Lawmakers are now asking industry experts how the CCC’s structure and operations could be improved to help the nascent sector grow – questions that could ultimately lead them to overhaul the five-commissioner body and its basic employees.

Here’s what you need to know.

Licensees have been calling the CCC for a long time slow and unresponsiveeven as marijuana prices fall and more and more cannabis businesses are failing. Business owners looking to overcome regulatory hurdles, including vertical integration requirements for the medical marijuana industry and dispensary license cap — made so little progress with the commission that they repeatedly turned to the Legislature for help. And the problems can persist for years: Licensees and the CCC-affiliated Cannabis Advisory Council reported violations of cannabis testing requirements as early as three years ago, and yet moldy grass always reaches the shelves.

“Is this lack of action because of the staff? Are they distracted by vacancies? asked a member of the Cannabis Advisory Council, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation from the CCC. “Is it because of the leaders?

The agency recorded unprecedented turnover this year, with suspension of two directors, the resignation of two othersand the absence of his research leaderwho took extended sick leave after publicly speaking out against her superiors on the commission. But some licensees said their frustrations predated the vacancies and that the overcautious commission often over-regulated businesses or inspected them unfairly.

As Springfield dispensary owner Payton Shubrick told the Globe in August: “Where is the responsibility?

The commission is headed by an executive director and five appointed commissioners, one of whom chairs. The director is responsible for administering the state’s marijuana regulations, while the day-to-day operations of the agency fall to the commissioners, who bring various areas of expertise to their work.

But criticism, particularly from the state Inspector General Jeff Shapirosaid the delineation of responsibilities between the commissioners, president and executive director is confusing and leaves a void.

Currently, only three commissioners – Bruce Stebbins, Nurys Camargo and Kimberly Roy – are active, meaning a single “no” vote (or absence of a commissioner) can bring activities to a halt. Former president Shannon O’Brien was fired last month, amid allegations of inappropriate workplace behavior and “racial insensitivity,” which she plans to challenge in an upcoming lawsuit . The fifth commissioner, Ava Callendar Concepcion, is on sick leave during her pregnancy.

This led to chaos in Worcester. The three commissioners argued publicly over who would take on the role of chairman before handing it to Stebbins. And interim executive director Debbie Hilton Creek also served as human resources director responsible for hiring a permanent replacement until Monday, when Lakeman was elected.

Much anger has also been directed at the three elected officials who appoint the commission: Treasurer Deb Goldberg, Gov. Maura Healey and Attorney General Andrea Campbell. Each selects a commissioner and advisory board members and votes jointly on the selection of the two remaining commissioners. It is intended to help the agency operate outside the jurisdiction of the Legislature or other state department.

But that structure comes with its own challenges, said Jim Smith, a cannabis lawyer with Smith, Costello & Crawford. “No one owns it.”

Now, insiders expect some of the heat from the hearings to fall on Goldberg, as the state treasurer chooses the commission’s chairman. After hiring, then ousting, O’Brien, his relationships with the agency’s superiors are called into question.

In a statement, Campbell said it is “absolutely clear that the Cannabis Control Commission needs to be reformed and restructured. Like any governing body, it requires permanent leadership and clearly defined roles and responsibilities to function.

Healey said she “stands ready to work with them and with her fellow appointing authorities on the path forward” for the agency.

The Department of Public Health first regulated the medical industry before the 2016 vote that legalized recreational cannabis in Massachusetts. The measure before voters would have created an independent agency made up of three people appointed by the treasurer. But the Legislature later amended the commission to include five commissioners, some of whom are appointed by the governor and attorney general.

In the past, many commissioners have left the agency before their five-year terms expired, including the unexpected departure of its inaugural president, Steve Hoffman.

Shaleen Title, a former commissioner who co-wrote the 2016 ballot text, said it’s reasonable to revisit the agency’s structure as the cannabis industry — and the science surrounding it — evolves. More Massachusetts residents are using cannabis today than a decade ago, and the federal government is considering reclassifying marijuana as a safer, less addictive class of drugs, a potential step toward federal legalization.

“The CCC has grown dramatically in ways, I think, that neither the legislators nor the commissioners could have predicted,” Title said. “It’s time to hear about it now.”

Yes and no. Complaints about lax testing regulations and onerous requirements for dispensary owners are widespread in states that have legalized cannabis, and Massachusetts was among the first to create an independent regulatory body, which few others have States have since imitated. But there are reasons why Massachusetts is falling behind.

The Colorado Legislature passes a bill every year or so with “tiny tweaks” to cannabis regulations, and Maine offers licensees the opportunity to submit regulatory suggestions directly to the responsible agency. In Massachusetts, laws often take years to change. For example, the CCC decided to remove the two-driver rule for delivery companies in December, but has not yet made this decision official.

Ryan Dominguez, executive director of the Massachusetts Cannabis Coalition, said the CCC is “particularly slow” to do the same, regardless of how it is created. The marijuana trade organization has not taken an official position on whether the agency needs to be restructured, but worries that the focus on who controls what could take away from legislative priorities.

“There are a lot of things that can be taken in terms of oxygen in the room in terms of governance structure,” Dominguez said. “What needs to go hand in hand with that are radical changes to the program itself.”

And Massachusetts’ key promise – social equity – has not always come to fruition. The state has long been seen as a leader, the first to create a formal equity program under legalization. But over the past six years, the state has been slow to distribute money from the Social Equity Trust Fund and recently suspended programming for the new social equity cohort for budgetary reasons.

“Positioning and timing are key in this market. At this point, knowing that we haven’t created an industry that hits the diversity goals that we set for the industry, how can we try to balance that and provide opportunities for people? asked Amanda Rossitano, a member of the Cannabis Advisory Council who previously worked for NETA, the state’s first dispensary. “The CCC is the key to that.”

Diti Kohli can be contacted at [email protected]. Follow her @ditikohli_.