Equity Grants Need Public Trust. So Why Is Doug McCrory Hosting the Forum?

By CT CannaTimes Editor - 6.10.2026

As Connecticut prepares to distribute millions of dollars in cannabis tax revenue through the Social Equity Council’s Reimagine & Revitalize (R2) Community Reinvestment Program, an uncomfortable question is emerging:

Why is State Senator Doug McCrory serving as a public-facing host for an informational forum promoting the program while remaining under an active federal investigation involving allegations of state grant steering?

The question is not whether McCrory has been charged with a crime. He has not.

The question is not whether misconduct has occurred within the R2 program. No evidence currently establishes that.

The question is whether Connecticut’s cannabis-equity system can afford even the appearance of recreating the same grant-distribution dynamics that are already under federal scrutiny.

A $36 Million Cannabis Grant Program

The Social Equity Council’s R2 Community Reinvestment Program is one of the largest cannabis-funded community investment initiatives in Connecticut history.

The program is expected to distribute approximately $36 million over three years, directing cannabis tax revenue into Community-Based Organizations operating within the state’s designated Disproportionately Impacted Areas (DIAs). According to program materials, funding decisions ultimately flow through regional grant managers and require approval through the Social Equity Council structure. Applications for the current cycle remain open through July 15.

On June 11, Sen. Doug McCrory and Rep. Joshua Hall are scheduled to participate in a public informational forum alongside the Social Equity Council to discuss the program and encourage participation.

Ordinarily, such events would attract little controversy.

But these circumstances are anything but ordinary.

The Shadow of Blue Hills

McCrory remains the subject of a federal investigation tied to the now-collapsed Blue Hills Civic Association, a Hartford nonprofit that received millions in state funding.

According to reporting cited in investigative records and public audits, federal grand jury subpoenas sought records involving approximately a dozen Hartford-area organizations as well as communications regarding McCrory’s relationships with certain grant recipients and associates. McCrory has not been charged and has repeatedly denied wrongdoing.

A state forensic audit released earlier this year painted a troubling picture.

The audit found that more than $11 million flowed through Blue Hills between 2023 and 2025, while only a fraction remained with the organization itself. Auditors concluded that records and communications suggested McCrory exercised significant influence over how funds were distributed and cited conduct that they said “strongly suggest[s] potential fraud and misappropriation of public funds.” McCrory has disputed those findings and characterized the audit as inaccurate and biased.

Perhaps most concerning were documents reportedly describing Blue Hills as a “conduit” through which additional funding could be directed to other organizations. Internal records reportedly included funding lists labeled “PER CONVERSATIONS WITH SENATOR MCCRORY.”

Those allegations remain unproven in court.

But they are exactly why the optics surrounding the June 11 event matter.

Why Cannabis Advocates Should Care

The Social Equity Council was created to ensure cannabis legalization delivered tangible benefits to communities disproportionately harmed by prohibition.

Trust is essential to that mission.

Patients, consumers, applicants, taxpayers, and community organizations must believe that funding decisions are being made through transparent, objective processes rather than political relationships.

That trust has already been strained.

In 2024, Connecticut Comptroller Sean Scanlon issued a special examination of the Social Equity Council that found no direct evidence of criminal wrongdoing but identified what he described as questionable business practices, subjective decision-making, and insufficient safeguards. The report recommended reforms and contributed to a pause in funding activity before the launch of the redesigned R2 framework.

Against that backdrop, placing a lawmaker currently under investigation for alleged grant-steering at the center of a public event promoting cannabis-funded grants creates an unavoidable appearance problem.

Whether fair or unfair, the image projected to the public is difficult to ignore.

The McGee Connection

The situation becomes even more complicated because the event is being conducted alongside the Social Equity Council led by CEO Brandon McGee.

McGee is not a subject of the federal investigation and has stated publicly that he was unaware that a $20,000 contribution linked to a Blue Hills-funded event originated from state grant money. There is no evidence that McGee engaged in wrongdoing.

Nevertheless, records cited in the investigative analysis show that McCrory and McGee previously co-hosted the “When Black Men Lead” event that received the contribution.

Again, that does not establish misconduct.

But when public confidence is already fragile, perceptions matter.

The Real Issue

The central concern is not that Sen. McCrory is guilty of anything.

The central concern is that Connecticut’s cannabis-equity infrastructure should be operating above suspicion.

The state’s own audit findings, ongoing federal scrutiny, and previous controversies surrounding grant administration have created an environment where appearances carry enormous weight.

If the Social Equity Council wants the public to trust the R2 program, it should make crystal clear that legislators play no role in evaluating applications, scoring proposals, selecting recipients, or influencing funding outcomes.

The public should never be left wondering whether attending a legislator-hosted forum could somehow improve an organization’s chances of receiving cannabis-funded grants.

That uncertainty alone is damaging.

Questions That Deserve Answers

Before applications close, the Social Equity Council should publicly address several straightforward questions:

• What specific safeguards prevent legislative influence over R2 funding decisions?

• Are any organizations connected to individuals named in the Blue Hills investigation eligible to receive R2 funding?

• How are conflicts of interest screened and disclosed?

• Why was it deemed appropriate to feature a legislator currently under federal investigation in a public-facing role promoting the program?

Connecticut’s cannabis industry has spent years promising transparency, accountability, and community reinvestment.

The R2 program may ultimately achieve those goals.

But public trust is difficult to build and easy to lose.

At a moment when Connecticut is attempting to prove that cannabis tax revenue can be distributed fairly and ethically, appearances matter almost as much as outcomes.

And right now, the appearance is raising questions that deserve answers.