Now lawmakers are asking experts from across the industry how the CCC’s structure and operations could be improved to help the fledgling sector grow – questions that could eventually lead to an overhaul of the five-commissioner body and staff his high rank.

Here’s what you need to know.

Graduates have been calling on CCC for a long time it moves slowly and does not respondeven though marijuana prices are falling and more cannabis businesses fail. Business owners eager to tackle regulatory hurdles – including vertical integration requirements for the medical marijuana industry and dispensary license ch — made so little progress with the commission that they repeatedly turned to the Legislature for help. And problems can linger for years: Licensees and the CCC-affiliated Cannabis Advisory Board flagged violations of cannabis testing requirements three years ago, but moldy weed still hits the shelves.

“This lack of action – is it because of the staff? Are they distracted by vacancies?” asked a member of the Cannabis Advisory Council, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation from the CCC. “Is it because of the leadership?”

The agency recorded an unprecedented turnover this year, with the suspension of two directors, the resignation of two othersand the absence of his head of researchwho took extended sick leave after speaking out publicly against her superiors at the commission. But some licensees said their frustrations predate the vacancies and that the overcautious commission often over-regulates businesses or unfairly inspects them.

As Springfield dispensary owner Payton Shubrick told the Globe in August: “Where is the responsibility?”

The commission is headed by an executive director and five appointed commissioners, one of whom is the chairman. The director is charged with administering state marijuana regulations, while day-to-day operations of the agency fall to the commissioners, who bring different areas of expertise to the job.

But the critics, including the state Inspector General Jeff Shapirothey said the delineation of responsibilities between commissioners, the president and the chief executive was confusing and left a vacuum.

Currently, only three commissioners—Bruce Stebbins, Nurys Camargo and Kimberly Roy—are active, meaning a single “no” vote (or the absence of a commissioner) can halt business. Former president Shannon O’Brien was fired last month amid allegations of workplace misconduct and “racial insensitivity,” which he plans to challenge in a future lawsuit. The fifth commissioner, Ava Callendar Concepcion, is on medical leave during her pregnancy.

It led to chaos in Worcester. The three commissioners sparred publicly over who would take over the role of chairman before rewarding Stebbins. And interim executive director Debbie Hilton Creek doubled as chief people officer in charge of hiring a permanent replacement until Monday, when Lakeman was voted out.

Much anger has also been directed at the three elected officials who appoint the commission: Treasurer Deb Goldberg, Gov. Maura Healey and Attorney General Andrea Campbell. Each selects one commissioner and members of the advisory board and votes jointly on the selection of the remaining two commissioners. It is intended to help the agency operate outside the jurisdiction of the Legislature or other state department.

But that structure brings its own challenges, said Jim Smith, a cannabis attorney at Smith, Costello & Crawford. “Nobody owns it.”

Now, insiders expect some of the heat from the hearings to fall on Goldberg as the state treasurer chooses the commission’s chairman. After O’Brien’s hiring and subsequent removal, her relationships with the agency’s superiors are called into question.

In a statement, Campbell said it was “very clear that the Cannabis Control Commission needs to be reformed and restructured. Like any governing body, it needs permanent leadership and clearly defined roles and responsibilities to function.”

Healey said she “stands ready to work with them and her fellow appointing authorities on the way forward” for the agency.

The Department of Public Health first regulated the medical industry before the 2016 ballot question that legalized recreational cannabis in Massachusetts. The measure that went before voters would have created an independent three-person agency appointed by the treasurer. But the Legislature later amended the commission to include five commissioners, some appointed by the governor and attorney general.

In the past, many commissioners have left the agency before their five-year terms expire, including the unexpected departure of its inaugural president, Steve Hoffman.

Shaleen Title, a former commissioner who co-wrote the 2016 ballot language, said it’s reasonable to revise the agency’s structure as the cannabis industry — and the science surrounding it — evolves. More Massachusetts residents are using cannabis now than a decade ago, and the federal government is considering rescheduling marijuana to be among a safer and less addictive drug class, a potential step toward federal legalization.

“The CCC has grown dramatically in ways, I think, that neither the legislators nor the commissioners could have anticipated,” Title said. “It’s only right that we now have a hearing on this.”

Yes, and no. Complaints about lax testing regulations and burdensome requirements for dispensary owners are widespread in states that have legalized cannabis, and Massachusetts was among the first to launch an independent regulator, something several other states have followed suit since then. But there are ways in which Massachusetts lags behind.

Colorado’s legislature passes a bill each year with “minor changes” to cannabis regulations, and Maine offers licensees the option to bring regulatory suggestions directly to the agency in charge. In Massachusetts, laws often take years to change. For example, the CCC decided to get rid of a two-driver rule for delivery companies in December, but has yet to make it official.

Ryan Dominguez, executive director of the Massachusetts Cannabis Coalition, said the CCC is “remarkably slow” to do the same, regardless of how they are set up. The marijuana trade organization has not taken an official position on whether the agency should be restructured, but it fears the focus on who controls what will throw off legislative priorities.

“There’s a lot that can be taken in terms of oxygen in the room in terms of the governance structure,” Dominguez said. “What has to go hand in hand with that is wholesale changes to the current schedule.”

And Massachusetts’ key promise—social equity—has not always been fulfilled. The state has long been seen as a leader, the first to create an official equity program as part of legalization. But for the past six years, the state has been slow to distribute money from the Social Equity Trust Fund and recently halted programming for the newest Social Equity cohort for budgetary reasons.

“Positioning and timing is everything in this market. At this stage, knowing that we haven’t created an industry that meets the diversity goals that we’ve set for the industry, how do we try to balance that and provide opportunities for people?” asked Amanda Rossitano, a Cannabis Advisory Board member who previously worked for NETA, the state’s first dispensary. “CCC is key to that.”

Diti Kohli can be reached at [email protected]. Follow a @ditikohli_.