Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Olcc Commission Cannabis License topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House committee hears industry push and OLCC opposition to requiring an OLCC commissioner hold a cannabis license
Summary
At a May 5 public hearing, cannabis industry representatives urged passage of Senate Bill 557 to require one Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission commissioner to be a licensed cannabis operator; OLCC staff warned the change could erode public trust and create conflicts of interest. The committee held the hearing and did not vote.
The House Committee on Economic Development, Small Business and Trade met May 5 for a public hearing on Senate Bill 557, which would require one of the nine members of the Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission to hold a cannabis license. Industry representatives told the committee the change would add needed operational expertise to the commission; OLCC staff argued it would undermine the commission’s independence and public trust.
Supporters told the committee that a commissioner with industry experience would help the OLCC make more informed, practical regulatory decisions. Amanda Metzler, owner of Bixby Farms, said the commission’s name itself implies cannabis expertise is appropriate: “After all, the name is the Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission,” she told the committee. Mike Gatlin, chief public affairs officer for Nectar and a founding board member of the Cannabis Industry Alliance of Oregon, cited the long-standing requirement that an alcohol licensee serve on the commission and argued the same logic applies to cannabis, noting past emergency OLCC actions during COVID-19 that benefited from industry perspective.
The Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission presented its opposition through Rosie Shatkin, OLCC legislative director. Shatkin told the committee the bill risks “eroding the public trust and compromising the Commission’s independence,” and she cited recent enforcement activity and federal scrutiny as reasons for caution. She told lawmakers that OLCC compliance staff had reported seven warrants issued against licensees for illegal diversion and that 50–70 cases were under review, and she emphasized that cannabis remains illegal under federal law.
Committee members pressed both sides on how appointments are vetted, whether a licensee commissioner would routinely need to recuse themselves, and how the change might affect enforcement and public perception. Industry witnesses countered that careful vetting by the governor and Senate confirmation would screen out bad actors. Jesse Bonacue, executive director of the Cannabis Industry Alliance of Oregon, said the industry’s policy committee spent months developing proposals and that “having an experienced voice … is really key.” He also told the committee LaModa-related misconduct should not be used to disqualify the broader industry: that company, he said, was not a member of the trade association and “that’s the real life lived experience of real cannabis people.”
No vote was taken at the hearing. Chair Winn closed the public hearing after extended questioning and invited OLCC and industry representatives to meet with committee members to try to resolve concerns and potential compromises.
The committee’s next steps were not decided at the hearing; the bill may be amended or receive further committee work before any floor action.
