Pubdate: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 Source: Milford Daily News, The (MA) Copyright: 2014 The Milford Daily News Contact: http://www.milforddailynews.com Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2990 DPH MARIJUANA LICENSING PROCESS BACK ON TRACK The Department of Public Health's recent announcement that 11 of the 20 medical marijuana dispensary applicants have moved forward in the process and that nine were rejected is welcome. The DPH this week also outlined a process for a second round of applications for licenses in counties that have yet to land a dispensary. The announcements indicate the DPH licensing process is at last on track. We're particularly struck with Karen van Unen, the newly installed executive director of the medical marijuana program, and her frank assessment of those applicants that were not selected. Each letter to the rejected applicants details the flaws in the initial approval phase and other issues van Unen herself uncovered. Those letters serve as evidence of van Unen's keen understanding of the concerns raised by critics of the process, and her commitment to hold DPH to higher standard. Equally impressive is that van Unen chose to share on DPH's website the full contents of each letter. For a process that's been sorely lacking in transparency, we're pleased to see that there's a renewed commitment to it at the state agency. Openness benefits not just the public's interest, but the agency's. Reading through the letters, which the public may do by visiting the DPH website, it's clear that Van Unen took the time to read each application, investigate external criticism and then address those concerns and her own with each applicant. In other words, it was the thorough vetting process the public deserves. As an example, in her four-page rejection letter to Medical Marijuana of Massachusetts, a company led by former U.S. Rep. William Delahunt, van Unen notes that Delahunt and his MMM colleagues structured the technically nonprofit company to direct considerable sums of money to their for-profit management company, "Triple M," by "... collecting 25 percent of gross revenues for services that are being primarily rendered by MMMs own management team." The totals, according to Mass Medical's own projections, would have been $10.6 million in the first three years. Some of the criticism of the DPH licensing process has come from predictable sources: Political leaders and media outlets opposed to medical marijuana from the beginning, not-in-my-backyard types fighting a particular proposal, or applicants whose proposals were rejected. That's all the more reason why DPH should have been scrupulously transparent from the start. It wasn't, and responding to the uproar caused needless delays and a loss of public trust. We're hopeful that the DPH now has the right organizational structure, the right people and the right priorities to manage what was always sure to be a complicated process, and that the medical marijuana approved by voters and sorely needed by long-suffering patients will soon be available.