that's the last set of meeting minutes we have to look at.

[3:01] That would be October 6, 2023. Oh, I guess I'm looking at, okay, I'm looking at the October. Meeting. Yeah. Alright, so any comments about corrections. And motion to approve. Yeah. Brian notions to prove. 1 s And you. Stacey second, and you want handbook. I'm assuming. That's fine. Kristen? Okay, I'll all approving. And he, opposed or abstaining. Alright.

[4:10] I can call the next item if you would like. So I'm still trying to find. I've got too many. Emails. I'm assuming it's general public comments. No, not for this meeting. The next item. No, okay, alright. I do think we switched it, yes. Yes, is the approval of the cannabis licensing and advisory board retreat meeting summary from November sixth? 2023. Any corrections or comments? Alright, motion to approve also. Brian must approve the November minutes. Okay. A second. Robin second. Is there any reason we can't do? Just ask for any of those or outstanding. Do we need a hand vote?

[5:03] I'm not sure. Andy, what's the ruling? If you wanted to just do, all in favor and do a verbal vote I all opposed. All abstaining, you can use that short form. That we discuss briefly if you wanted to, Tom. Yeah, that's what I thought. Okay. All approved? Say aye. Hi. Or raise your hand. And is there any opposed or outstanding? Okay. Now, finally. Alright. Next item is. This is general public.

[6:00] Do we have anybody even in the room that's not affiliated? We do not. Okay. Good lost our popularity. Darn. Okay. And then matters from the cannabis and for, she's not here either though, huh? Hmm. Do we have any emails from her? So I don't have an email from her, however she did include a brief. Summary activity summary in the packet. Right. Well, I'm trying to find how brief I'm trying to remember. It was pretty short. Yes. Is it short enough that we could put it up on me? Sure screen. I could do that, certainly one moment.

[7:29] How anybody has any questions? I'm not sure who the questions are going to go to other than where we record the questions. But. These numbers look pretty standard. Is there anything on page 20? No, page 20 is divider for agenda item number 4. Okay, good. Any questions? Concerns by anybody?

[8:09] Okay. Thank you, Kristen. And still true that there are no forms. Policy suggestion forms received. Yes, for agenda item number 4, policy suggestion forms received for the December meeting. We did not receive any forms filed timely for this meeting cycle. Okay, alright, then I think we're ready to go. On to. Andy. Manage from city attorney. Yeah, and Thanks. Thanks, Tom. I, With like to just share real quick our script. So as the members maybe. May recall. We had a second presentation teed up for the retreat that we'll go through tonight.

[9:09] It's a little bit, it has some quotations that, are a little denser, but I figured we would include them anyway just to give you sort of an understanding of what the BRC says and some of the language. In the code that I'll be looking at. Even if you don't memorize it, you obviously don't need to memorize any of it. I just thought that would be a good point of reference, but Before we get to that, we, did prepare as you may recall as well a hearing procedure script And so that's part of the packet, but I'm going to share. Share my screen. Hopefully you can see this okay, I'll zoom in a little bit. So this is The draft script that.

[10:03] We started with, we use the BLA script. As sort of a starting point and then We really tried to focus on the process and how can we make this as quick as possible while still checking. All of the boxes that we need to check and so You can see here and it's in your packet as well that I've highlighted in blues sort of the different sections just to flag them visually for you for you all. But, basically all of the quotation is either the chair or the vice chair, whoever is presiding over the hearing. So most of the members you. You probably don't need to know much of this. There is some licensing clerk portions where Christian will chime in, but the The key points are that when we start a new application, We're starting the record.

[11:11] So I. You know, we record everything so everything's part of the record for purposes of our video recording. But any reviewing judge would need to know exactly where. Things are starting and ending with the respect. Particular applicant and our particular application reviews. So Call to order. We just name the basics of the business. And then. Interested parties, so. The licensing division is automatically considered an interested party as well as the applicant. But it's an opportunity to announce whether there's any other persons that have expressed an interest. To be considered, you know, quote unquote, interested party within the meeting of the both of revised code.

[12:02] So we'll walk through and see if there's anybody else that has. Or is claiming to be an interested party. And then the meat of the script is this introduction section. A lot of box checking, but it's basically setting up. The hearing. You know, we have this license. Or recording the proceedings, we're gonna have an opportunity for public comment. And then the conflict section, which is probably the section. The members you all need to be most concerned about is and I prefer to hit on this in advance with you, but basically do you have any conflicts or potential conflicts. And for purposes of this, we're really looking at. Either a direct pecuniary interest i. EA direct financial interest or something that you think would so color your view that you couldn't decide the matter objectively.

[13:08] So I, it's hard for me to know what all those conflicts might be, but. It could be that you are close friends with the principal, member of the LLC that's applying for a license or It could be that maybe you've had discussion, somebody contacted with you about the particular application and concerns. You know, it could be, I'm trying to think of some of the other common ones that we could potentially see. The point being is, It's best to disclose it all, regardless of, you know, whether you think You need to be, recused or whether it's just prudent to disclose it. It's always best to just be public and transparent about any potential conflicts. And then just to leave that to me.

[14:07] To decide whether it merits recusal. Or on occasion we could. You know designate you as a non voting member for instance where you can participate in discussions but not vote. If it's the type of conflict that requires recuse or what we'll ask you to do is to. Mute yourself and turn off your camera so that you're not in any way involved with the review. But most conflicts unless it rises to like a clear conflict, you're going to participate. And I say that right now. Principally because. You all are part of this community. You all are involved in some way, shape, or form with. The cannabis industry and I think it's a pretty small world and you're gonna know people and people are gonna know you and you know, if we go digging for conflicts enough.

[15:08] We're going to end up subverting the intent of the BRC in the city council, which was to have a representative board. And we don't wanna do that and we don't want to inadvertently dismiss. You know, board members or encourage people to try to seek out conflicts to get. Board members. Withdrawn from board presentation. So. So that's kind of a long winded way of saying. Try to come discuss any potential conflicts with Rewa and I. Before the meeting. So that we can assess them. But just know that, you know, it's truly designed to nip. Personal financial conflicts in the bud. And you know, not as a means to. Unnecessarily disqualify board members who could otherwise decide the matter objectively.

[16:05] So With, that portion, are there any questions or thoughts on the conflicts before I move on members? So we'll continue so attorneys. We'll get into this with the presentation in a moment, but. These here. Oh, sorry. Yeah. And let me. Let, let me check in on the complex thing and I'm just gonna choose some hypotheticals because I don't have any good ones that I can. Say, let's say someone was an LLC was. Gonna be gonna go in front of us. And. I'm just totally making this up that way. Alright, my daughter always, they have another business. And my daughter always buys from them. Is that a conflict?

[17:03] No, I don't think so. No. We're really looking at like you're a member of the LLC or do you have a contract with DLC or do you have a contract with DLC that's gonna bring you business. Those types of things are really what we're focused on. And the reason why we're focused on that is because There is a portion of the car under revised statute that at least at the state level and there's and there's case law that's come out of this that specifically says, look, if you have a direct pecanary interest, you're conflicted out and you need to be recused from making decisions, right? So you can't be using your board position. For personal financial gain. And there could be maybe more attenuated instances where you have some personal financial gain that you'll realize. That will probably require recusal at that point as well, but. You know, we have to be careful to accomplish the overall objectives of what it means to have a conflict while not.

[18:06] Sort of kicking our, selves in the rear end and not being able to conduct business for example because we don't have a quorum. I've had boards. Where the board had such a Stringent conflict policy that We would end up having almost like never ending. Indecisiveness because we could never get a quorum on different matters and We ended up with that board loosening our conflicts policy specifically so that we could not so that we could carry on business. So. Yeah. That's pretty easy when you know, if somebody if I own a business or if a family member was a part owner in the business. Right. But I guess the reason why I'm even bringing it up is If somebody even could be perceived as having a conflict of interest, it'd probably be wise to bring it to you, Variriwa.

[19:04] Before. Yeah, yeah. And that's our preference is think about it broadly to bring it to us and even disclosing that publicly like you can disclose. Anything? I mean, if, if it makes you uncomfortable and you want to disclose it, I'd encourage you to disclose it. Publicly, not just to reunite, but, in the board meeting. And I, think that's a good point too, Tom, that you just mentioned like if it's a family member. You know, like especially an immediate family member that'll probably require a refasal. If you have a family member that's in the business that's applying. And I can't think of any other instances right now I've run into, but those. Those are the key pieces. So. And I'll add this to one of the ways that will address conflicts when they arise, if it's something that's suspect.

[20:00] Is to address it with the parties appearing before the board. So, you know, do you object to this person continuing with the decision. No, do you object and just addressing it at that point? You know, if somebody objects that that's not dispositive of the issue, we're still gonna have to make some sort of independent decision on that, but. But if people don't object, then it's then it's not an issue. So. Okay, but I just wanna reiterate what I heard you say. Is that if One thinks they might have a conflict, then you obviously would bring it up. Publicly, but you might have the option of bringing it up with you or where you are. Before the meeting just to talk it over Yeah, yeah, bring it's always best. I mean, bring it to reunized attention before the meetings. We'll probably wanna have a call or at least just email with you about it to. Understand the conflict in the scope of the conflict and you know, make a recommendation as to what you should do at the board meeting in terms of, Like, I mean, hopefully we can get to the point where you'll understand it's a conflict and we'll discuss it and you're just gonna recuse yourself.

[21:17] Or if not, you can explain on the record why not. So. Okay. And by the way, Allison did text me and said she's sorry that she's not going to make it today. She said she was going to send an email. Awesome. Okay. So chipping through the rest of this, the attorneys, as I was mentioning, I mean, they're I don't know how often that will arise where people will arrive with attorneys. My guess is and Kristen Cheng Harris and I have discussed this a little bit, but most of your hearings

[22:03] Probably gonna be if they've gotten to the point where they're coming. For approval. You know, they're gonna know. What staff position is with respect to whether they've met all the requirements and That doesn't alleviate your all's obligation to go through and verify those requirements are met, but it does mean that in all likelihood there's going to be cases where it's clear cut. You know, they're entitled to a license. And they won't have lowered up. It's not gonna be contentious. It's going to be just a matter of going through the process that. The BRC requires, right? So. There's those instances, but then there's obviously there could be instances where Things are contentious for whatever reason. Maybe there's a dispute where they know staff are very much against a particular license for whatever reason. Some requirement or multiple requirements are not. And they've lowered up and their lawyers appear to represent them and speak on their behalf.

