Meeting colors

OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD

Record of Proceedings

Bourne Select Board Workshop on Social Equity Host Community Agreement, December 17, 2025

Select Board — Wednesday, December 17, 2025

BodyBourne, Massachusetts

SessionSelect Board

DateWednesday, December 17, 2025

StatusFILED

Video Record

0:00 / 46:47

Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it

2:33

Okay, meaning two PM.

2:35

Call this meeting to order.

2:37

Uh December 17th, 2025.

2:39

Note this meeting is being televised, streamed, and recorded by Bourne TV.

2:44

If anyone in the audience is recording or videotaping, they need to acknowledge such at this time.

2:53

Please refrain from using flash photography.

2:56

If anyone from the public wishes to access the meeting, they can do so by calling the following conference line.

3:08

Zoom meeting ID eight five zero one two eight seven two nine one nine password born all cats.

3:18

The Zoom chat will not be monitored.

3:20

Participants who wish to speak must raise the hand icon until the chair asks them to unmute.

3:27

All items within the meeting agenda are subject to deliberation and votes.

3:32

And first we'll start with a moment of silence for our troops and our public safety personnel.

3:46

It's over here now.

4:12

So first we'll just start for public comments on non-agenda items.

4:31

Do we have anyone online or here for public comment on non-agenda items?

4:39

Okay, hearing none.

4:40

Um so I guess we'll move on.

4:42

Uh so today we're here for our select board workshop and discussion.

4:46

Um trying to find a resolution to our outstanding social equity host community agreement and our next actions.

5:00

Um I guess we have um yeah, I don't know who wants to start first.

5:07

Anyone I can start with maybe a non-deliverative idea.

5:14

That would be right, thank you.

5:15

Um I just wanted to let everybody know that we received a courtesy copy of a lawsuit that's been filed um related to this.

5:22

I don't really want to discuss it anymore because it's not really that relevant to what you're deciding today.

5:29

I just wanted to notify you of that.

5:31

It's like any other litigation.

5:33

Um, you know, people can exercise their rights, that's fine.

5:37

We make our decisions based on the criteria and our matrix, not based on either threats to sue, and we don't hold it against somebody if they're exercise their right to file a lawsuit either.

5:47

So it's really just informational.

5:50

And uh, you know, I'd suggest we can take that up in executive session to the extent that we need to in a future date.

5:57

Okay.

5:59

So I mean, we're here today because we had um gone through our scoring scoring process, and um three of five of our candidates of our sorry, of our select board at the time had um issued, had decided that they were going to choose um NLM cannabis.

6:19

I mean, I'm sorry, born cannabis, sorry, and um from that process, we moved forward, and some things had changed in the the decision making, and there was some other issues that came up.

6:30

So here we are today now trying to decide um whether our scoring was fair, if we want to go back and start over with the scoring, or if we are just going to make a decision today and figure out where to go.

6:43

So I guess I'm gonna go around and let the select board um share any thoughts, comments, or any other thoughts regarding this thoughts on it.

6:56

Well, I can start.

6:58

I think um I mean for me this all started to um become a concern when the narrative was being discussed, and um there were a lot of comments made by board members that I think in since then also past meetings about the process not being fair, not being equitable, um, didn't like the scoring.

7:29

Um at that point we didn't have a chance to do any further deliberations or any further um investigations, relying heavily on the scoring, which we didn't necessarily have to.

7:42

Um there have been a lot of communications, emails going back and forth, as we just heard, you know, push back.

7:49

Um I've heard from one of the applicants relentlessly, which was more aggravating than anything, I think, and just made it all um unsettling to me.

8:05

And I I think it would be difficult to go back and reboot the whole process.

8:13

Um we made decisions, we had round two, we decided on our matrix, we decided on how we were gonna proceed, and taking taking a step back, possibly rebooting deliberations.

8:28

I would feel better if everything more transparent and we did have time for public comments and from everyone.

8:39

I want to hear from people in Bourne as well, and I feel the best way to facilitate that would be to do um possible deliberations and public comments in an evening meeting so people that are working can attend as well.

8:54

Um if we get more feedback that would sway any board members who have also said in the past they you know wish they could change their scores.

