Out Of Control

I've been at this for years, since 2008, although I did pretty much drop the ball during the pandemic (which I regret, deeply, because a LOT of things needed to be said, but that's virus over the dam now). One of the consistent themes through all of those years was the way the Liquor Control Board was actually out of control. 

I've brought up numerous examples of this. The famous wine kiosks, the Rise of Conti (and the essential abolishment of his CEO position after he fell from grace), numerous clashes with Governor Rendell (told you I'd been at this for years), the lying about 'variable pricing,' and the disastrous allocated whiskey lottery that they never could get right, and finally just gave up on.

Whoops, not THAT Frank Burns!

But one of the most egregious, amazing examples was one I missed during my COVID hiatus, when Representative Frank Burns (D-Johnstown) tried to find out how many "zombie" licenses the PCLB had for future auction (these are seized or unused licenses; after a year, under relatively new law, they revert to the PLCB, where they can be auctioned to the highest bidder). 

The PLCB said no! That's right: a government agency refused to give regulatory information to a duly-elected legislator. So Burns went to the Office of Open Records. They said the PLCB had to give him the information...and The Lords Of Liquor Control refused again, appealing to the Commonwealth Court. The court ruled in Burns's favor, so of course, the PLCB (which has an unending supply of crap lawyers) appealed the ruling to the state Supreme Court. The PA Supremes fairly quickly denied the PLCB's appeal, upholding the Commonwealth Court ruling, giving the agency 30 days to present the information.

Yeah, I'm Frank Burns. Arrest the PLCB.
(And the snozzberries taste like snozzberries!)

Aside from the truly interesting fact that Rep. Burns is a Democrat, and the state Supreme Court has a solid Democratic majority (so they clearly do get what the PLCB is, but consistently refuse to privatize it), what do we learn here? 

The PLCB directly denied a legal request for information from a state legislator. This wasn't a frivolous request, like 'Hey, how many bottles of Maker's Mark do you guys have right now?' It was information that concerned constituent requests and a valid issue, namely, how is a purchaser supposed to know what the value of a license is when the PLCB won't tell them how many are going to be available? 

The PLCB gave its stock answer, which had always worked for it in the past: 'That's proprietary information, my good man.' But this time, they ran into someone who was just as willing to go to court as they were, and they lost. (Burns paid the legal costs out of his own pocket, by the way; the PLCB...yeah, they paid out of our pockets.)

Commonwealth Court Justice Cannon

They not only lost, the judge "bought none -- not one iota -- of what the Liquor Control Board was trying to sell. [Wow, the PLCB sucking at selling something; shocker.] The Right-to-Know Law is clear -- the information here is public record,” said Burns's lawyer, Terry Mutchler, the first director of the state's Office of Open Records. “It is a very strong decision that advances the law by giving deeper guidance on the components of records that agencies consider pre-deliberative. And also, because it points out that although the LCB may be ‘business-like,’ it is not a business.” (Yes, that's why I included the entire quote.) 

This is classic PLCB style. Don't just be wrong; deny you're wrong, waste thousands of taxpayer dollars denying you're wrong, and then when you're proven wrong, be assholes about it. Assholes? Yeah, the PLCB's main comment on the Supremes' decision was along the lines of, 'Wow, we were really looking forward to proving our case, but we've been denied justice.' Typical. 

This is all by way of proving the point I've been making for years, the one I simply cannot believe the General Assembly does not get: the PLCB is a rogue agency. Burns gets it. He believes that the Board wields too much power and has become arrogant and unresponsive to the public’s wishes. “The LCB has their own little kingdom with a moat around them for protection,” said Burns. “They’re not accountable to anyone, and that has to change. If they can treat a legislator like this you can only wonder how they treat other people out there.”

Bang on, Rep. Burns. The Liquor Control Board is literally out of control, and the reason is that it is answerable only to itself. It is a government agency with its own plentiful source of revenue. It has its own enforcement arm, its own courts and judges; it regularly thumbs its nose at the legislature, the governor, and the Pennsylvania courts; and it arbitrarily changes state-written regulations by 'interpreting' them as they wish.

