Transparency, accountability and timetables: Senator Jeremy Cooney on his priorities for NY cannabis

NY Cannabis Insider is hosting a full-day conference at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Albany on May 18. Buy tickets here.

New York State Senator Jeremy Cooney has been among a handful of politicians taking an active and vocal role in the state’s legal cannabis industry. Cooney co-sponsored the Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act and was named co-chair of the Marijuana Task Force for the Black, Puerto Rican, Hispanic & Asian Legislative Caucus. He has also introduced more than a dozen cannabis-related bills since 2022.

And on April 20, Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins named Cooney as the chairman of a new Senate Subcommittee on Cannabis.

NY Cannabis Insider spoke with the senator on Tuesday about his new appointment, and what he hopes to do with the new subcommittee.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Walk me through how this subcommittee was created: where did the idea come from, when did it start?

I give a lot of credit to NYS Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins for recognizing that cannabis didn’t really have a clean fit among the existing standing committees in the Senate.

Right now, because of the leadership of Senator Liz Krueger, a lot of the cannabis legislation is ending up in Finance, which, of course, she chairs. But Liz Krueger – she was an incredible leader for the MRTA and is interested in cannabis, but that’s not her passion.

All the policies that will help stand up the adult-use market require some intentional and dedicated thinking. So the majority leader wisely decided to create a subcommittee.

But the subcommittee is a little bit strange, because it’s not a subcommittee, really. When you think of a subcommittee, you think there’s a master committee or a standing committee over it. That’s not the case here.

If you looked at an org chart, this would kind of be off to the side, because we know that cannabis touches a lot of different standing committees: sometimes it goes before the Agriculture Committee, sometimes it goes before the Government Operations and Oversight Committees, sometimes it goes before Finance. But we want it in one place, with a diverse group of senators, to be able to tackle legislation either as it’s written or proposed or comes down from the governor’s office.

How long ago did this idea come about?

Certainly within this legislative session. We recognized that as we stand up the legal market, there’s going to be more cannabis legislation. This is something that I had talked about with Senator Diane Savino prior to her leaving last year. I’ve obviously talked to Senator Krueger about it. But, there needs to be something more here.

Now, there isn’t an equivalent on the Assembly side, so we didn’t want to create a whole standing committee that didn’t have something corresponding on the other side – that’s another reason for the subcommittee status. But I think, ultimately, we’ll accomplish our goal, which is giving some thought leadership to the complex nature of cannabis, both on the adult-use side as well as the medicinal side. As well as something I know that you feel very passionate about, and I do, too, which is the need for oversight of the Office of Cannabis Management.

Talk more about that – oversight

Every committee has oversight over some committee: I chair the Senate Standing Committee on Procurement and Contracts, and we have oversight over the Office of General Services, which a lot of the procurement policy and contracts go through.

NYS Senator Michelle Hinchey chairs the Standing Committee on Agriculture, and all the Department of Agriculture goes to her. Where does OCM fit? Nowhere. It’s kind of tucked into government oversight and operations, because that’s where the State Liquor Authority is, but it’s too big for that. Especially now in its infancy, it needs a lot more active monitoring and partnership than it can get in a traditional way.

That makes a lot of sense. Because if not this subcommittee, there’s no oversight.

There’s zero oversight. And that’s not good for New Yorkers. And honestly, it’s not good for the agency. They should be wanting to get attention, right? I mean, they can go to the governor’s office and work within their internal processes, but when they need more resources or when they need changes in the law, they should have a relationship with the legislature in a formal capacity so that they can get what they need to be successful.

How many other members will be on the subcommittee?

I’m not trying to be clandestine here, but it’s really the majority leader’s announcement to make, not mine. But it’s gonna be a small group – I would say under 10. And the idea would be to have it be a productive group where we’re not just meeting for meetings sake, we’re going to be reviewing legislation that comes out – not only for the remaining six weeks of this legislative session, but also for the next.

This may show my ignorance of subcommittee politics, but will it be all Democrats on the subcommittee, or will there also be Republicans?

That’s actually not a bad question. It doesn’t have to be. A lot of times, for subcommittees, it usually is majority members only because there are more of us than there are of minority members. And quite frankly, to be honest with you, there are not too many minority members in the Senate who are supportive of the cannabis industry. They don’t support – they have opinions – but they didn’t vote for the MRTA. And they don’t support or believe that there shouldn’t be a robust cannabis marketplace.

