Seeking to solve its management issues itself, the commission recently approved a new governance charter, the product of lengthy mediation, which clarifies the roles of the commissioners and the executive director.

But the bill would supersede that effort.

The bill would have the governor appoint a commission chair and two part-time associate commissioners to serve four-year terms, coinciding with the governor’s term. The chair would hire an executive director, who would serve at the pleasure of the chair. The bill includes some guidelines to ensure commissioners have relevant experience, can pass a background check, and don’t hold other political offices.

The three-person structure is similar to the Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission, although that commission is appointed by the treasurer.

“By bringing it into the governor’s office, we allow better coordination with different agencies and allow a clear structure of accountability from the governor to the commissioners to the executive directors and staff,” said state Representative Dan Donahue (D-Worcester), House chair of the Joint Committee on Cannabis Policy.

There may still be a need for the bill’s language to better clarify the roles of the executive director and the chair, to avoid conflicts.

But Shapiro called the bill “a significant positive step in the right direction.” He’s right.

The House should pass a version of the bill, and the Senate should agree to adopt a new structure that makes clear where the buck stops if the commission doesn’t operate smoothly. While the commission’s problems the last few years stem from multiple factors, including personality clashes, the vague chain of command was likely a contributor.

In separate statements, Cannabis Control Commission spokesperson Neal McNamara and commission executive director Travis Ahern both declined to take a position on the proposal, saying only that they look forward to collaborating with the Legislature. In a recent interview, Ahern said he is focused for now on implementing the governance charter. If the Legislature changes the agency’s governance, he will focus on ensuring staff and the industry continue to function during the transition.

While some in the industry worry that giving authority to the governor will politicize the board, we already trust the governor to appoint members to myriad boards and commissions and to hire leadership for every executive branch government agency.

The governance shift is one part of a larger House bill, H.4160, several other provisions of which also deserve passage.

When Massachusetts first regulated medical marijuana in 2013, it required companies to own the process from start to finish: A single company had to grow marijuana, manufacture products, and sell it.

But any rationale for that requirement — whether related to safety, quality control, or concerns about supply — disappeared when Massachusetts voters legalized marijuana for recreational use in a 2016 ballot question. Now, companies in the recreational market can operate as a grower, retailer, or manufacturer. All that is accomplished by requiring vertical integration for medical marijuana is keeping less well-funded operators out of the medical market. This editorial board previously called for the repeal of the vertical integration requirement, and this bill would do that.

The bill would also impose rules on the sale of hemp beverages and CBD- or THC-infused gummies and other consumable products. As this board previously argued, given Massachusetts’s strict regulation of marijuana, it doesn’t make sense for a gas station convenience store to be allowed to sell intoxicating drinks and gummies made with cannabis-derived compounds without restrictions. But that happened after Congress legalized hemp (a cannabis plant with minimal THC), allowing companies to extract the compounds THC and CBD from hemp plants and put them in consumable products.

Under the bill, these products would be regulated by the Cannabis Control Commission, and companies would have to comply with potency limits, test products, and register them. Consumable CBD products would be taxed at a rate of 5.35 percent and hemp beverages at $4.05 a gallon. Hemp beverages could only be sold to adults 21 or older at stores licensed to sell alcohol. The bill would also ban the sale of products with synthetic cannabinoids, manufactured compounds intended to mimic cannabis that carry more health risks than natural cannabis.

Other parts of the bill deserve further scrutiny. Raising the cap on the number of retail licenses a company can own from three to six may help struggling small-business owners recoup money when they sell to larger operators — but could also enhance the dominance of multistate operators.

Increasing the limit on how much cannabis someone can purchase at once would help businesses. But the limit was established to protect public health and limit diversion to the illicit market. Some research suggests there may be better alternatives to weight-based purchase limits, like restricting the quantity of THC someone can purchase.

The Senate should give those matters a close look. But the big story here is that after hearing years of complaints about the ineffectiveness of cannabis regulation, House lawmakers deserve credit for proposing viable reforms to an industry still struggling to deliver on the vision sold to voters.

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