California auditor probes favoritism, corruption in marijuana permitting

In a new report, California’s state auditor informed lawmakers that municipal and county marijuana permitting processes could be greatly improved to address systemic problems of favoritism and corruption that have become almost commonplace in recent years.

“In general, we determined that cities and counties (local jurisdictions) could improve their cannabis‑permitting processes to increase public confidence and mitigate the risks of corruption,” State Auditor Grant Parks wrote in the 62-page report, which was released March 28 to the Joint Legislative Audit Committee.

Parks wrote that he analyzed the cannabis permitting processes in four cities and two counties:

Those six localities, Parks reported, “did not always include several best practices in their permitting policies that help to ensure fairness and prevent conflicts of interest, abuse, and favoritism.”

“Only two of the local jurisdictions we reviewed used blind scoring of applications, wherein the identities of the applicants are kept from those reviewing and scoring applications, and four of the local jurisdictions we reviewed did not require that all individuals involved in reviewing applications agree to impartiality statements,” Parks wrote.

“My office also found that all six of the local jurisdictions we reviewed were inconsistent in following key steps that their permitting policies required.”

None of the six, Parks found, followed their own procedures and policies when awarding marijuana business permits, and none “took reasonable steps” to ensure that the processes were fair and impartial.

The auditor’s office also issued several policy recommendations for cities, counties, and the state to consider in future cannabis permitting to avoid such conflicts.

Those recommendations include: