Few times in life have I felt such shock and fear of imminent danger, as when the Chair of the Liquor Control Board announced a stunning decision to break procedure at the public hearing to take input on their plan to overhaul Washington’s medical marijuana system. Rather than take public commentary in the order individuals signed up, the board chose to randomly choose five people per page to speak at a time, until the hearing ended.

Apparently most were as shocked as me as the rowdy crowd barely reacted. But when someone chose to give up her presentation spot to another and the board said that move was not permissible, the tension in the crowd about doubled as shouts of, “You didn’t ask us before changing the rules,” and random heckling rang out.

Before I go any further, I should disclose that I had added my name to the list and was not chosen, nor were about 100 other people from my calculations. The “randomness” of the choosing seemed doubtful at first, with the first five commentators including some of the state’s most prominent activists and a representative of a state congresswoman.

I sat watching as board members seemingly discussed who to choose with whispered comments and head shakes, and asking myself why they would ask for the ‘organization’ you represent on the sign-up sheet if it was to be a random drawing. But as I sat up driven to work in the wee hours of the morning, too abuzz from the excitement of the night, I learned the missing piece of the puzzle: a few organizations arrived hours early in buses, ensuring their members would dominate the public commentary, and all of a sudden it made sense.

If the Liquor Control Board members wanted to hear from a range of constituents, they’d have to break procedure. A bold move, surely, one which very well might not have been legal. Activist Adam Assenberg has already announced via Facebook his intention to sue the state immediately. And no matter the outcome of that, or similar lawsuits, the move was undoubtedly politically risky, drawing more contention and allegations of corruption upon an organization already in the hot seat.

Many believe they’ve seen, and I quote a speaker from the meeting, “nothing honest or in good faith” from Liquor Control Board members, but when reflecting on their options that night, I am grateful the board chose to break procedure and allow a wide range of opinions to be expressed. This matter is too critical to allow just a few voices to dominate the only public hearing which will take place before the board must make their final recommendations to the state legislator, about how to move forward to regulate the medical industry.