[23:09] And that's obviously within there, right? So, You know, but we wanna recognize those attorneys and their role and just verify that they're speaking on behalf of their client, you know, who they represent. And some of those all say. You'd like to think that everybody's operating in in good faith, but You know, this is the world of government regulation and I don't know how often licensing has seen this or instances where they've thought they've seen this but You know, there's there's time some people know they're probably not compliant and they're gonna try to sneak one past the goalie so to speak or they're gonna really push an issue, maybe a lot of other applicants have previously understood. A particular location for instance isn't viable because of whatever factor. And they'll lawyer up and they'll say, well, we don't think this is constitutional or we don't think that this is, you know, this language is sufficiently defined where they can apply this to us.

[24:14] Let's push it. Let's go see if we can get a license at a location that maybe. You know, isn't deserving. At least according to staff. And so you might see that. You might see folks come in really prepared. With attorneys knowing there's an issue that. The city disagrees with and they're still gonna push it and they're gonna create their record. And they're gonna do that for purposes of appeal. Probably, you know, or to persuade you all. And that's, you know, something that. I would imagine if we do this licensing business long enough, we'll run into at some point. So. And maybe that time will be sooner rather than later. I don't know. But yeah.

[25:02] So the procedure, so, we just set out the order, which is First, taking public comments. So the the plan is to allow anybody, regardless of whether they're a party to come in and give public comment. We're announcing that for the applicant, we're announcing that for staff, you know, we're just putting that out there. With the thought being that the public should have an opportunity to express themselves as part of this proceeding. And that's taken just like any other public comment. So your typical 3 min, You know, time period to speak. It doesn't require any sort of response from any of you all. It's just an opportunity for public comment. So Next, we'll hear staff who will present. And they'll be Oh, well, it goes into the timing here. So then we'll hear testimony.

[26:00] And the parties are obviously the city, the applicant, and if there's any other interested party that's been admitted. We say, each presentation that anybody gives will be limited to 10 min unless good cause is shown for additional time. So there's an allowance where if you all determine. Good cause is shown. You can go beyond the 10 min. And In essence, what you can think of this as is everybody has. An opportunity to present what's called their case in chief. And then as soon as they percent. Any other interest to party can ask them questions. So. You know, informal court proceeding, you can think of that as cross examination for this. Hopefully it's not quite as stringent as that. But it's just an opportunity to say. Hey, you guys agree with us that this is the case, right? Or you would say this or, you know, it's an opportunity to confront sort of the opposing witnesses, right?

[27:00] So after each party has their 10 min time to present. Then each party is gonna have a separate time for reviewing presentation as well. And then the after each party has had time for, The board will go into deliberation where you all will debate what was heard. So You know, again, it could be. Simple, it could be, you know, staff have these preliminary findings that say they're entitled to license. We didn't hear anything, contrary to that from staff, the applicant agrees. You know, and unless you all got into questioning that. Maybe created issues. It might be pretty simple. It might be well. Does anybody have any concerns? So anybody have any objections? If there is none, then you might be might be ready to move into a vote pretty quickly.

[28:04] But there could end up being, you know, contentious issues or concerns that you legitimately have that you think need discussion and That's your opportunity, the evidence, quote unquote, the evidence is closed. That's your opportunity to share thoughts. Exchange ideas make sure everybody's seen things the same way to the extent possible and hopefully come up with a consensus. But if you can't come up with the consensus, so be it, you know, at least you'll have discussed it and you can take a vote and see where everybody lies and you'll understand. Sort of where the differences lie in terms of. Those of you points. So. Is there any questions or thoughts about that? Part of it right now. Okay. So. And keep in mind, we're still. We're still discussing the procedure as part of a script.

[29:03] So, but, You say witnesses. We'll offer up to see if there's any witnesses and interest a party has. I don't know who that might be. For the city that could be office or genoc, for instance. But it could be any number of. Of persons that somebody wants to call as a witness to prevent present. You know, their personal knowledge or their thoughts on, whether an application. Should be granted and what issues there are. We mentioned at the retreat that you'll have preliminary fund. Yeah. And the. So what would the timing be like for instance, when somebody does the application and when it finally gets to us. Will they have been visited by Officer Geniac or? Or probably not at that point or? Kristen, do you wanna jump in? Kristen's a lot. More familiar with the process. I think yes, but.

[30:10] Oh no, right. So the way that we, set up the process for Canvas licensing is, their inspection would happen after. That's why. Yeah. The licenses approved. But Oxfordgenac would have the ability to visit the facility ahead of time. If she was inclined to do so, especially if there were any. Safety or security concerns it's possible that she would visit it but the official infection wouldn't happen until after the license was approved by the board. Conditionally approved. Okay, that's what I expect. Yeah, that's why I expected. I just wonder the sequence. Only if she had prior knowledge of. That location or that owner or that something. Something to do with that application. Okay. And that gets at. Tom, your you know, what do these witnesses look like? I mean, In reality, there's gonna be so much of it that's That's what's called documentary evidence.

[31:08] I mean, we're gonna have the application. And whatever materials they submitted with the application, you'll have staff's, preliminary findings. And all of that will be information, right? That's all going to be information you'll have received before. The hearing beforehand and you'll probably hopefully have had a chance to Give it a good look and critical thought and think about any issues that you may have identified or concerns. Potentially thought about questions you want to ask the applicant, right? If an applicant is coming in and doesn't look like they've met. And, element for our license, you know, hopefully you all will have thought about some of the questions that might get at the heart of the issue. And if I'm being frank, I mean, you want to treat, you want to be as objective as possible, but you want to create. A record that if the intent is to deny you wanna have the applicant on record saying Yes, we agree with X, you know, and if they're not agreeing with something you think is actually the case.

[32:12] Why not? You know, and You kind of we're gonna go into demeanor a little bit in a little a little while with the presentation, but I mean I mean, your job as the board is the gatekeeper for these licenses, right? So You're charged with thinking critically about this and You don't wanna unnecessarily. Impede people who have a right to license, but you also want to Make sure you have a clear understanding of what the facts are and whether they're entitled to a license and you should probe. Into that, make sure people are being honest and you know, that, you're satisfied that a license is warranted.

[33:01] So. We'll get into more of that in a moment, but that's kind of a part of this process is. Getting all the documentary evidence reviewing it that all becomes a part of the record And if there's witnesses, including the applicant. You know, posing some of those difficult questions if there's something at issue, right? So. So the script leads into it kind of does an introduction of do we have any evidence, you know, what are there any other documents aside from the application and the preliminary findings you're going to admit. Any party, right? And then we get into the actual sort of verbal part of the hearing. So you'll take public comment. And that's what this part facilitates. You'll take staff testimony to the extent there is any aside from the preliminary findings. My guess is most of the time it's just going to be here's your Preliminary findings, those are a part of the record, but you know, you all have the opportunity to ask questions of staff.

[34:12] You will the applicant during their time. They'll present, which is their testimony. And so you'll get to hear from them and ask questions of them. Staff will also have the time to ask questions. There's the. Roberto portion which is you know. Hopefully at that point nobody will be surprised by anything that's been said, but at least we're giving Each party one less opportunity to make statements that are part of the record and are part of evidence. And then there's the kind of the closing of the evidence. So the formal closing of the preceding. You know, no more evidence is admitted, no more testimony. It's time for the board to.

[35:04] And you'll see this is this is a a motion to kick off the deliberation slash debate so We're closing everybody's participation in the debate except for the board. So everybody's had their chance to speak. Everybody's had their chance to admit evidence. Y'all are done like this is the board's time. Closed record or at least close with respect to evidence. And then you'll go through and have your debate. And eventually that'll culminate in your motion which for a decision which is just the I gave you that Motion script that we had which you can somebody can read into the record and you can take the vote And then Tom or Brian or whomever will close it off with. Thanks everyone that completes our hearing. So.

[36:02] I know this is a lot to take in. So I'm hoping that we can. When we do our practice that'll give us some practice but I think more importantly, once you've done a couple of these live. You know, even though it seems kind of complex now, I think it'll get. Really predictable and everybody will kind of get. Comfortable with it and will anticipate. What happens next and You know, having a script I think is really important just to make sure we're consistent and we're checking these boxes. And this is like, you know, obviously it's a totally public script, so we'll give it to the applicants, you know, everybody will know what to expect and when. If they want to object to some portion of it, they can. My guess is they won't. Cause it. I think it makes sense. But that's kind of the purpose of this and. And hopefully at the end of all of this. Even if there's a contentious hearing, we'll have a pretty good record where if somebody Sue's the board.

[37:10] You know, or sues the city rather. That'll be a record. That's Clean organized and you know your decision making will be well supported so Are there any thoughts before we? Kind of close this out or changes or suggestions or anything. Thanks Andy. I think that's really great. Appreciate you going through the details. The only question that comes to mind is, would there be a time when the board is going to have? This type of proceeding and then go into our regular conversations or is that kind of yet to be determined? Yeah, so this will, well, I don't know if Christina thoughts on that, but you mean like a conjunction with like a regular meeting that you would do this.

[38:06] The types of meeting we've had so far, you know, it's really different. Edition. Kristen, yeah, go. Yeah, it's a great question. I think honestly it kind of depends on if there are other. Topics that the board wants to make sure to discuss. Within a given month. Then we would likely include a public hearing and those topics on the same agenda. But if there's nothing that's, time-sensitive and it can wait until the following month. We could also just focus the meeting primarily on the public hearing. So it just I think we'll have to see how things go once we get to that point and see what's what's on the board's agenda and what you all would like to include in that particular meeting. Okay, that makes sense. Thank you. Sure.

