Another “tweak” that needs to be made in the law passed by Question 4 is bringing the Cannabis Advisory Board up to the same level of ethical behavior that is required even for volunteer members of town committees. Section 77, Section (a) of the new law states, in part, “Members of the board shall not be state employees for purposes of chapter 268A of the General Laws by virtue of their service on the advisory board.” Chapter 268A, “Conduct of Public Officials and Employees” is otherwise known as the Ethics Law, and covers corruption, financial conflicts of interest (and their disclosure), and related matters. I, for one, see no reason why the Cannabis Advisory Board should be exempt from this chapter, and further, am forced to question the good faith of the interests who caused it to be included. More scrutiny is needed.
Thomas Hutcheson
Greenfield