9:09

Um if they so choose, they have an opportunity, and if not, we'll make the best next steps and do our best to agree on a narrative that we're all happy with and continue with the process.

9:27

Okay.

9:32

Um our last conversations and discussions at our last meeting, that um point that I don't know if it was Brian that made it or you about um deliberating more and being able to go back and reboot deliberations as opposed to rebooting the entire process again.

10:00

Um third time's a charm, right?

10:03

We I I think that we had some hiccups that came to realization through this process, which is what the process is supposed to do, right?

10:19

We're supposed to do diligence to it.

10:21

We're supposed to not all just agree to agree and and keep and and just they were real concerns through this process as we navigated it that that changed our minds.

10:35

Um I think that going back to deliberations, going back to not just looking at a score and trying to and having that real conversation as to for each for everyone to really truly have that deliberations about you scored it this way, you know, let's have a conversation about why um I see it this way, you see it this way.

11:08

None of that happened, and I think that's a real important step that we missed.

11:16

Yeah, so I think there's value in re-deliberating.

11:23

Why don't we do that?

11:26

I mean, why don't why doesn't everyone explain what their decision was?

11:32

Um one thing that I'm a little bit concerned about is new information.

11:36

Like one a couple of the letters that we've gotten and I town council should you know, if we go and deliberate now and it's outside the information we originally had and we change our mind because it's outside the town, is that becoming problematic?

11:53

Does that become problematic because does it become arbitrary and capricious?

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting

Cannabis Regulation██████████████████████████████████████38%

Public Engagement████████████████████████████████32%

Procedural██████████████████████████████30%

Summary of Proceedings

Bourne Select Board Workshop on Social Equity Host Community Agreement — December 17, 2025

The Bourne Select Board met on December 17, 2025, in a televised workshop to discuss the outstanding social equity host community agreement (HCA). No members of the public spoke during the non-agenda public comment period. The board considered whether its prior scoring process was fair, whether to re-deliberate the HCA award, and how to finalize a narrative describing its original decision.

Procedural Notes

A courtesy copy of a lawsuit related to the HCA matter had been received. One participant said it was informational only, that decisions should be made on the town's criteria and scoring matrix rather than litigation threats, and that any needed discussion could take place in executive session.
The process was described as a contractual host community agreement rather than a license issuance, so the process is somewhat looser; any new information the board considers should be disclosed to the full board and placed on the record.

Public Comments & Testimony

No public comments were offered for non-agenda items; no members of the public spoke during this portion.

Discussion Items

The opening speaker recounted that three of the five board members had originally chosen Bourne Cannabis through the scoring process, but that circumstances had changed and the board was now deciding whether the scoring was fair, whether to restart, or whether to make a new decision.
Board member Gene said she had concerns about fairness and transparency, had heard from one applicant relentlessly, and felt the board had not truly deliberated over individual scores. She proposed an evening meeting with public comment so working residents could attend, and asked that all outside correspondence be disclosed.
Peter said he would take part in additional evaluation and explain his reasoning more clearly if that was the majority's wish, but he stood by his score and his previous detailed explanation.
Another board member said her choice was based on a review of the documents, location, and qualifications, and her vote had not changed.
Gene raised a site-plan concern about NLM's application: the proposed lot appeared to be split between the town's MOD map and non-MOD area, the site plan was difficult to read, and a residence sat on the same lot; she also questioned the amount of parking and called the nearby traffic circle a failed intersection with summer backups.
A board member who lived on Everett Road for 20 years disagreed, saying the lot has a large parking area, the residence is set far back, and the location was good because the traffic backup could make it convenient for customers to pull in.
One board member pushed back on the need for more public input, noting that multiple prior meetings on the topic had drawn zero public attendees and that Cape Way Cannabis's community outreach also drew no one.
The board discussed two narrative drafts prepared by Marlene and considered at meetings around November 4 and November 18, 2025. The first draft was revised to change language from "did not" to "was less" in some findings, but the second draft was not accepted because Gene raised concerns about candidate outreach to individual board members and fairness.
A letter from Bourne Cannabis dated November 27, 2025, sent to the select board and copied to Brian, had not been read into the record or included in a meeting packet; board members agreed to forward any process-related correspondence to Brian for circulation.