[39:03] And it's just the questions as like kind of procedure. You sort of add outlines. How there might be an applicant who wants to gain the system or try to push the envelope as far as possible and staff will kind of give our board a heads up about at the meeting about sort of the contours of some of that potentially. Once, we kind of Make a decision and close and they decide to appeal or sort of. 2 or something like that. That's that all. That doesn't come before our board anymore. There's no like that appeal process. Is sort of like outside the scope of what our board considers at that stage, right? Yeah, yeah, so the appeal process. Goes to it will be to bolder district court would be the appeal and so We I think we got into this a little bit in the last in the retreat presentation, but basically the records compiled.

[40:03] Typically a transcript is made of the entire record and the video transcripts made available to the judge and the parties brief it. And the only way it could come back to you all is if the board. It's kind of a finicky thing that the courts do. They You know, that it goes back to the whole. Coequal branches of government from civics. Classes where Did you know the judiciary doesn't like to interfere with the functions of the judicial and executive branches and so What would happen in all likelihood is a board would kick it back to us and either require that. We approve the application. It would still be our decision to approve the application. In some sense. You know, board basically says you're wrong. Or it could be that the board maybe just finds there wasn't sufficient.

[41:01] Justification for a specific issue, but that there could be. And wants us to reevaluate that so it could be like a rem in that fashion. Or it could be like an affirmation of the decision. And then in that case, it's, up to them to continue up appealing it. To the Colorado Court of appeals or to be done. So that's kind of what happens and in terms of what you'll hear. You know, since it's pending litigation, we won't. Discuss it at length, but I'll let you know. That an appeal was raised and that it's gone to district court for review. And then I'll let you know that decision once it comes down, obviously, win or lose. You know, even if there's no further action, needed a view, if we win, I'll let you know. But, yeah, that's what happens. So. So in a situation where we did not, and then the judge holds the decision or like makes a decision I guess saying that this license should have been approved then it could come back to us.

[42:05] I guess you would have more guys that stage, but like what we should do, look at light of that decision, but like that's probably too far down into that sort of what ifs but. Yeah, it starts to there's some weird things that can happen on a peal and Cause sometimes parties will raise things that for instance, so a constitutional argument could get raised that you guys didn't. Rule on and the judge will maybe find yeah you're right. Applicant, this provision is. So ambiguous that as void I hereby declare it void I'm gonna send it back down to or the judge might interpret it in some way maybe. That would be rare, but the judge might interpret a provision differently than we interpreted. And then send it back down to us for a decision in light of the new interpretation like so that That kind of thing could happen in all likelihood the judge will just say, you know, the most likely case the judge will say, yep.

[43:02] I agree with the board's decision affirmed or the judge will say Nope. You know, you got it wrong board. I'm gonna, you know, Grant the application because the board found all the elements were met except for this one and the board was arbitrary and capricious when it made this finding, something like that. So. Right and then just one final what if I know so we're operating in a regulatory environment where cannabis is illegal at the federal level or is like under different kind of regulatory scheme. And there's lots of conversation that when how that might change but like at the end of the day like even if things shift at the federal level like we as a city are still and like we as a board. Bound by BRC, like federal changes wouldn't sort of trickle down immediately, but some kind of federal action wouldn't sort of like have an immediate fact on our BRC and our board if things shifted at that kind of level or is there any situation where Something could happen at the federal level and that could sort of impact PRC decision or start the VRC or certain decisions that you make as support.

[44:05] So on, you know, I won't go into the different ways in which somebody could try to sue us in federal court. I mean, obviously you've you've probably heard the the kind of the thought, well, somebody can sue somebody for any reason, you know, it doesn't mean it's gonna stand. Core it won't get that doesn't mean it won't get dismissed or you know that they'll lose on a motion for summary judgment or you know. There's kind of liberal leeway in our system to sue people in. So I'll say that, but the administrative mechanism they use for suit goes to bolder district core and that court We'll review it for compliance with state and local law. You know, it's very, very rare that that court would ever. Hear a federal issue. And at the same time, the kind of, I guess the inverse of that.

[45:05] Is Boulder has a lot of authority to Apply its laws in the sphere of marijuana. There's not many I can't think of any instances. We're what's called preempted from deciding something under federal law. Like it's a very, you know, very much hands off, You know, I think it would be really I can't envision a situation where that would happen right now. So. Alright. Thanks for all that. Yeah. So unless anybody has anything else. Chairman Kinsman, do. I think that's all we got for the script for right now with the caveat. I think you thought, and I think the board thought maybe it'd be prudent to run through like a Just a mock.

[46:09] Hearing. Yeah. We're talking about that, yes. Everybody good with that? At the next meeting. Let's see a thumbs up. And so if. We have a break slotted in somewhere. The next big piece is obviously the kind of the bulk of tonight's meeting. I don't think it'll take too long, but I don't know if it makes sense to take our break now before I get into it or what, how would you? It's a bit early. I mean, although. I could I guess during break I could check and see how what Michael situation is and see if you can join us.

[47:00] Sure. I will do 5 min now. Chair, I'd appreciate it a 5 min break if we can do it. Thank you. Alright. Stacy's back. Ethan's back. Oh, let's go ahead and restart. Michael, join us when he can, I guess. No, there he is. Hey guys, sorry. That's some violent deadlines. You're in Andy. Yep, I can go ahead and share so. As mentioned. This was, the a presentation that Share it here. Got closed captioning in the way of sharing.

[48:01] There we go. So we wanted to hit upon some additional training components and so. This presentation obviously hearings understanding the boards expanded role. So. I don't mean to sort of scare you at the outside in terms of hearings. I mean, at the end of the day. You, need to just do the best you can apply the law as it's written the best you can. But I did want to sort of tee this up and. Start helping you all kind of think about hearings and contextualize, you know, what it means to be a hearing officer what it means to be in a rule of effectively acting as a judge. In situations that again hopefully aren't. Too contentious, but kind of. Mentally preparing yourself for.

[49:07] This new quasi judicial role. So You can see the subtitle doing your job. Comprehensively, equitably, and with the spirit of public service and If you kind of keep that in mind, including a few points I'll make as we go through this presentation. You'll do fine. So this is kind of the. What we're going to go through. So overview, overview of hearings, one hearings generally, which we actually. Talked quite a bit about already tonight. So we'll go through that quickly, but. We're gonna talk about the applicant's role in hearings, the staff's role in hearings, the city attorneys offices role and hearings. And then of course the key part and most of the presentation is your role. So. Before we begin, there's a few items to hit upon. Try to turn my camera just a little bit so I can see better. So in fact, let me see if I can.

[50:09] If I can. Exit here somehow, maybe not. So the first point, we're covering some basics. Which I think we've already covered some basics. You're all getting caught up with your quasi judicial role. So sorry about some of this if some of it's basic some of it I think you're gonna be Like, well, duh. But I think it's still worth touching upon. As I mentioned earlier, we're including quite a bit of quotes just because I think it's good even if you never have to look at portions of the BRC you were going to talk about tonight. I think it's good for you to like put eyeballs on it because In some respects, we're all here to help each other. I'm gonna do my best to catch. Issues with, you know, complying with the BRC.

[51:00] But it's helpful if all of us as board members can help catch issues and just sort of guide each other. And so We're going to touch upon some parts of the BRC. And the goal is ultimately to empower all of us to do a good job. So. We'll talk about that more in a second. And throughout this, I really encourage you to ask questions. So I don't. There's a couple of points where I might ask for anybody to have questions, but if you have a question, just you know, feel free to jump off of mute and chime in and stop me before I can. This is really you know, open discussion here. Here in generally The goal, and this is under the BRC, so when you're hit, you're sitting as a hearing officer. Your goal is to determine whether their proposed agency action comports with the requirements and standards. An applicable provisions of the city charter, ordinance.

[52:04] Or code or state or federal constitutional law. And so Put simply, your job is to apply the laws written. So most of the time, given how local Your task is in particular, it's gonna be about applying the BRC. What is the Boulder revised code say? Is required, are those elements mapped? But there's another part and this is kind of the quasi judicial hearing part which is attaining a full and true disclosure of the facts. So Most of the facts are gonna be. Uncontroverted so it's not going to be an issue of There's, there's not gonna be a dispute. There's not gonna be a dispute about this factor, that fact. Most of the time I would guess. The staff preliminary findings and what the applicant is saying are going to be married. And there's not going to be a factual dispute, but.

[53:00] If there is a factual dispute, maybe that's the distance of a particular location from, you know, a school or some other issue. If there's a factual dispute, you're gonna have to weigh what evidence you have and come to a decision on that. And you're gonna want the record to reflect that. So maybe it's a particular document that you found pretty helpful. Or it's something that somebody said in the testimony that you found persuasive. So that's fine. But you're seeking to obtain a full. And true disclosure of the facts and to make a decision based upon those facts. And then importantly, there's a due process component to all of this. So you're giving applicants their day in court. This is really designed. Like most board proceedings to be not just government officials sitting behind closed doors making a decision without. You know, maybe much communication or opportunity to explain to them your perspective. This is designed to give them their day in court, their day to explain their perspective.

[54:08] Explain, you know, what their positions are and why. And to make sure they're cured and to validate you know that their opinions matter so Keep that in mind as we go through this. Hearings include creation of a record. This is really key and this is what we discussed earlier, which is everything is based upon the record. So at some point, If somebody is upset and they want to sue us. You know, a judge is gonna see a transcript just like the one being created down here. That's a bunch of words. On a page. That has all of us speaking and a judge is gonna go through and evaluate that record. And determine, you know, one, whether there's sufficient. I'm really, I'm very much paraphrasing when I say this, but whether there's sufficient evidence in the record for our decision. Whether it's justified and 2, just as important, what were the arguments that were raised?

