Lawmakers want Inspector General Jeffrey Shapiro to join them next week for an informational hearing on the myriad problems he says his office identified at the Cannabis Control Commission.

Shapiro last month pleaded with top lawmakers to intervene at the CCC by appointing a receiver to manage the day-to-day operations of the “rudderless agency” and then restructure it by amending the “unclear and self-contradictory” enabling statute that legislators wrote in 2017.

The CCC has gotten a lot of attention for its foibles over the last year, especially since chair Shannon O’Brien was suspended by Treasurer Deborah Goldberg in September. The board has received less attention for the significant policies it implemented during that time, and its leadership pushed back against Shapiro’s assessment.

Rep. Daniel Donahue, House chairman of the Cannabis Policy Committee, sent a letter Tuesday inviting Shapiro to a hearing on Tuesday, July 9 at 11 a.m. to discuss his letter and his review of the CCC. Donahue said the committee “will refrain from discussing any ongoing personnel or legal matters.”

“I believe this hearing would be a valuable opportunity to better understand how your investigation was conducted, what findings it produced, and the basis for the recommendations it provided to the legislature,” the chairman wrote. “We are particularly interested in the difficulties the CCC has experienced with its organizational structure, clarity around the enabling statute and the implementation of day-to-day operations.”

Shapiro’s office said he plans to participate in the hearing.

CCC Acting Chair Ava Callender Concepcion sent her own letter to lawmakers to respond to Shapiro’s suggestions, telling legislators that while the “challenges at the Commission are far from secret,” following the inspector general’s recommendation “is ill-advised.”

Concepcion added, “I have significant concerns with both the process the OIG has engaged in, and the substance of the directive itself. In sum, it appears the OIG, whose website states its purpose ‘promotes transparency,’ instead is advocating for greater government secrecy and concentration of power at the Commission. I disagree with that approach.”