In an intense e-mail exchange to the Boston Cannabis Board (BCB) last week, Attorney Maggie Suprey – a former proponent of the Heritage Club marijuana store proposal – passionately called for the BCB and its attorneys to investigate the conduct of Councilor Lydia Edwards and State Rep. Dan Ryan within the competition for a license between Heritage and Resilient Remedies.
Suprey sent an e-mail on May 27 to the BCB saying that her allegations of corruption and cronyism at the May 12 Public Hearing had seemingly been ignored, and she wanted to know why.
“It is with great concern that I write this email,” she wrote. “After making serious and substantiated claims of political corruption and cronyism against Lydia Edwards and Daniel Ryan at the May 12 BCB hearing, my allegations seem to have been ignored. Among the fiduciary responsibilities of an appointed government Board is the duty of obedience, meaning the Board is obligated to address any illegal or unethical activities made known to them. Given the corroborate nature of my claims, it was my expectation, as it’s the Boards duty, that this matter be brought before the Attorney General and Department of Justice to conduct a formal investigation; it seems this has not occurred.”
Suprey went on to say that her May 12 testimony brought attention to what she said was a flagrant partiality by Edwards and Ryan for Resilient Remedies – a competing marijuana store just down the street from Heritage on Cambridge Street. She said she provided evidence of ‘Pay for Play’ when she indicated that the state’s Office of Campaign and Political Finance (OCPF) had records of Resilient officers making political donations to Edwards and Ryan during the licensing process.
“If you have no intention of addressing these claims, please let me know so that I can bring them to the attention of relevant authorities,” she wrote.
Shortly after she sent the e-mail, BCB Chair Kathleen Joyce responded by saying she wasn’t interested.
“I have no intention of addressing these claims,” she wrote back.
Suprey responded, “That is both disappointing and a breach of your fiduciary duty as chairwoman of the board. Attorney Osgood and Attorney Arcangeli, as the City’s corporate counsel, are you taking the same stance as the chairwoman?”
There was no further response within the e-mail chain, which is in the public record for the licensee. This week, Suprey told the Patriot Bridge she had no further comment.
“On the advice of counsel, I won’t be commenting on this matter right now,” she wrote in an e-mail.
In a statement from the Mayor’s Office, they indicated that there is no investigation ongoing about Suprey’s claims.
“The Heritage Club has received a license and R2 is deferred pending a traffic study,” read the statement. “We are not investigating anything nor is it within the purview of the Boston Cannabis Board.”
Edwards said she has a record of backing the local candidates, both in East Boston and here, in Charlestown. The president of Resilient Remedies is Jack Kelly, of Charlestown.
“My record speaks for itself,” she said. “If anyone has any questions please feel free to contact my office.”
As background, Edwards has said she consistently backs the local candidate, including in East Boston where she has backed Eastie resident Luis Vasquez – a war veteran who has been trying to open a marijuana shop in East Boston. She said she routinely has conversations with those who wish to locate shops in her district, and they are honest conversations.
She said she has been clear that if anyone has concerns, they should reach out to her office. To date, she said, no one has reached out to her office.
State Rep. Dan Ryan said he has been consistent with Heritage since last fall in addressing complaints of inequity in the process.
“I have consistently told them if they have a good application and a Boston equity license, as it seems they do, then this process should give them a fair, if not advantageous, opportunity,” he said. “I also told them if they believe the process has been corrupt and inequitable, then there are avenues to which to remedy such behavior. Although my office can assist them in availing those channels, it is not up to me to make that determination either way.”
With no investigation underway by the City, the matter seems to be over for the time being.