[55:06] So a big part of this is Your job isn't to formulate. Arguments necessarily for the applicant, you know, if you have to do so to get the correct answer, great. But applicants as well as the city staff can waive arguments if they're not timely raised before you. So if they're if people aren't arguing it and raising it as an issue. You know, it's gone. They can't come in and hire an attorney after the fact. I mean they can come in and they can try to do this but As a practical matter, if it's not something that is before you all to consider, if they haven't pointed out an issue. They can't raise it on a peel and then we can't lose on a peel after that fax. So. Keep that in mind if they get creative attorneys who come in later. And raise issues. That's not something you should be concerned about as much.

[56:03] You should be concerned about are the elements of the application. If so, they get their application. If not, you know, why not? And which specific elements aren't met and let's you know Make sure we're right on that, but then deny the application if that's, appropriate. So. Testimony is taken under oath, so. We'll discuss what that means, but basically Kristen Teag will probably be the one that swears them in. Or we might have some sort of. We've discussed this briefly, but having like a written attestation under oath that they might complete so that's Only important in the sense that people are obligated to tell you the truth. But it's still prudent of you all to listen carefully. About the words coming out of their mouth and make sure you understand them and that they're getting at, you know, if you ask a question.

[57:07] Did their response address your question or did it skirt around the issue and truthfully answer what was not asked. So you're kind of being vigilant. You know, they are required to state the truth. But it's up to you all and it's your prerogative to make sure that they're you know, that what they say. Makes sense and it's getting at you know the heart of the issues that are asked. And I'll go back to this, which I mentioned earlier, which is the most likely scenario. We have preliminary findings. You realize beforehand the applicant probably qualifies for a license. You show up to the hearing. Everyone is in agreement that the license is warranted. The applicant doesn't have much to say because there's not much in dispute. Staff don't have much to say. You may not have much to say, you know, unless there's some concern you have that you want to discuss or ask somebody about.

[58:08] And we're able to breeze through a hearing pretty quickly. You vote to approve the application. So that's I say that's the most likely scenario because I don't think. You know, most of the time if people are getting hung up with their preliminary findings and their discussions with licensing staff. They're gonna be discouraged to bring an application if they know they're not gonna qualify and they're getting sort of pushed back from staff. You know, they're My guess is they're not going to want to waste everybody's time, including their time and bring in bringing a license that they know is going to get denied. So that's not part of that's not to say they couldn't do it, right? They can do that. But it is to say that. You know, the process that these applications will go through before it gets to you are pretty robust and A lot of times if they're smart.

[59:08] You know, they probably won't even wanna push it to a full quasi judicial hearing. If they know it's gonna get denied. That said. Just as any licensing slash regulatory scheme. Has sort of Issues arise there could be issues that arise there could be genuine disputes of fact there could be different ways to interpret a provision that you know, that they want to push and make sure they get a decision from you all. So. That all could happen. There could also be instances where They just want to push something. They wanna push something as far as it'll go, including taking it to court and they know licensing staff's position. And they wanna one vet that through you all, but 2, you know, they wanna preserve.

[60:04] There right to appeal. And so that's. An option that's something they could do and in administrative law, there's something called, basically it's a principle that you have to exercise your rights within the agency. So just cause Christine Changeres gets on a phone call with them and says, no, we're, we don't agree with you on that. We're going to recommend to the cloud that this be denied for this reason. That doesn't trigger their opportunity to sue us. So they still have to go through the full administrative process. To get a final agency decision. And that final agency decision comes through you all. So they still have to go through the hearing process. To get to that point where they get their day in court, right? So.

[61:03] That's them doing their role so they can they're gonna have the application completed. And they'll have an opportunity to present evidence. Again, that's probably going to be most. Prevalent if there's factual disputes. If there's not a factual dispute, if they're just saying, Hey, licensing staff is interpreting this song wrong. They're probably just going to come in and say that. They're probably just going to come in and give argument either themselves or through their attorney and say that. This is something I don't think that we touched upon with the retreat, but the applicant has the burden of proof. And so. That kind of makes sense, right? Because they're applying for license. That's a legal right. So if they want this legal right, they need to show that they've met. All of the elements for a license and that their site meets all the elements for a license so that's their burden of proof. Under the law, it's basically, it's called a preponderance of the evidence. So they have to prove to you all that it's more likely than not.

[62:04] As in greater than 50%. That they've met their burden. So. You know, At the end of the day, if it comes to and we'll go back to our hypothetical distance measurement. If they have to be, you know. More than 500 feet from our particular building and Maybe there's a staff record that shows it's 495 and they come with a record you all find is persuasive that it's 504. If you find that persuasive, then you know, you can make a factual finding that's persuasive and grant the license so that's where the burden of proof comes in. And I mentioned the preponderance of the evidence. And then, urally, they have these, a few rights that are afforded for quasi judicial hearing.

[63:04] So they have the right to submit what's called oral and retent evidence. We've talked about that. They can appear they can say their testimony and they can submit written evidence. They have a right to submit removal evidence. So, How we handle this is. Basically, the applicant should. To the to the extent we can. Give them the last opportunity to speak. Right? That's the simplest way to handle it. If somebody brings up. Some issue, you know, whether it's another interested party or whether it's staff. That we should try to make sure that the applicant has the last opportunity to address. That issue. And then they have the right to conduct cross-examination. So in the administrative preceding context. That's, you know, boils down to a right to ask questions of the other party. So we should make sure that they have that right to ask questions of staff.

[64:02] Staffs role, they obviously do their whole monitoring aspect, which is you know, the most significant part of licensing jobs. So. All of the administrative tasks with continuing compliance with the BRC. That's a whole different animal we won't get into, but that's a big part of their role. And then for new licenses. They have the right to. And they have the role of providing facts and presenting evidence. So a big part of their job is trying to help identify issues and if there's things like documents you might need. To compile those documents, maybe they weren't submitted as part of the application. But they have the right and the ability. And the obligation to try to make your job easier by If there's specific documents finding those and disclosing them to you all as well as the applicant. And making those a part of the administrative record. So. And we discussed this at the retreat.

[65:01] But it's just worth reiterating. They prepare their staff preliminary findings. Those are part of the evidence. Those are part of the record. But, you know. It's a great start. I believe, especially with You know, this is obviously my opinion, but. Licensing staff is really excellent in Boulder. I think they're they're very very qualified and very very good at their job and very very diligent. And I, have worked with government staff that I cannot say that about. So. You know, my guess is you'll agree with their findings most of the time. But pursuant to the BRC. It's the club that has the ultimate responsibility for the decision and the ultimate decision making authority. So. Just because they think everything is. You know, kosher, so to speak. That doesn't prevent you from asking questions and inquiring further and making sure everything's sort of on the up and up.

[66:06] Staff know that. They know to expect that. In many respects. They, I think, like that role. I don't want to speak for them, but it's, I think there's A lot of advantages to having a public board that you know goes through and that's everything and confirms everything. They're you know, they verify the licensing application representation. So we talked about I think both as part of the application process, they're going to confirm what they're saying in the application is accurate. And then as part of the approval process. So you're going to grant licenses on a conditional. Approval basis as we discussed in the sort of motion script And after that they go through a process of confirming everything's accurate. So.

[67:01] CEOs role, that's obviously the city attorney offices and that's rewa and I. So our role is legal advice and that's principally surrounding the interpretation of the Boulder revised code and other laws. You know, Like staff, I mean, we give you our view of what the BRC says. Hopefully. The BRC is written plainly and clearly enough where it's like you're gonna see the language that we're able to refer you to and be like, oh yeah. But that certainly doesn't stop you from reading the BRC and I'm thinking critically about it and you know, applying it to the best of your ability. That also doesn't stop you from. Discussing it with the other. Board members during the debate portion or with the applicants. In many respects, I think when you get to questioning applicants or questioning staff, Your questions are going to surround sort of the BRC and there's going to be times when we have to dive into portions of it.

[68:06] And you might have to critically ask. Applicants like you mean to tell me that this portion of the BRC that says this doesn't that mean this you know, or what evidence do you have to show that this is the case? Can you show us that? What does that look like? Why don't you agree with staff's interpretation of the BRC this way, right? So. That's all on the table and it's a very Legal interpretation-centric Sort of sets of inquiry. And it's an inquiry that I can guide you with and give you my interpretation of the law. But as we've discussed previously, there's times when no matter how detailed. The law is or no matter how plainly written it tries to be there's just I think the best way you can say it is. You know, we have code that needs to be.

[69:03] Try to be readable while still being comprehensive enough to capture as many instances as it can, but there's gonna be times when instances, you know, factual instances in the real world aren't. Provided for in the code. It doesn't directly address how to handle that particular situation or you know, or maybe it addresses slightly how to handle it, but this is something that wasn't contemplated when the code was written, right? So. So there's going to be gaps, there's going to be gray areas. And there's going to be times when you as a board need to decide how to resolve those gaps and how to resolve those gray areas. For purposes of deciding, you know, what what's required for a bolder cannabis license, right? So That's within your role. It all comes with the. You know, the burden and authority you have to interpret the BRC. And apply it the best you can. It's all part of that same. Sort of, and Then there's the risk and risk mitigation component.

[70:08] So I'll also advise you of you know, if there's particularly Potent arguments you might get constitutional arguments raised at your level and they might be raised for the purpose of preserving arguments. And I can apply on some of that. I can tell you. It's difficult to do that in a public meeting without. Giving away the farm, so to speak, to the other party. I mean. I'm not gonna sit there knowing there's a party that might sue us on the other side and say, oh, they're absolutely you know, right, you guys have to grant a license that, creates a difficult situation. It would have to be a really extraordinary circumstance. For that to happen. So in a sense, you know, there's limits on the extent to which I can advise on litigation risk following your decision.

[71:05] But. I think that's a part of this. I think, you know, At the end of the day, we're trying to. Do the best we can and. You know, I think you as a board need to be thinking about legal risk. It's not to say we succumb to somebody who comes in and bullies us. Like that's the opposite of what we do in fact. But it is to say we need to be cognizant on, of that back end risk. So. And then finally the advising on the adherence to procedure. And open meetings laws. So. We've discussed a lot about procedure tonight already with the script. Discussion, but. At the end of the day, you know, we need to consistently apply our procedure. Litigation if an appeal occurs so that will be We have a litigation team that are very good at what they do in the city.