Would there be a Republican asking questions and pushing back? That’s fair. That’s the role of the minority party member. But would they want to take the next step, which is to actually write laws that would be helpful to making a more robust and socially equitable and inclusive marketplace? Or are they just trying to manage and scale back the industry?

As far as resources, what does a committee like this typically have in terms of a budget or number of staffers to help?

That’s the primary difference between the standing committees, like the Procurement and Contracts committees, and a subcommittee.

The standing committees come with a staff member. There’s money in our budget to have someone become the committee clerk or the committee director, if you’re a large committee, like education. But that doesn’t happen at the subcommittee level. So, it’s my existing staff and others, like a legislative director for Senator so-and-so would provide the support, as well as our incredible central staff.

Can you give me an example of what this subcommittee can do to actually affect change within the scope of its powers?

So the committee can make either recommendations of a package of bills or individual bills for passage. And just like other committees, if a bill gets passed out of, say, agriculture, and there’s a good number of votes for it, then I think the conference as a whole – I wouldn’t say always – but shows deference to that committee and moves that bill and it will likely pass on the floor.

So, the power of this committee is that if there are bills that come through it, they are more likely to go through a kind of review process. This subcommittee will have opportunities for feedback, whether it’s an advocacy group or an industry-related group coming before this committee.

Also, we could have hearings, where we get feedback or put things related to cannabis on the legislative record – which I know would be interesting to you, Brad – where there’s actually some accountability.

Just like in a court case: ‘You said, agency, that you were going to do X, Y, or Z by this day – where are we on this?’ So it’s not conjecture over email or at a casual summit. Rather, it is something more formalized as part of the relationship to a government entity sharing with the public accountability. So that’s where I think the subcommittee can really spread its wings.

What are your top three priorities? I read that number one was combating the illicit market?

Actually, enforcement against the illicit market is not my top priority. My top priority is transparency and timetables.

The number one thing I hear – not just from people who are looking to apply for licenses – is that it’s a black hole: ‘We don’t know what’s going on, we can’t do any sort of planning, we don’t have any assurances that we’re being heard, we send information and we never hear any feedback.’

Plus, the only types of information that members of the media or constituency groups hear are usually in comments from OCM leaders at non-government functions.

Instagram channels …

Yeah, like, ‘this person said this at a meeting and it was taped, and it was played on Instagram,’ or ‘this person was at On the Revel and they said this.’

That shouldn’t – that’s not how we would do any other business in government.

Can you imagine if the State Liquor Authority was like, ‘Oh, we’re going to turn our heads the other way for applications that have to do with premises.’ What? That would never happen.

That same level of professionalism and transparency must be incorporated as we stand up the adult-use market under OCM. This is not a ‘OCM is doing a bad job’ comment. Rather, it’s just good government.

And the timetable is just as important for me. I’m so frustrated. Maybe I’m a little biased in Rochester, because we’re still under the injunction, but our people just have no idea of what’s coming, and when it’s coming. And they’re spending money. They’ve hired lawyers and consultants, and some of them have contracted with real estate. And yet, there’s no assurance when these full license applications will even come out.

We all have our predictions and guesses, but it doesn’t need to be that way. It’s OK for us to say, ‘Here’s a timetable, and we can’t say that we’re going to meet it, but this is something that you can plan on. And if we can’t make it, we’ll tell you why, and we’ll give you another day.’

It’s just basic. So transparency and timetables are my priority.

And a third one would be equity. One of my big concerns right now is that the conversation around cultivation is once again excluding the populations of New Yorkers that we wanted to prioritize, which are the most negatively impacted populations, or Black and brown populations in communities in New York. And yet, we are finding and proposing solutions for cultivation now that kind of sidestep our equity goals. That’s a big concern for me.

So, transparency, timetables and equity.

I can’t let you leave without asking – what about DASNY?

That’s a great question. I did have a meeting with Reuben McDaniel. It was a good conversation. I do think that DASNY’s going to play a larger, maybe an outsized role, not only in the CAURD program, but in the future standing-up of the market. So they need to be included.

They’re a public authority so they’re a little bit different than an agency. They have that autonomous nature. So, it’s not necessarily the same relationship between a legislative body and an executive commissioner or executive director like Chris Alexander. The difference with Reuben is that there needs to be that same level of transparency there. But it’s not the same relationship, because they are meant to be independent.

But, there’s no reason why DASNY couldn’t come to a hearing and testify. And they would be on the legislative record.

No Byline Policy

Editorial Guidelines

Corrections Policy

Source