Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Ccrs Traceability Petitions topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

LCB denies five petitions from Moses Lake retailer seeking emergency CCRS and traceability rules

Liquor and Cannabis Board · June 3, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Liquor and Cannabis Board unanimously denied five petitions filed by Amy Deluge, owner of The Greenseed, that sought emergency or declaratory rule changes addressing limitations in the Cannabis Central Reporting System (CCRS), concluding rulemaking is not the appropriate mechanism for software fixes.

The Liquor and Cannabis Board on June 3 denied five related petitions from Amy Deluge, owner of The Greenseed, that sought emergency rulemaking, declaratory statements, or third-party review to address alleged deficiencies in the Cannabis Central Reporting System (CCRS) and traceability rules.

Jeff, speaking for the Director's Office, summarized the petitions and recommended denial for each. He told the board the LCB lacks statutory authority to create a new external investigative agency and that CCRS is a reporting system whose software limitations are not remedied through administrative rulemaking. "For these reasons, the Director's Office recommends denial of the petition," Jeff said. The board moved and voted to deny each petition; votes were recorded as unanimous on each item.

Petitions cited reports by the Washington State Auditor's Office and JLARC describing CCRS limitations and requested changes including formal declaratory statements about CCRS's role, emergency alignment with federal traceability expectations, and operational verification standards to prevent diversion. The Director's Office pointed to existing adjudicative processes (LCB hearing examiner, Office of Administrative Hearings, and Superior Court) and described software fixes and system replacement as matters requiring legislative funding and IT work rather than rulemaking.

Board members framed the votes as procedural denials of the specific rulemaking requests rather than judgments on the underlying technical concerns; the Director's Office and staff said they will continue to monitor and work on IT improvements. The board recorded motions to accept the Director's recommendation to deny petitions 1–5 and each passed on recorded votes.