[72:05] Chances are if an appeal happened, I would probably become part of that litigation team at least as a second chair. There's a chance I could handle the appeal so low. I don't know, but. But that's all part of the role that COO will hold is. Taking whatever decision you make and going in and defending it to the best of our ability. So. And then we get into your role. So I mentioned the hearing officer. AK the judge. So. You know, you're obviously not anointed judges within the state, but you have a role of hearing officer, which is an administrative. T that. You know, expects you to conduct administrative hearing. So. What do judges do? That's gonna be what we're gonna focus on for your role. Preside over the hearing.

[73:03] You review and understand the facts. You discuss the record and you render a decision again to the best of your ability. And. We'll get into, I don't remember why I had these like. I don't remember why I had these originally. So I hope you enjoy those images as much as I do. So. Oh, let's learn about being a judge. So. Let's put on, oh, let's put on, you know, pull out. That's what I was gonna say. It was gonna be really clever and smart. Let's, put on your judges row, pull out your judges gavel. Put on your judges, I don't know if that's what they were called back in the day, but And let's focus on what it means to be a good judge because That's what you're doing is you're upholding. Peoples to process rights and you're giving them their day in court, right? So What did judges do? They prepare.

[74:00] Coming into hearings, you should have reviewed the application. You should have reviewed the staff's preliminary findings. Again, a great start. But you need to be comprehensive. You have the ultimate say. You'll have reviewed hopefully portions of the Bulls are revised code so If there's portions of an application that. You know, are at issue, there's gonna be some portion of the Boulder revised code that makes those at an issue. And so hopefully you'll have a chance to at least read that little snippet or portion. And. Kind of developed a thought on what's required, right? And maybe thought about Why is it required? Okay, what was city council thinking when they wanted This particular requirement in place. What makes sense? What was the intent? Underlying the original boulder revised code language. Just manage the proceedings. So. They decide who gets to speak. When do they speak?

[75:07] How's evidence received? We have a script that hopefully makes that all pretty easy. Streamlined and consistent. So hopefully that's not a. You know, sort of too much of a hurdle for you all. But there is sort of a an obligation to manage the proceeding, right? You don't want people interrupting each other, you know, one people speaking out of turn. We lay out the rules at the very outset of the hearing so that There's order to it and You know, if attorneys appear before you all. They're a custom to see an order and they like seeing order. And so they all I think be inclined to adhere to that order assuming they're not. Sort of belligerent, but. But there's some people that might appear that. You know, don't respect.

[76:08] The process and sticking the time periods. And so we We have some prerogative just to keep everything equitable for ensuring that, happens. So. I mentioned this earlier, but objections are really a key part of managing proceedings. So And this is mostly looking to Tom and Brian, you know, in your roles as chair and vice chair, Brian, if you're presiding over the hearing. One of the most powerful things you can do is just ask if there's an objection. And I can't say when all that might be necessary, but if anybody starts doing anything that. You know, seems unfair or seems inconsistent with our regular process. One of the easiest things you can do and I'll remind you of this is just to turn to the other side and say, hey, do you have any objection to this?

[77:06] You know, and obviously we're most, concerned about the applicants rights. So. Turn to the applicant or their council and saying does the applicant object if we do this or that or you know, take in this evidence that can resolve a lot because most of the time There's not gonna be an objection and everybody wants to get along and keep the preceding moving smoothly. So. You can just ask people. This is, Yeah, yeah. And and break it up a little bit. Those wigs are called, do you think Brian and I could get one of those perks or each one of us could, you know. Alright. Then we'll have the Arab authority when It's free. I'm joking. Yeah. I think Brian and Brian and I would especially benefit from having such a thing. I love it. I don't think it would undermine your authority at all. Tom. No, Yeah, right.

[78:04] I like being streamlined. Okay, all right. Everybody all know who the who's in charge. Yeah. Yeah. Alright, sorry, just, break it up a little Andy there. Yeah, no good. I didn't know that. Yeah. Okay. And learn a new word. E Baruch. Yeah, yeah, I don't know when the judiciary stopped wearing those but Yeah. The. So the, oh, so this is getting out so. I think this is good for you all to hear just so you understand. I'm talking a lot about being a judge. You know. No, everybody realizes you're not. Judges and you're not attorneys typically, you know, most of you. But. There's some recognition, right? The board is not comprised of attorneys and judges.

[79:04] It's comprised of subject matter, experts and concern slash interested persons. This is common for boards. This is in fact one of the primary purposes. For government entities setting up boards is We need to have the people. Who know the most about this. Stuff, whatever it is, deciding. Matters a public concern, right? You're the subject matter experts. And so. We'll get into this in a little bit, but the. You're allowed to. Consider your subject matter expertise as part of this. And in fact, you know, you have to stick to the BRC. I want you to apply the laws written that goes without saying. But judges when they review. Board decisions and agency decisions.

[80:02] They're going to be cognizant and respectful of your subject matter expertise. So. We can talk about that a little bit, but just keep that in mind as you go through this that you're not, you know, required to take off your subject matter expert hat. You all have different perspectives as long as we're, public with those perspectives and have. Discussion about them. That's okay. So. And I'm gonna say, so this is the least, legal, is statement ever made. But these are kind of the core. Principles that I would say that if we were gonna like kind of grab onto our values. For purposes of acting properly as a board. It's this we will be okay if we Treat people fairly. That's everybody who appears before us, treat them fairly, treat them with respect. B act transparently.

[81:02] You know, it. For a variety of reasons. It's just it's better if we act transparently. I mean, both ethically. You know, but also for legal reasons. I mean, to keep issues from blowing up later, just act transparently, be transparent. Disclose things, you know, air on the side of disclosure. And then see, apply the law in good faith and as faithfully as an objectively as possible. So. You know, Your goal is take the BRC and do what City Council told us because the City Council is the legal representatives duly elected persons right they create Boulder law. Let's try to effectuate their underlying intent as best as we can. That's really really important and it's it's easier said than done because you'll find maybe When we get into some complex issues, I might be hard to try to decipher what, you know, what they wanted.

[82:10] But that's our job and it might create some issues where we have to really pull on some threads. To figure out, you know, what the facts are and what they wanted and what each party's position is. So. Moving on, so judges, they review and hear evidence. And so this is one of those long quotes that I know no less wanted to give you just so you can put eyeballs on it. And we'll go through the important part. So the The hearing officer may receive all our part of the evidence in written form. If the interest of the parties will not. Be prejudice substantially or if the hearing will be expedited thereby. So. As a general rule, we can receive written evidence, whatever that might be. But somebody could object, right?

[83:01] And if they're going to be prejudiced by receiving evidence, then we should consider either receiving it an oral form, ie having somebody testify to it. Or at least given them the opportunity to, you know, raise that objection and discuss that. And so. The most common reason why this might become an issue is if for example, somebody is objecting to what's called the authenticity of a document as in. Like, oh, that's not the most recent version of that. Federal document right or that's not those aren't the real property records or something like that so that's gonna be extremely extremely rare but I wanted to raise that there. Ie written evidence is okay if one objects. The rules of evidence, which we won't get in too much and I hope not at all basically in hearings, but we do have an obligation to conform with them to the extent practicable.

[84:04] The rules of evidence apply, the court rules of evidence you know, But here's the caveat. We can even consider the evidence if such evidence. Quote, possesses probative value commonly accepted by reasonable and prudent person. So, Basically, if it's something that you all deem. Probative to the issue. And reasonable and prudent persons would accept it. Ie, you think it's accurate? You think it's reliable? You can consider it. So. You may receive documentary. So that's basically the same thing as the written evidence. If the copy is authenticated, we discuss that. Is it reliable? And. Probably may, I don't know if your closed captioning sits on that, but basically documents can serve as evidence that document is complete.

[85:06] Not altered, and it is what it claims to be. And then here's kind of an important piece the hearing officer. It's not a May, it's a shell, you all shall. User experience, technical confidence, and specialized knowledge in evaluating the evidence. Presented to it. So if you know, for instance, And this is maybe the most obvious example, but. It's okay for you to say I've driven by that area before. I know where that is. This there's this there, there's that there, right? It's okay to consider that. You know, I would encourage you to. Whatever specialized knowledge you bring in, allow the other applicant and the other parties to. Discuss that and apply on that. But it's okay to bring that into the preceding. Yeah, and it's just, it's, you should, Nay, you must, use your specialized knowledge and judgment.

[86:05] So. Any questions about any of that before I move on? So we're getting close to the end here. I promise you, I. So, just let let people exercise their rights. You know, we discussed this, make sure the applicant has the last chance to respond. This BRC section one dash 3 dash 5. Says quote. Parties to hearing may make objections evidentiary offers which shall then be noted in their record. So they have a right to object. And we'll note it in the record. In the absence of an objection, the hearing may be conducted informally. I am the failure to request any procedure shall constitute a waiver thereof. So. As long as we're giving people the opportunity to object.

[87:00] You know, they can exercise their rights and they can retain an attorney who can help them exercise their rights if they want to. But if they don't object, they're consenting to the process and they're consenting to the admission of evidence and everything else. So just kind of keep that in mind. Judges, so they keep an open mind in our respectful and this is Tom getting back to the levity of all this. I do have some videos. That will go through real quick. Starting with this judge shooting clip and I assure you it is, you know. I thought we would have more time at a risk tree to discuss some of this but we'll go through some of this and I want you to pay attention a little bit to. Her demeanor. There's a couple of things that are good things that Judy does that we'll discuss, but for the most part, right?

[88:00] TV entertainment. And so she'll act and behave in ways that are designed to. Entertain. They're not designed to make people feel heard. Appreciated, respected. And have their positions, you know, fully considered. They're designed to keep things moving. Entertain and that's most of why we're watching this. So let's start at this first one. Oh no. We don't know audio. Oh, 3. Not yet. Hmm. Let's see. Kristen. Oh, sure, Let's see. Can you hear that? She is going to continue to make everybody's life miserable. Mrs. Lord, you are a charming lady. Thank you. I have. I think you're charming too. Thank you. I have not.

[89:01] Can you hear that? Yeah. At the risk of being disrespectful, you can't be a pest to all of your neighbors. They are entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of their home. If you are, you absolutely just as you are but I'm not hearing. The case now against either Mr. Vibh or the city council. I'm hearing the case of these innocent people who have been caused to suffer because you are protesting something. That has nothing to do with them. And Miss Lord, you have to stop. And if the only way to get you to stop is to start charging you money for this violation, then I am going to start charging you money. But this award of money that I'm making to you today is up until today's date. I'm making that very, Yeah, listen to me. Now you have to be quiet. I want you to understand this. That this award that I am making to you today is by way of a warning.

[90:02] It's gonna cost her $1,500 if she does it tonight. If you file suit, it'll cost a $1,500 again next week. If you file suit, you've got to take your anger out at the right people. The judgment of this court? So. You know, you can see how. Judge Judy's sort of demeanor. Again, that's all entertainment. I bet. She was probably when she actually was a real judge. She was probably a very good job. She's very smart, witty. I don't know what was going on with that dispute with some sort of property dispute, I think. And but, you could see how the women reacted when Judge Judy said, you're a pest. She called her a pest. And you know, that, might be who knows, you know.

[91:04] You know, whatever that means. But the point is, it didn't help anything. It just made her angry, made the lady feel like. You know, whatever rights she has in this fake court. Were being stepped on and it made her kind of defiant and angry and when people are defined and angry. What do they do? They, they sue. So. You know, your job as a forward is it to Convinced the applicants, they're wrong. It's great if you can get them to agree. That they're wrong and they're not entitled to a license if that's the case, right? If we get them, if we get consensus with them and they're saying, oh, yep, you're right. That's fantastic. But you know you're not there to you have some authority over them or are smarter than them or anything else it's you know, let them present their case and arguments and let them be heard and as long as they're operating within the procedure we've laid out.

[92:09] Let them say their piece. So. One of the things that struck me with that video is if you were an attorney and Your client was being treated that way by. Say you all aboard. A district court judge would not like that, right? And I have no doubt. That just based upon the people on this board that you would do that but You might get instances where an attorney comes in, maybe believing that their client doesn't have a super great case. And that attorney might try to. Antagonize you. I've, you know, maybe you've heard stories in the media. About a certain presidential candidate that is reportedly has attorneys that are antagonizing the judge. Sometimes attorneys will do that.

[93:00] Sometimes attorneys if they think they're gonna lose anyway. They might try to make a mess of a record and they might try to. You know, cause you to act. Unprofessionally and in ways where you create statements or records that they can then use against you and they can turn around and say, Look, Judge, you know, look at how my client was treated. They might actually use that as a tactic. And so I would just, you know, be. Conscientious of that. You know, Judy wasn't letting her presenter speak, raising her voice, right? There's basically no reason for you all to ever raise your voice on anybody you were purse before you. You don't need to do it. It's not helpful. This is a piece, so if you heard Judge Judy say, This award that I'm making to you today is up until today's date. So I think she was mistaken there. I think she was making and award to the other couple that was standing that was standing there and it almost made it seem like she was making an award to that woman.

[94:09] And I think, you know, if you saw the video, you could correct that. Or a judge would understand that. But that kind of goes to making sure that the record is clean. Like if you hear one of your fellow board members Say something that's clear that they probably meant the opposite. Jump in and you know do the point of clarification or something like just go ahead and jump in and make sure that that's correct. And that doesn't sit there on the record and potentially create confusion for a judge because remember, a judge. They're gonna be looking at the written record most likely. They might watch the video. But if the written record looks confusing, that might confuse them, right? So just correct that. Nip that in the bud. Have them correct their statement.

[95:01] So we'll move on to this next clip. I'll say before we start, so for this she clearly had read some things beforehand or had an idea of how she was going to rule. And just think about how this record might look. You and you better stop playing that noise Who broke off your relationship in August of 2,016? I don't recall your honor. Do you remember? I did, your honour. You did. Tell me about how you broke off the relationship. I called her and I told her I wanted to work things out with Rosio. Did he ever tell you that? No. She's lying. Actually, it's only one liar standing there. That would be you. Who broke off? So. I mean obviously call in somebody a liar. Helps nothing. It does nothing even if you think somebody's Miss leading? You know, at the end of the day. You can discuss that during debate and I think there's tactful ways that you can do that, which is saying.

[96:04] You know, we understand that so and so said X. We think, you know, however we've reviewed why, we've reviewed Z. We think those are more likely. We think X is not likely because of this, right? So there's ways that you can address that. You don't have to call people out. Recall them a liar or you know You can still ask questions of them, right? Still get. You know, I think you can make it so that they can get confused and or make miss statements on the record sure but you don't need to call people out personally, right? And then the laughing, wouldn't help that would be a terrible record if, You're sitting there laughing at somebody who's appearing before you or. You know, you're, you want to use as much restraint as you possibly can, right? Because if you're not using restraint as a board, You're opening up the board for.

[97:00] Risk of one people getting upset and just deciding to sue us to prove a point or 2. You know, a court being upset with your demeanor and behavior. So. So that's all what we just went over there. Tree persons with respect and dignity. Everybody who appears before you, right? And then this is the last clip. And what you can watch for this is watch for how the documents are exchanged. Again, she calls somebody a liar. Is there a sufficient basis for that? Or maybe she just. Eludes the fact that they might be lying. And if you were a judge reviewing this, what would this look like? So. Denise Ratchford is suing her ex-boyfriend, Eric Miller. For unauthorised credit card charges. And the accrued interest. Miss Rockford it is your claim that Mr. Miller who was your boyfriend at one time, you ch a credit card and owes you some money on that credit card. That's correct. It's a credit card that you used as well as Mr. Miller or was only used by Mr. Miller?

[98:03] 90% of it was Mr. Miller. I used it for one charge. One charge? One charge. What was that one charge? A plane ticket for my mother. Why did you use that credit card for the plane ticket? I was at my mother's location and I didn't have my other credit cards with me. So that was the one credit card I had in my wallet. We're gonna get back to that in a minute. Mr. Miller, why did you take a credit card from the plaintiff? Yeah, I didn't take a credit card from the scientist. Explain to me whether or not you used a credit card that was in her name. I did not use a credit card. It was in her name. We had this some business on a prior situation. There's no credit card, outstanding debt. I never used a credit card. Okay. I haven't credit cards. May I see the credit card purchases to which you refer? Yes. Right here. All of the purchases that are related to Mr. Miller are highlighted in pink. The purchases that are related to myself are highlighting yellow. He was an authorized user on the account, so he had his own card that had his own name on it, but I was the primary account holder.

[99:01] I'm only interested in the charges that he made under his account. Which is everything that's in pink on that card on that statement. Would you show this to Mr. Miller, please? First look and see the name of the card holder. What is that name? It says Denny Ratford. No, I'm talking about the one that's yours, Mr. Miller. Start with where the pink is. I'm looking at the pink. Do you want me to make a big circle around it? Yeah, because I don't see my name anymore here. May I see it, please? Okay, I see that. Lancaster Shell, Home Depot. And, any charges? I don't believe you.

[100:00] You even acknowledge in your answer that you made the charges? I even didn't know that my answer that I made sorry? Yes. For some sort of a something that had to do with refurbishing your house in order to sell it had to do with some girlfriend or something. I didn't pay attention to them. Out of your nonsense. But there is no question that you made the charges where it says Miller. She had her car like I have my card it says Judas Schindler. She had her car like I have my card it says Judah Shindland's charges, like I have my card it says Judas Shinlin's charges, Gerald Shindland's charges, those are your charges. So, and I say I don't believe you, I want you to follow my words. I don't believe you. Now you want to make up a better story. So the big thing that with that portion was how they exchanged the documentary evidence, right? So. She had a document and I think in in your world these documents are going to be hopefully displayed on a screen but You'll need to make sure everybody's looking at the same thing. So if you're looking at a specific ports of the application. You know, the applicant needs to know what you're looking at and referencing.

[101:05] And so you can say, I'm looking at page. 3 at this section, do you see where it says this? Get the applicant on the same page, get all the board members on the same page. You know, and get a reviewing court understanding what it is that the board was looking at when it was, you know, making this decision, right? So that's really important. The It's not enough to just say, well, I looked at the application and it said this. I mean, try, try to hone in on specific statements. Within the application you think are relevant or specific statements within the staff findings, right? Make it abundantly clear to everybody not just in the preceding. But also if it gets appealed. You know, what it is that we're looking at when we're talking about specific parts of, the elements of the license, right? So We just discuss that. And then again with the demeanor. You know. The accusing the guy of line that's not helpful.

[102:05] Not providing the opportunity to speak. Not really. He filed any answer. And she didn't really, you know, it was clear she didn't really read it and didn't really care. I mean, that's the opposite of what you want to be doing. If people file something with us, I mean, pay attention to every word in that because we wanna make sure with every single section that If we're gonna deny a license that we are correct in that denial and we fully considered what their position is and if they put it in paper you know, pay attention to it, give it some sincere thought. So. Before we move on, are there any questions about any of that of the demeanor stuff or records or any thoughts on any of that. I have a question, Andy. Say you had something come up with a document you were saying earlier, maybe there's a better version of it out there. What have you? Would you table the matter or do you just keep going or what happens with something like that?

[103:09] Yeah, so. You could always continue the hearing if there's something. Big like that that comes up, right? That's an option and it would hopefully be a continuance with the hope that staff can hunt down. The most recent version or whatever it is, right? The you know. Hopefully you would have the person. Authenticity is the big issue, right? So hopefully if somebody downloaded something from a website, you could have them say, you know, and this is an accurate copy of this web page. I think that's hopefully the way you would deal with it. The board could as long as they have an opportunity. So if the board needed to pull up. A web page or find a document that wasn't.

