Alabama Cannabis Commission Returned $11.9M, Overpaid Vendor $204K
Summary
A March 2026 examination by Alabama's Department of Examiners of Public Accounts found the state's Medical Cannabis Commission returned $11,932,496.30 of its $21,695,648.00 in General Fund appropriations unspent between fiscal 2022 and fiscal 2025 -- while separately overpaying a legal-services vendor $204,197.55 above its contracted cap because no one at the Commission was checking invoices against the contract.
Funded richly, spent thinly
The pattern holds every year examiners checked. In fiscal 2022, the Commission's first full year, the Legislature appropriated $3,500,000.00 and the Commission reverted $2,827,643.95 of it -- 80.8% -- unspent⧉. The share reverted came down some in later years -- 59.9% in fiscal 2023, 43.3% in fiscal 2024, 46.5% in fiscal 2025 -- but never dropped below returning nearly half of what it was given. Across the four years, that adds up to $11,932,496.30 sent back to the General Fund on top of $369,480.22 in separate prior-year reversion adjustments -- money the Legislature set aside for cannabis regulation that the regulator itself did not use.
View data as table
The fee side tells the same story
Alabama law sets the Commission up to eventually run on the license and application fees it charges cannabis businesses and patients, not General Fund appropriations -- and starting October 1, 2025, any year-end surplus in its fee-funded account must be split, with 60% going to the General Fund and 30% to a medical cannabis research fund⧉ -- a rule that only took effect after the examination period closed. In practice, the Commission collected just $2,774,625.50 in license and fee revenue over the whole period -- about one dollar for every eight the Legislature appropriated directly -- and that revenue simply piled up unspent rather than getting used.
The Commission Fund's cash balance grew from $33,086.71 at the end of fiscal 2022 to $2,404,364.89 by September 30, 2025⧉, all of it still sitting unobligated as of the examination date -- the new split rule will now apply to a balance the Commission let build for years before the requirement existed.
View data as table
| FY2021 | 500,000 | seeded by a one-time $500,000 transfer, not license fees |
|---|---|---|
| FY2022 | 33,086.7 | |
| FY2023 | 1,376,647.4 | |
| FY2024 | 1,877,892.4 | |
| FY2025 | 2,404,364.9 |
Money oversight and legal oversight failed together
The $204,197.55 legal-vendor overpayment happened because, per the examiners, of the Commission's 'failure to properly monitor payments on the contract to ensure payments were made within the contract terms.' The vendor eventually filed a claim with the Alabama Board of Adjustments⧉ -- the state body that hears money claims against Alabama agencies -- which ordered the overage paid, converting an internal control failure into a binding state liability.
Examiners found four other compliance gaps in the same window. The Commission reviewed the minutes of 62 meetings and found recurring Open Meetings Act violations⧉ -- missing votes, missing attendance records, and one meeting notice that omitted its own location. It also never obtained a Records Disposition Authority or filed the annual reports the State Records Commission requires, in any of four straight years.
It also charged fees for at least eight license and registration categories without ever setting the amounts by administrative rule, as state law requires, and it wrote its own lost-card reporting rule with a 72-hour deadline where the statute allows patients and caregivers 10 days.
- $11,932,496.30 of $21,695,648.00 in General Fund money reverted unspent, FY2022-FY2025 -- the Commission returned at least 43% of its appropriation every single year examiners checked, peaking at 80.8% in its first full year.
- A $204,197.55 legal-fee overpayment, 51% over the $400,000 contract cap, happened because the Commission did not check vendor invoices against its own contract -- and the state ended up on the hook when the vendor took the dispute to the Alabama Board of Adjustments.
- License-fee revenue piled up unused for years before any transfer rule applied to it: the Commission's fee-funded account grew from $33,086.71 to $2,404,364.89 between fiscal 2022 and fiscal 2025, alongside five separate legal-compliance findings covering open meetings, records retention, and rulemaking.
The examination covers legal compliance and financial-controls testing under the Code of Alabama 1975, Section 41-5A-12; it explicitly did not evaluate whether the Commission is carrying out its licensing and regulatory mission efficiently, fairly, or on schedule. All findings and figures here describe the Commission's finances and internal controls as an institution -- none name or fault any individual commissioner, officer, or staff member; examiners attribute every finding to 'the Commission' as an agency.
Sources(1) ▾
- Alabama Department of Examiners of Public Accounts (Chief Examiner Rachel Laurie Riddle; Examiner Rodney Wagstaff), Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission — Examination Report No. 26-198 (2026-03-20) — The Alabama Department of Examiners of Public Accounts' statutory examination of the Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission, covering May 17, 2021 (the Commission's creation) through September 30, 2025, filed March 20, 2026. Primary basis for all findings and financial figures in this piece: the Schedule of State Legal Compliance and Other Findings (pp. E-I) and the Summary and per-fund Schedules of Cash Receipts, Disbursements and Balances (Exhibits 1-3, pp. 2-4). alison.legislature.state.al.us · original document
Comments
Always open. Logged-in readers can annotate paragraphs in place.
A statutory examination by Alabama's Department of Examiners of Public Accounts⧉ -- the state office that audits agency finances and legal compliance -- reviewed the Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission's first four-plus years of existence, May 2021 through September 2025, and found an agency that could not keep track of money in either direction. The Legislature appropriated $21,695,648.00 in General Fund money to stand up and run the Commission; $11,932,496.30 of it -- better than half in some years -- came back unspent as a 'reversion' rather than getting used for the oversight work the Commission exists to do. In the same period, examiners found the Commission paid a legal-services vendor $604,197.55 against a contract capped at $400,000.00, a $204,197.55 overpayment that happened simply because no one checked invoices against the contract terms.