The Senate bill and a House counterpart that passed earlier this year are relatively similar, and a conference committee will provide an opportunity to tighten language and bring the bills into agreement. Ideally, the commission should protect consumers and deliver on the promises made to voters in 2016 that legalized marijuana would be a way to redress some of the harms of the war on drugs.

Both versions of the bill include shrinking the commission from five members to three. The House bill would make two commissioners part-time, but given the scale of the work they face, the Senate’s vision of three full-time members may make more sense. The commission’s structure, with different members appointed by different officials, has proven unwieldy. In response, both bills remove appointing authority from the treasurer, giving it solely to the governor (in the House bill) or the governor and attorney general (the Senate bill).

The most important feature of any new structure needs to be clear delineation between the roles of the commission chair and the executive director. A lack of clarity led to clashes between former executive director Shawn Collins and both O’Brien and former chair Steve Hoffman.

Both bills spell out the duties of the chair and executive director, but in slightly different ways. For example, they differ in who has control over personnel decisions. They also differ over in what circumstances an appointing authority can remove a commissioner. Lawmakers should consult with current and former commission officials and the mediators who worked on its governance charter to ensure any gaps in current law are addressed, to end these turf battles once and for all.

Another vital goal is making sure the agency has adequate investigatory power and oversight over the cannabis industry — and that someone is overseeing the work of the agency itself. That would be important for any entity in state government, but especially for this commission, given the questions that have been raised about its competence.

For instance, independent testing lab MCR Labs alleged, in a suit filed in Suffolk Superior Court in January, that its competitor labs artificially inflated THC content and manipulated tests to ignore evidence of marijuana contaminated by mold, yeast, or pesticides. The allegations raise major concerns over the commission’s oversight, which should have caught those problems. The Cannabis Control Commission’s chief of research was quoted in a judge’s ruling as acknowledging that “there was a huge issue with the data” of how labs are reporting contaminants. The commission has since suspended one testing lab’s license (it reopened after a court settlement) and identified contaminated products.

Other problems have been identified with basic administration. Inspector General Jeffrey Shapiro found in March that for two years, between August 2022 and August 2024, the Cannabis Control Commission failed to collect potentially more than $1.2 million in licensing fees. Shapiro said he did not uncover fraud but “egregious operational breakdown” and recommended an audit. (The commission has since updated payment systems and collected some fees.)

It is important that the commission’s leadership have the ability to investigate such internal problems. O’Brien, though, has suggested that language in both the Senate and House bills could hamstring the chair’s ability to conduct internal investigations. The language prohibits the chair from participating in or supervising any investigation, audit, or fact-gathering activity that may be subject to adjudication before the commission.

In a letter to the Legislature Monday, which was shared with the editorial board, O’Brien worried that the provision “could unintentionally restrict Commissioners’ ability to act when urgent public health and safety concerns arise.”

Lawmakers say the language creates a firewall between the chair and any investigation of a licensee that commissioners could later be asked to adjudicate. “The intent of the language is to ensure that when there is an investigation, there is no improper influence or real or perceived bias of the commissioners, who may eventually be the adjudicatory board of an investigation,” Senate President Karen Spilka’s spokesperson wrote in an email to the editorial board.

There have previously been questions about what role commissioners should play in investigations. After a cannabis worker died on the job in Holyoke in 2022, for instance, commissioners were upset that staff investigating the death never informed commissioners about it, which staff said was intended to maintain integrity in case commissioners had to arbitrate an enforcement action. (The commission eventually fined the operator of the facility where the worker died.)

While it’s important to maintain clear lines in investigations, the commission staff can’t have sole responsibility — especially when it comes to investigating themselves. One potential model is the Massachusetts Gaming Commission, which puts its investigative and enforcement bureau under the supervision of the commission chair, but there may be others.

One difference between the House and Senate bills is the House would impose a new regulatory scheme on hemp (products made from a cannabis plant that has only a tiny amount of the compound that causes a high), while the Senate would not. This board believes the state should regulate THC-infused intoxicating hemp products. But with Congress considering banning some hemp products, it might make sense for lawmakers to first see what rules Congress and the US Food and Drug Administration impose.

Both bills include important provisions making it easier to open medical marijuana businesses. They also increase the legal limit for adult marijuana possession from one to two ounces. The Senate would raise the cap on how many licenses one business can own from three to four, which would be less of a shock to the system than the House proposal lifting the cap to six.

If ever a state agency cried out for reform, it’s the Cannabis Control Commission. But it’s important to get that reform right — or else the Legislature will find itself facing the same questions again soon.

Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us @GlobeOpinion.