[104:04] That's not in the record. You can do that. You just have to make sure that the applicant or, you know, or whoever other the other interested parties have an opportunity to object. And we have to make sure that it is what it purports to be essentially. So. Yeah, and I, Kristen. Chengaris or Kristen Teag. Have you guys ever had an instance where that came up for BLA or I mean, I can't think of anything right now. Yeah. I can't think of any instance where the beverage licensing authority has pulled up a website. However, I will make note that occasionally we do get an updated piece of information after the hearing packet has gone out. Okay.

[105:00] When that happens, it becomes an exhibit. To that agenda item. And that exhibit item is then posted to Laserfish, which is our city repository where you can locate the agenda. In the packet, but then a copy of that is also emailed to the board members and staff. So paying attention to emails. When and to watch for things that those come across because sometimes those do come across you know day of or hours before. An actual hearing date. With experience from BLA hearings. Yeah, and if it's complex enough that. You know, and if it's significant enough as in it can change the board's decision on an issue. The applicant might want more time to review it and might want to continue. Like a hearing so we got a Kind of be careful with that. I mean, a lot of it is. Circumstantial has the applicant had enough time to consider it and have you all and what does it mean?

[106:09] So And we have seen the BLA, or on the side of caution. And continue to the following months hearing. Any other thoughts? So Andy with respect to Brian and my role. And I don't anticipate or expect that this would come up in these. Presentations by businesses. But then again, you never know. Cause I remember. At times during some of our public comment sessions, I would be watching carefully. The meeting ground rules. Trying to decide whether some people comeing were treating others with respect and dignity.

[107:05] And it was sometimes. Bordering on. Wanting to step in, which I don't think I ever did, maybe. I'm Brian, do you remember having to step in? There are only some meetings with the former board member that I felt like the need to step in, but. Yeah, but there are some public commenters who Have you even been? Informed by the city. Of the expectations. One in particular that we. That we all know. But, but, but really it's more in general. How do you recommend? I mean, I agree with you, 100%. And I do try to treat all persons with respect and dignity, but also It's a quid pro quo or it's a Yeah, I mean they need. You know, you don't have, I guess the Unlike a judge, I'll say you don't have the right to put somebody in jail or find somebody, right?

[108:14] Your authority is limited to is the license granted or is it not? So my guess is people will be coming in minding their. Best behavior most of the time, especially since their businesses. I mean the cannabis businesses are typically It takes funding and it takes sophistication. To do some of that. You know, those are, I guess, some subjective opinions on my part, but it's not like. You have a bunch of members of the public who have gotten Tickets who you know, might be coming in to appear before you all. It's, I would assume they would be operating. Okay.

[109:06] I think there's a broader discussion and I know Ree was on the call. There's a broader. Discussion that we might have about. Strategies for how to address that in a way that doesn't just unnecessarily escalate it. And I think there's a hard principle that you can. You know, a hard stance that you can take that basically says we're if it's wrote done remotely that if somebody continues talking we're gonna mute them. So that might be one tool in the toolbox if somebody's just belligerent, but You know, aside from that, I think it's making sure they adhere to. The process that we set out at the outset of the hearing. And adhere to the board's rules and adhered the board's decorum discussion that Kristen brings up, and re referring people to that. To try to get that extinguished. But you know, I suppose if somebody were so out of line.

[110:07] We could either continue it until the end of calm down or we could. You know. I would need to think about that some more. So. And Rewa, if you're on and have any thoughts, we're Kristen Tee or Kristin Changeres, feel free to jump in. So. Any other thoughts? Okay, we're almost done here. So. What do judges do? They understand and narrow the issues. So I should have probably moved this up earlier because this is a big part of. How you can really help. The city out generally is. Making sure you understand exactly what they're arguing and why. What is the applicant arguing if they're contesting, you know, staff's decision or vice versa.

[111:06] What is staff arguing? Understand it and Get narrow the issues. What I mean by that is get as much. Agreement as you can. In the room as possible. So. A big part of your job. Will be kinda sifting through sort of the fluff and different statements that people made and just, you know. Have people point blank early. So what you're really saying staff is this and what you're really saying applicant is this an applicant your position is This because of X and Y, is that right? And get them to commit. And if they say, no, well, what else is there, right? Get them to stay. Simply as possible what their respective positions are and issues are And for staff, it's probably gonna be.

[112:02] And it's gonna be, I think, plain as day in the staff preliminary findings. I mean, that's gonna say. Staff issue is this because of this. So you're probably not gonna have to do it that with staff, I would assume, you know, you might and you have the right to but. With the applicant, they might come in. Confused about things and where they might come in and Present all kinds of arguments intertwined in this sort of passionate, you know diatribe and you know don't don't let them do that get them boil down the issues like what is it that you're truly arguing. And that can help both. Having you all one truly understand what they're saying. But 2, it can keep it so that they don't just have this hodgepodge of random things that really aren't argued in a meaningful way by them and really aren't at issue. And it gets them to narrow it down. Okay, here's this point and here's why that's important in light of what the BRC requires.

[113:04] Let's get at that. Let's address that, you know, and let's address these things one by one by one. So we can have as a board a good decision. And so that you applicant and you staff can be fully here, right? So I think I have an underline. Yeah, so the. The parties we make objections which will be noted in the record. And we reference this, but the hearing shall be conducted informally and this is the key part and the failure to request procedure any procedure shall constitute a waiver thereof so if people aren't If people aren't raising an issue, they're waving it. But you gotta understand, you understand what issues they are raising exactly and why they're raising them. And hammer that point home and get to that early because I was just gonna make the hearing go better. It's gonna make everything easier. And it really reduces of everything on this. That reduces our risk. It is it is that part it is you know

[114:04] I can't tell you how many times if people are just coming in and trying to raise any and all sorts of arguments. Like when there's, it's easy for them to do on paper, but when they sit there in front of you and you know they're answering questions. People will acknowledge things and they'll agree to things and they'll Wave arguments, they'll say, okay, you have a good point. There like if you're just pointed. Respectful but pointed enough like this is the case, isn't it? They're gonna be inclined to probably move beyond things rather than try to fight something that, that frankly reduces their credibility, right? But it's up to you to sort of, you know, Be on top of that. And make sure they commit to that, right? And then I think this is the last one, number 7. So. They interpret and apply the law. So. Most important thing and you're giving the effect to the intent to the Boulder City Council.

[115:00] What are the Boulder City Council want? Wanted adopted a specific part of the BRC and your duty, you need to faithfully interpret and apply the law as it's written. Try to be as consistent as you possibly can. That means if there's some gray area that you decide in a particular way. You know, in 2,024. If that same gray area arises in 2,026 to the extent you can, you know, remember your decision and apply it the same way. And everything, you really need to do so, right? Consistency is important. That's not to say there won't be good reasons for departing from some decision you made in the past. But it is to say that you should try to, you know, be consistent and how you're interpreting the BRC. And if you grant a license under one circumstance one year, you know interpreting the BRC and the same set of facts and circumstances arise for another applicant you should try to grant that license as well.

[116:02] You should try to. Adhere to your prior sort of precedent. So you should. Avoid trying to interpret or apply the marijuana rules unless the BRC requires it. So we can. We can get into that on a case by case basis, but. You know, your job. We get into sticky areas when we start trying to apply the med rules. And so for that reason, we should try to stick to the BRC. Which is our code as much as possible. If we have to get into med rules, that's fine. But it runs the risk of having us come to an interpretation that the MED disagrees with. So. As a principal, we should try to avoid that. Let the marijuana enforcement division, IE. The state. Apply and enforce our rules. They gotta get a permit through the Met anyway. Let them apply their rules. You know, let's focus on the BRC.

[117:05] Yeah, and then so there's 2 sections of the BRC which Rewan I will provide the entire BRC. To you all, you know, those are online as well, but we'll provide you a copy. Of the VRC, there's 2 sections that are going to be at issue. I'd imagine basically everything we do is found in those 2 sections. So don't. Start thinking you need to dig in other parts of the BRC unless it's somehow raised by an applicant. Because you really won't need to. It's just the 2, the 2 sections. And they're meeting sections, but hopefully by the time you. Get a custom to review and applications and the elements involved, you know, you'll be able to start. Realizing where the sections are and what you need to be looking at. So.

[118:00] Interpreting the law, so this is 1 point that you'll hear. Me reference if there's legal interpretation questions you have, but. Generally, the laws are interpreted according to its quote unquote plain language. So if possible, you should really just use a plain language interpretation. You know, what does that mean? When I read that, what does that tell me? You know, what does it mean? What's the dictionary definition, right? In essence, if there's not defined terms that are contained in the BRC that you're applying. What is the dictionary say? What does this language mean to an ordinary person? The specific provisions control over the general provision. So. If there's something that generally maybe could be on point. That's not as helpful as something that's specifically on point. So keep that in mind. Always look to the definitions that are contained in the BRC. Oh, always think about identifying what's the intent of the law. What did the Boulder City Council?

[119:04] You know, desire. And then they create a record for appeal. So we've discussed that the record, it should be easy to understand. We should understand exactly what licensing position was. What the applicant's position was. And what your decision was and then the rationale for that decision. So that's all built into the script. The scripts designed to walk us through that process. And we want to create a record that's capable of review. So. Important unless otherwise provided by city charter ordinance or code or by state or constitutional law the decision of the agency or hearing officer is final. Subject only to judicial review pursuant to this Colorado rule procedure 106. And then I think I, so this judicial review. And then here's the part that's important. No defense or objection may be presented for judicial review unless it's presented to the agency or hearing officer.

