The Joint Committee on Cannabis Policy held its second public hearing regarding the future of the state’s beleaguered Cannabis Control Commission on Wednesday, when industry experts explained that recent growing pains are just part of developing a new industry.

Lawmakers are holding hearings in an attempt to diagnose just what has led to leadership dysfunction within the commission and questions about whether the body is able to fix problems apparently built into the state’s marijuana laws.

“In our search for opportunities to improve cannabis regulation in the Commonwealth, we’ll be engaging with perspectives from the fields of cannabis policy, administrative law and public health,” the committee co-chair, State Rep. Dan Donahue said.

According to Suffolk University Law Professor Renée M. Landers, a biomedical and health law expert, it’s entirely appropriate for lawmakers to step back from the industry they built from scratch most of a decade ago and make adjustments where they see fit.

“The first thing that I would say about all of this is that there is no one right answer to some of the challenges that are confronting you in your efforts to make sure that we have the right regulatory structure for cannabis in the Commonwealth,” Landers said. “There are many possible governance structures that could be successful.”

Addressing the way the Cannabis Control Commission, which by statute oversees the day-to-day operations of the multi-billion dollar industry, manages its own decision making processes will likely require an update to the laws that established the commission, Landers said, especially those rules specifying who is responsible for what.

“There seems to be some tension between the responsibilities assigned to the commissioners — in particular the commission chair — and the executive director of the agency,” Landers said.

That tension was on full display earlier this year, when the commission sought to remove most day to day decision making from the hands of their new interim executive director. That new director was herself replacing an outgoing executive who left after conflict with the commission’s since-removed former chair.

Those very public leadership fights led the state’s inspector general to declare that the agency was “rudderless” and in need of a legislative fix.

At the core of it, according to Landers, is the law, which doesn’t make clear when the Commission or its executive director should be taking the lead. That needs to be fixed, she said.

“That overlap sets up opportunities for conflict,” she said.

Erik Gundersen, former executive director of Maine’s Office of Cannabis Policy, suggested that the Legislature should first figure out what they want the Cannabis Commission to do, and then build their leadership rules to suit that plan. Gunderson said he wasn’t endorsing either a strong executive director or a more powerful commission, as either set up seems to work in other jurisdictions, but lawmakers should pick one model or the other.

“There is no single right answer, instead the Committee should thoughtfully prioritize its objectives for the Cannabis Control Commission, allowing for an ideal governance structure to emerge,” he said.

The committee took no action during the hearing.