Liability Discussion Sparks Rare Governance Clash at Social Equity Council Meeting

By CT CannaTimes Staff - 6.12.2026

A routine Connecticut Social Equity Council meeting took an unexpected turn on May 5 when a discussion about liability protections, legal disclaimers, and loan programs evolved into a public disagreement over the relationship between Council members and agency staff.

The exchange occurred during a broader update from Executive Director Brandon McGee regarding agency operations, staffing, finances, community reinvestment programs, and legislative activities.

The discussion began when Council member Avery Gaddis raised a series of questions about the Social Equity Council’s potential liability exposure.

Gaddis first asked whether the Council provides legal advice to members of the public. McGee responded that it does not. Staff attorney Attorney Collazo Cruz explained that legal staff provide guidance regarding whether applications and supporting documentation satisfy statutory requirements but that stakeholders are advised to seek legal advice from their own counsel.

Gaddis then turned her attention to liability protections.

According to the meeting minutes, she asked what safeguards exist to protect the Social Equity Council if an applicant is denied a loan, whether staff communications contain legal disclaimers, and whether applicants are required to sign waivers.

The responses appeared to raise concerns.

Council staff confirmed that the agency does not currently have legal disclaimers on its emails or website.

The issue is notable because the Social Equity Council administers social equity verification programs, entrepreneur assistance initiatives, grants, loans, technical assistance programs, and other services that frequently involve communication with prospective applicants and business owners.

At that point, newly hired Chief Legal Officer Attorney Nichelle Mullins suggested that the discussion be moved to a committee setting where the issues could be more fully explored and potential solutions identified.

Gaddis immediately pushed back.

According to the official meeting minutes:

“Council member Gaddis addressed Chair Comer indicating that she does not want staff members suggesting to table anything.”

The exchange escalated further.

The minutes continue:

“She then addressed Attorney Mullins stating that she does not work for her; Attorney Mullins works for her. If she or the Council want to talk about an issue, they will talk about it.”

The statement represented one of the strongest assertions of Council authority recorded in recent Social Equity Council meeting minutes.

While there was no indication of personal animosity, the exchange highlighted an important governance question: who ultimately controls the Council’s discussions and priorities—the appointed governing body or the professional staff who support it?

Mullins serves as Chief Legal Officer and is part of the agency’s staff structure. Gaddis serves as a voting member of the governing Council itself.

The disagreement appeared less about disclaimers and more about authority.

Council Chair Andréa Comer moved quickly to de-escalate the situation.

According to the minutes, Comer acknowledged Gaddis’ concerns while explaining that Mullins’ recommendation was intended to move the discussion into a setting better suited for developing solutions. Comer also expressed support for continuing the discussion and referenced the possibility of implementing disclaimer mechanisms through electronic acknowledgement systems.

Other Council members soon joined the conversation.

Council member Shirley Skyers-Thomas suggested moving the discussion to a committee meeting or executive session. Council member Ojala Naeem commented on the need for additional clarity regarding programming. Council member Andréa Hawkins emphasized the importance of providing Council members with sufficient information to answer stakeholder questions. Council member Michael Jefferson suggested adding disclaimers to emails and the agency website while also commending McGee and staff for their work.

No formal action was taken.

Instead, staff agreed to provide additional information and continue discussions regarding liability protections, communication practices, and program administration.

The exchange stood out because it occurred during an otherwise routine meeting dominated by unanimous votes and administrative updates.

Earlier in the meeting, the Council unanimously approved multiple Equity Joint Venture applications and received updates regarding staffing expansion, grant programs, strategic planning, and agency finances. McGee reported that the Council’s Fiscal Year 2026 budget remains approximately $17 million, with April expenditures totaling roughly $238,000.

Yet it was the liability discussion—and the ensuing disagreement over governance authority—that emerged as the most revealing moment of the meeting.

For observers of Connecticut’s cannabis industry, the exchange offered a rare public glimpse into how the Social Equity Council is navigating the challenges that come with managing millions of dollars in programs, expanding staff, growing public responsibilities, and defining the boundaries between elected governance and professional administration.

As the Council continues expanding its role in Connecticut’s cannabis market, questions surrounding liability, transparency, public communications, and institutional accountability are likely to remain at the forefront.

And on May 5, those questions briefly produced one of the most candid exchanges seen inside the Council chambers in recent memory.