[120:04] Prior to the decision hit thereup. So. Again, if you go in and narrow issues, if somebody comes in and on paper, they started arguing. Some point and then they later concede that point. They've waved that point. They can't then later raise that point on judicial review to a judge. Keep it simple, make them stick to the issues. Make sure you understand all the, you know, evidence that they're presenting on a specific issue. And then make a reason decision to the best of your ability. That's all you can do. So, conclusion. Ultimately, if you prepare for hearings. Right, read everything in advance. Behave like a judge. Treat people fairly prepare for hearing hearings listen to them Allow them to speak. Apply the laws written to the best of your ability and create a good record If you do all of this, so, you know, a record that clearly articulates the party's positions.

[121:05] You work collaboratively with your fellow board members. Understand each other's positions and create that record. And you clearly state the board's decisions and rationale. If you do all of that, we'll be fine, right? The other day. Do the best you can. If we get sued, we get sued, so be it. Government gets to get sued all the time, unfortunately, right? That'll happen. If we get sued, we get sued. But you know, do the best you can. Read, prepare. Behave appropriately, treat people with respect. Apply the laws written. We're gonna be fine. So. That is it. And so if there's any thoughts or questions or concerns. I think. That's it. So.

[122:03] And before Michael got on, we agreed that we were going to do a. A mock or watch. Alcohol decision. Right? For next month. Cannabis. Yeah. Oh, cannabis one in the, in the, in the format. Of the alcohol. Okay. Of the script that we just went through. So. I think I think you're right, Tom. Okay. I think at 1 point we discussed. You know, using. We do have the option of watching. The alcohol. Right, that's almost, that's usually in every packet. Now in a second. Yes. There are many different LA hearings to watch. We would highly encourage everyone on the board. To review one. Before January. Just to see, get a sense of how a quasi judicial hearing process works.

[123:18] So I hope I didn't scare everyone or. Overload everyone's brains. It was all with good intention that you'd be prepared as you can be for the different exigencies that could arise. And hopefully you're, yeah. Yeah. I think. Sorry to interrupt. I was gonna say, really appreciate you really put a lot of time and thought into the presentation and the Judge Judy thing was entertaining and made a good point. Thank you. Just, the same thing. Appreciate all the information and the examples are fun, right? Because they can. Get to the heart of what you're trying to say. So. Appreciate it.

[124:06] Thank you, Andy. Yeah. And that's all I got. So yeah, thanks all for listening to me. But just so we understand. Oh, you want to do it next month? Or are you gonna take it to the point of, like having Act not actors but you know somebody like in the role of business. Bringing their application to us. How do you want to do it? Yeah, we'll put that together for the board. For next month, but essentially what we're planning to do is have staff play the different roles. Of a hearing. And then, you all will have the opportunity to run through the script. And ask questions as if it was a real hearing.

[125:05] Okay, we use some past application, the skeleton of some path application, but names changed or something like that or how will you? Create the scenario. Yeah, that's a good question. We haven't started working on it yet to be honest with you, but it'll probably we'll use past examples that we've received as like real life examples of what you might encounter. Well, especially if you could find some application from the. Recent past that may not have been straightforward or something like that. Yeah, we'll use real world examples for you off. Okay, get some really cool actors. We'll do our best. Yeah. Is the goal to increase our confidence or to test whether or not we can handle situations? Yeah.

[126:02] I think our goal is to increase your confidence. In the process. So. And to make sure Brian doesn't go into a Judge Judy impersonation. That's me. Yeah. See. Is that why we're watching those? We want to be like Judge Judy. No, just kidding. That's right. Great. Great. Okay. Are we ready to read? There's not a whole lot of. Other things on the agenda, if I'm not, if I'm. If I'm correct. So I'm not sure we need another break. We could just forge on ahead. Is that correct? We all agree. Perfect. Alright. Let's do matters from the regulatory. Was there anything more? I think that was it, right, Andy. Yep, I'm done. I've talked a lot. Thank you so much for listening to me and hopefully absorbing.

[127:05] But I'm glad you weren't sick. That would have made it really challenging. Okay. Matters from the regulatory licensing office. Who wants to go? So we don't have too many matters to discuss tonight. We just talked about the January lock hearing. So just a heads up about that. Also the January meeting has been changed to Monday, January eighth because of the New Year's holiday. So just a reminder of that date change. Board recruitment will be starting in mid December, so we'll share that information with the board. Once that has opened, again, please help us spread the word. If you know anyone that might be interested, please send them our way. We're happy to connect with them and answer any questions they have. Get them, set up with the recruitment process.

[128:04] And then, we're always open to agenda topics for future clock meetings. If anyone has anything, they would like to add wireless. Please let us know. Just to make sure it's real obvious. We're not returning to real. Meetings in the near future, so that's a virtual meeting. Right. Okay. Correct. And Tom, I had a question. Yeah. Just had a question about, the topics. Okay. Any question? Just pretty I know that we had talked previously about the state rule changes for, 2024. I know they don't go into effect until January eighth, but I didn't know if the, city attorney's office or anybody was gonna come with any kind of kind of, summary of the changes that occur at the state level.

[129:05] In the months ahead. I, hadn't planned on doing that, but I know Kristen and I have exchanged emails about the changes. It's been. Or if the MED could or we could reach out to them and see if they would do it in February or something. We've had them before. It might be interested in. Yeah, we can certainly reach out and see if someone would be willing to present. I don't know. January meeting probably. We'll be full, I think, with the mock hearing. So maybe we can shoot for February if that works. We'll check, with our MED connections and see when they might be available. Okay. On that particular topic, I saw the Boulder County went through a process of red lines and then a commissioner's meeting to look at the incorporation of the new state guidelines into the unincorporated counties code.

[130:06] Are you going to go through a process like that? I'm not really familiar with. What the county did. Just speak to that. But if there are any state rules that conflict with our local regulations and we would likely look at. An update to our local regs so that we're not in conflict with anything at the state level. Okay, I'll share I'll share that what I got with you if you're interested, you can probably get it on your own, but I'll share it with you for what it's worth. That'd be great. Thank you. Robin, are you saying that there's some changes that might? Influence or.

[131:05] Hmm, come to play. With our I didn't find them to be super consequential. They were, you know, kind of administrative details on the code. And, and the red line shows the difference between what's currently written in the county's regulations and what they were trying to update to the state. Code, so. Yeah, it wasn't super consequential that I could see, but. They did need the commissioners to approve it. Oh Does the company have someone who is kinda like their go to on? Cannabis issues or? It seemed like it. I can't remember the people's names, but they were presenting on behalf of staff, Boulder County staff at this hearing. Similar to Kristen. In Andy and Kristen.

[132:00] Just playing around in my brain about. Maybe having. That person or someone who would may identify to that personally. Attend one of our meetings and just have a conversation. Yeah, I guess maybe. Look at the, I think the med would be better because you'd get the state level point of view layered on more of our regulation in the city of Boulder. So that I think that would be more. Relevant. Yeah, and Robin to your point. I think that they were also going through some changes before the final rules came through. Gotcha. Okay. When they are finally approved in November. So. Okay. Madison sharing members of the board. I don't think Brian, were there any articles? I'm not sure as anybody else.

[133:05] On the board have anything they want to bring up today. In the new city. They're workable of articles in the packet. Or links to articles. If people didn't check them out. I shared an article, I, but we had a brief discussion about it in an earlier board meeting. I thought it was interesting, again, it's not a direct line, but it's kind of some evidence that I think is concerning and worthwhile for us to keep in mind. Looking through the packet right now, what pages that start on. It is on page. 74. No, 61. But yeah. It's 6 61 and 62 of the downloaded packet. Oh, okay. Okay. Then I just shared an article, health effects of high concentration cannabis products. This is a review article in the American Journal of Public Health.

[134:08] So they just reviewed 4 to 50 studies, about those kind of covering the space of TC concentration duration use. So again, I thought it was actually topical both to recent speaker, and obviously to our boards, jurisdiction. Happy to get you a PDF. You can't get this PDF for whatever reason. What page does the link up for that on? Because I did not. 62. 62, yep. Oh, they're okay. All right. And it's essentially the findings of. Committee or whatever it was called the meta-analysis.

[135:02] Yes, this is like a review of like the literature on a concentrates and effects. It's high concentration. Should be able to access it because At least I don't know. Right, Macintosh, she came up very easily, but. Anybody have any problem? I was able to as well. And we're okay with that. Okay. I can't think of anything else. Motion to adjourn. Oh, by the way, there's a I mean a new city council on Thursday. Not sure how that affects any of us, but oh, Kristen or Christine? Did you get a, I don't remember you mentioning what the process will be for filling the vacancy. Okay.

[136:00] Sorry, Tom, are you talking about the? Cloud vacancy. Yeah. So I believe there was some information provided in our previous packet. Kristen T can probably speak to that as far as the timeline goes. But essentially they will open up an application window. Any, eligible applicants will go through an interview process. And then they're appointed by City Council. Yes, thank you, Kristen. We did make a, brief discussion item of this at last month's meeting. There is not a separate recruitment for this vacancy due to the timing of the new, of the recruitment cycle. So there will not be. I think There was one or more applicants so far. And our relative. I thought when we had our planning meeting that.

[137:00] There's a potential timeline. And that potential timeline is the same one that, licensing manager Changeres just provided. There's not a going to be a separate recruitment for the vacancy. It will be folded into the same recruitment process when they open up for boards and commissions. Because there was just the November and December meetings and then of course with the January so I mean they're folding it into the same was their choice. We didn't have any applicants waiting in the wings if that's what I thought I heard you say. Something similar to. Hmm. I guess I thought I overheard something about. At least one if not more than one. Actually We've had a couple of individuals reach out to us who are interested in applying, but they haven't actually had the opportunity to submit their applications yet.

[138:05] Thanks. Okay, alright. So may I make a motion to return? Ryan, options to adjourn. I'll second. Second on that. Any opposed or abstaining? Okay, well thank you all. Happy holidays and. See you next year. Good afternoon. And stuff. Sorry, but happy holidays. Thank you, Stef. Thanks everybody. Thanks everybody. Thank you. Thanks to Andy. Thanks, Andy, and thanks everyone else too. All. Aye