Key Outcomes

No vote was taken to restart the scoring, change the HCA award, or adopt the narrative.
The board scheduled a final HCA discussion and vote for January 13, 2026, at 6 p.m., including review of the narrative.
Board members were asked to come prepared with written, specific comments on the narrative and their reasons, and to send any outside correspondence to Brian so all members could make decisions from the same record.
Marlene will provide the latest draft narrative in Word format for board members to edit.
The board voted 5-0 to adjourn.

Meeting Transcript

Okay, meaning two PM. Call this meeting to order. Uh December 17th, 2025. Note this meeting is being televised, streamed, and recorded by Bourne TV. If anyone in the audience is recording or videotaping, they need to acknowledge such at this time. Please refrain from using flash photography. If anyone from the public wishes to access the meeting, they can do so by calling the following conference line. Zoom meeting ID eight five zero one two eight seven two nine one nine password born all cats. The Zoom chat will not be monitored. Participants who wish to speak must raise the hand icon until the chair asks them to unmute. All items within the meeting agenda are subject to deliberation and votes. And first we'll start with a moment of silence for our troops and our public safety personnel. It's over here now. So first we'll just start for public comments on non-agenda items. Do we have anyone online or here for public comment on non-agenda items? Okay, hearing none. Um so I guess we'll move on. Uh so today we're here for our select board workshop and discussion. Um trying to find a resolution to our outstanding social equity host community agreement and our next actions. Um I guess we have um yeah, I don't know who wants to start first. Anyone I can start with maybe a non-deliverative idea. That would be right, thank you. Um I just wanted to let everybody know that we received a courtesy copy of a lawsuit that's been filed um related to this. I don't really want to discuss it anymore because it's not really that relevant to what you're deciding today. I just wanted to notify you of that. It's like any other litigation. Um, you know, people can exercise their rights, that's fine. We make our decisions based on the criteria and our matrix, not based on either threats to sue, and we don't hold it against somebody if they're exercise their right to file a lawsuit either. So it's really just informational. And uh, you know, I'd suggest we can take that up in executive session to the extent that we need to in a future date. Okay. So I mean, we're here today because we had um gone through our scoring scoring process, and um three of five of our candidates of our sorry, of our select board at the time had um issued, had decided that they were going to choose um NLM cannabis. I mean, I'm sorry, born cannabis, sorry, and um from that process, we moved forward, and some things had changed in the the decision making, and there was some other issues that came up. So here we are today now trying to decide um whether our scoring was fair, if we want to go back and start over with the scoring, or if we are just going to make a decision today and figure out where to go. So I guess I'm gonna go around and let the select board um share any thoughts, comments, or any other thoughts regarding this thoughts on it. Well, I can start. I think um I mean for me this all started to um become a concern when the narrative was being discussed, and um there were a lot of comments made by board members that I think in since then also past meetings about the process not being fair, not being equitable, um, didn't like the scoring. Um at that point we didn't have a chance to do any further deliberations or any further um investigations, relying heavily on the scoring, which we didn't necessarily have to. Um there have been a lot of communications, emails going back and forth, as we just heard, you know, push back. Um I've heard from one of the applicants relentlessly, which was more aggravating than anything, I think, and just made it all um unsettling to me. And I I think it would be difficult to go back and reboot the whole process. Um we made decisions, we had round two, we decided on our matrix, we decided on how we were gonna proceed, and taking taking a step back, possibly rebooting deliberations. I would feel better if everything more transparent and we did have time for public comments and from everyone. I want to hear from people in Bourne as well, and I feel the best way to facilitate that would be to do um possible deliberations and public comments in an evening meeting so people that are working can attend as well. Um if we get more feedback that would sway any board members who have also said in the past they you know wish they could change their scores. Um if they so choose, they have an opportunity, and if not, we'll make the best next steps and do our best to agree on a narrative that we're all happy with and continue with the process. Okay. Um our last conversations and discussions at our last meeting, that um point that I don't know if it was Brian that made it or you about um deliberating more and being able to go back and reboot deliberations as opposed to rebooting the entire process again. Um third time's a charm, right? We I I think that we had some hiccups that came to realization through this process, which is what the process is supposed to do, right?

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI

TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com