Judge denies O’Brien appeal in Cannabis Control Commission case

Suspended Cannabis Control Commission Chair Shannon O’Brien and her lawyer, Max Stern, spoke with reporters after a Dec. 14, 2023 hearing in Suffolk County Superior Court.

Suspended Cannabis Control Commission Chair Shannon O’Brien and her lawyer, Max Stern, spoke with reporters after a Dec. 14, 2023 hearing in Suffolk County Superior Court. STATE HOUSE NEWS SERVICE

By COLIN A. YOUNG

State House News Service

Published: 02-08-2024 5:00 PM

Modified: 02-13-2024 2:21 PM


BOSTON — An Appeals Court judge on Tuesday rejected suspended Cannabis Control Commission Chair Shannon O’Brien’s petition, once again clearing the way for Treasurer Deborah Goldberg to schedule a meeting that could lead to O’Brien’s firing.

Superior Court Judge Debra Squires-Lee in December rejected process guardrails that O’Brien sought and ruled that Goldberg could consider O’Brien’s firing under certain circumstances. O’Brien filed a petition last month seeking to have an Appeals Court judge vacate the lower court decision, and issue a new order meeting O’Brien’s demands.

Appeals Court Judge Rachel Hershfang said in an order late Tuesday that the arguments O’Brien presented in her appeal do not meet the “high standard” necessary to overturn a Superior Court ruling.

“My review of the record reveals no error of law or abuse of discretion in the motion judge’s ruling that the Supreme Judicial Court’s various decisions in the Levy cases govern the analysis of the process due to the plaintiff ... and that the procedural protections described in the revised protocol are adequate to satisfy those requirements,” Hershfang wrote.

Joe Baerlein, a spokesperson for O’Brien, said Tuesday night that O’Brien “looks forward to the truth coming out of this hearing process.”

“The legal efforts to date have been about ensuring that Chair O’Brien has the opportunity for an open and impartial hearing and an opportunity to defend her reputation,” Baerlein said.

Article continues after...

Yesterday's Most Read Articles

Athol man faces drug, gun charges
Sleep in Heavenly Peace to hold charity drive in Orange
Officials discuss signage at Royalston Town Hall
North Quabbin Notes, Feb. 28
Proposal for electric vehicles for Athol departments will need revisions
Massachusetts ratepayers fed up with high energy costs

Under the “protocol” for the eventual O’Brien-Goldberg meeting, which Goldberg’s office proposed and the Superior Court judge blessed, the meeting that could result in O’Brien’s firing cannot take place until at least 15 business days after a second investigatory report, this one related to O’Brien’s conduct toward former CCC Executive Director Shawn Collins, is shared with O’Brien’s side along with an updated rationale for her suspension and potential termination. That exchange had not happened as of Tuesday night.

“We are grateful that the Appeals Court has made a decision that allows the process to go forward,” said Andrew Napolitano, a spokesperson for Goldberg.

Goldberg suspended O’Brien, a former state treasurer herself and the Democratic Party’s 2002 nominee for governor, with pay in September after having appointed her to chair the CCC a year prior. Goldberg has given two justifications for O’Brien’s suspension and possible firing: that she is alleged to have made racially insensitive remarks and that she mistreated Collins, a former Goldberg deputy. O’Brien has denied the allegations against her.

During O’Brien’s bumpy year as chair, the CCC also wrestled with thorny and awkward issues surrounding O’Brien and her one-time ownership stake in a cultivation company Greenfield Greenery LLC that had an application before the CCC for an outdoor cultivation site on Leyden Road in Greenfield. O’Brien was later cleared of any wrongdoing.

Similar to Superior Court Judge Debra Squires-Lee, the Appeals Court judge on Tuesday suggested that O’Brien’s next course of legal action may be to contest the validity of the rationale Goldberg relies on if she does fire O’Brien after the eventual meeting takes place. Squires-Lee wrote in December that it would be premature for the court to resolve whether the basis for removal satisfies the statute “as the treasurer has yet to take final action.”

“I echo the conclusion of the Superior Court judge,” Hershfang wrote Tuesday, “following Levy I, that consideration of that issue would be premature.”