Commissioners denied a motion that would allow the Cannabis Control Commission to review the agreements between Massachusetts cities and towns and potential marijuana businesses to ensure a "consistent standard" for applicants.

The request to review the Host Community Agreements, known as HCAs, came from a contentious conversation at the Commission's last meeting -- lead by Shaleen Title. Title was the only person to vote in favor of the measure.

Title, who is a longtime marijuana legalization activist, wrote the ballot question that ultimately became law in 2016.

"I believe the vast majority of businesses and municipalities are acting in good faith," Title said in an interview with MassLive. "But it is important now, for the sake of fairness, to set a consistent standard down the line to ensure compliance with local control rules."

In guidance issued in early August the Commission stated that payments are capped at 3 percent of revenue, and that any fees "must be in exchange for a benefit that is sufficiently specific and special to the Marijuana Establishment and assessed in such a way that it justifies assessing the cost to this limited group as opposed to the general public, even if the public sees some benefit."

A Boston Globe review published Thursday showed that all 19 of the provisional licenses issued by the Commission were connected to community agreements that appear to violate that guidance. This was also true of several dozen other host community agreement that has yet to be licensed by the Commission, according to The Boston Globe report.

At the last meeting, Commissioners spoke of "anecdotal" evidence that some agreements seem to violate the agency's guidance.

On Thursday the Commission's Executive Director Shawn Collins produced a potential plan for reviewing these agreements. He said inspectors would be trained on reviewing HCAs and extract essential data that the commissioners would review.

He said it would take about an hour per contract. But some Commissioners argued that it is not within their power to enforce any additional regulations on municipalities. Reviewing the agreements would unnecessarily delay applications, Commissioner Britte McBride said.

"We have no authority to require a municipality to do anything. If we decide to move forward with reviewing agreements with no ability to affect the outcome we are going to be choosing a delay here," McBride said.

Title argued this was "possibly the most significant decision" the Commission will make in affecting the marijuana industry in Massachusetts. What would the Commission do, she asked, if a "Big Marijuana" company offered a town $1 million on top of the 3 percent cap.

"I am seeing chain reaction playing out in front of my eyes that will knock out the smaller players. I care about this because I was asked to do this job to look at this industry and make it inclusive," Title said.

Chairman Steve Hoffman said he felt the issue should be studied more.

"I think we have a small sample, a potentially bias sample," Hoffman said. He suggested waiting until the Legislature returns in January to ask for help clarifying the statute.

Commissioner Kim Doyle said she's concerned that reviewing all of the HCAs, as suggested by Title, would be too time-consuming.

"We are already getting comments that it's too slow," she said.

Commissioner Jennifer Flanagan said she thinks the Commission should stick "within the parameters. Black and white. What's on the paper."

"I have concerns that if we start going into the HCA we are going to be sued, we are going to delay the process, " she said.

Hoffman agreed that there was not "legal clarity" on the ability to intervene.

Instead, the Commission moved to collect host agreements voluntarily from municipalities to study.