Del. Dan K. Morhaim, the Baltimore County Democrat and physician who has been Maryland's leading advocate for medical marijuana in the legislature and before the medical cannabis commission, says in retrospect, he wishes he would have done more to disclose his affiliation with one of the companies seeking to profit from the state's nascent industry "if I knew a better way to do it."
Here's a suggestion: Say it out loud, in public.
Before testifying on the bill he sponsored this year to allow podiatrists, dentists, nurse midwives and nurse practitioners to certify that patients qualify for medical marijuana, he could have said this: "Colleagues, in full disclosure, I am working on an unpaid basis for one of the companies seeking a medical marijuana license with the hope of becoming its clinical director if the application is successful. This legislation would not specifically affect that company but the industry in general."
Or before appearing before the medical marijuana commission, he could have said, "Ladies and gentlemen, I am speaking to you both in my capacity as a legislator who helped craft the statute you are charged to implement and as someone affiliated with one of the applicants for a medical cannabis license. I am advocating for the commission to allow applicants to both grow and process medical marijuana, an arrangement the company I am working for — presently in an unpaid capacity but with hopes of future paid employment — is seeking."
Would that have diminished the impact of his advocacy? Maybe. Would it also have diminished the value of his relationship with the firm, Doctor's Orders? That's the question that makes the situation so problematic.
We do not doubt for a moment the genuineness of Dr. Morhaim's advocacy for legalizing medical marijuana and for fine-tuning Maryland's law to make it workable. He has been a leader on the issue for many years. But the appearance now that he quietly sought to profit from an industry he worked so hard to legalize does a disservice to the legislature and to those who hope their chronic pain, seizures and other maladies might be treated by medical marijuana.
Dr. Morhaim's name is on the Doctor's Orders application, but it was redacted after a decision by the commission to keep the identities of all license applicants anonymous to avoid the possibility of favoritism. His involvement with the company was revealed by the Washington Post last weekend, which obtained the names of applicants through a public information request.
Dr. Morhaim has said his activities did not present a conflict of interest and that he followed all disclosure rules. He informed a previous head of the medical marijuana commission of his activities but not the present one. His financial disclosure statement says that he "may do medical consulting and/or treatment" in "addiction issues, medical cannabis" — accurate, if vague — and he got letters from the General Assembly's ethics counsel indicating that he was not prohibited from voting on medical marijuana-related matters and that he did not have to disclose the clients of his private consulting business, Whitebridge Associates, just as attorneys serving in the legislature don't have to disclose their clients.
But that should not be the end of the matter. The advice from the assembly's ethics counsel is only as good as the information Dr. Morhaim provided. The Joint Committee on Legislative Ethics needs to investigate the matter to make sure it has all the facts. Legislators need to consider whether lawmakers should be required to disclose clients of a consulting business who have an interest in legislative or regulatory matters. (Though Dr. Morhaim says he is not a paid employee of Doctor's Orders, he did acknowledge in an interview receiving "one modest paycheck" at the beginning of his association with the firm through Whitebridge Associates. The rest of his earnings through that company are from interests not related to medical marijuana, he says.)
And without question, Dr. Morhaim should be moved off of the Health and Government Affairs Committee, which handles medical marijuana-related legislation. The appearance of a conflict is simply too great.
The idea that elected officials use their public positions to enrich themselves badly corrodes trust in government. We do not have evidence to conclude that happened in this case, but Dr. Morhaim's insufficient disclosure of his activities is enough to foster cynicism — a particularly damaging outcome since medical marijuana is so controversial to begin with. In the past, the General Assembly has taken seriously its responsibility to investigate cases like this one. We expect it will do so this time as well.