It does not need to be reformed, or 'brought to heel,' or be regulated. It needs to be done away with. It serves no purpose that is not either anti-consumer or superfluous. Everything the PLCB does can be done more efficiently by existing state agencies. Except the actual wholesale and retail sale of booze: thanks, we can do that better on our own, no state agency required. 

Here's how I laid it out almost exactly 14 years ago in this blog: "...privatize booze sales, put licensing and inspection in the hands of the Dept. of Agriculture, tax collection in the purview of the Dept. of Revenue (they've got some experience with that), put the anti-alcoholism and underage drinking prevention programs under the Dept. of Health, and fully hand over enforcement to the State Police. [Then] give a re-write of the [Liquor] Code over to a commission that includes interested consumers for a change, and charge them with writing a simpler, more understandable Code."

The PLCB shut down for six weeks during the pandemic, and Wolf himself said  (link goes to a PDF) we didn't need them, because now we could buy booze at the Acme store. The PLCB is corrupt, the PLCB is outdated, the PLCB has only 600 stores for the entire state. The PLCB won't let you buy booze in Jersey or Delaware, they force us to buy from them. 

Why the hell aren't we done with this? Why does the Legislature put up with it? 

Privatize. End this out of control agency. 

Why This Isn't Already Done

This is something I just posted on the "Abolish the PLCB - Rewrite The Code!" Facebook group page (a group you're certainly encouraged and welcome to join). A new member was full of righteous rage and wanted to know how to get privatization and said we needed to force Harrisburg to change this. Frankly, I wish we could. But 12 years of writing and editing this blog, and all the activity that went with it, has taught me patience, the patience needed to wear away a stone. Here's what I've learned, here's how it's got to be done.  

For the new readers: I've been trying to push this rock for twelve years. I've been to Harrisburg to attend hearings and lobbying meetings, I've testified before a joint committee of the legislature once, I've made friends with a number of reporters and fed them info and ideas. Some small progress has been made, but...a reality check is needed. This is an uphill fight, although the PLCB's huge failures in the past month are a great opportunity.

Here's why.

I was so spunky back then.

I had a lot of schemes and ideas when I started working on this back in 2008. The tough truth is that there isn't anything that can be done until a MUCH larger number of voters are actively engaged on the issue. And that's not easy, because of a few factors.

1. People are liable to be embarrassed to stand up for their booze rights. "It's only a drink, it's not important." Polls usually show that people are willing to be taxed more for drinks, even though they already are.

2. Many Pennsylvanians just don't know any better. They've never gone out of state to buy booze, so the State Stores' adequacy is all they know.

Dezinformatsiya...UFCW style

3. The other side, largely through the union that represents the State Store clerks, UFCW Chapter 1776, does a great job of shaming anyone who supports privatization: "You're a drunk! You just want more alcohol! This will cost thousands of family-supporting jobs! The PLCB gives MILLIONS to the state, to police, to communities! There are much more important things that need to be done!" And people back off, because that SOUNDS reasonable.

4. There's a LOT of deeply-believed misinformation and ignorance about the situation. That the PLCB is a cash cow (it's not), that it serves us well (with only 600 stores in a state where 5,000 would be average, how can they?), that it's not illegal to buy booze out of state (it absolutely is). People are constantly amazed about the existence of the Johnstown Flood Tax, they believe it's illegal because "it's a tax on a tax" (completely not illegal to do that), without ever realizing the huge layer cake of taxes and fees that boost the shelf price of booze in PA.

5. The PLCB is absolutely brilliant at assessing the threat of privatization, and doing just enough to make people think they're improving, and the threat decreases.

Despite all this, we will have to get millions of them on board, because the Legislature cannot be moved otherwise.

Democratic legislators block-vote against this; in over 10 years, not one has ever broken ranks that I can recall. Republicans from southeast PA are likely to flip-flop on it: they face more pressure from unions here, and from a highly-organized group of beer sellers who'd just as soon see their competition run incompetently. It's a powerful combo. Speaker Turzai has tirelessly campaigned for privatization (he's retiring after this term), but the Senate has balked on it, and Wolf will not sign a full privatization bill. Without Democratic votes, there's no way to override him.

Privatization? No. HELL no.

The courts won't do anything because of the 21st amendment; states have very broad power to regulate alcohol.

The Board itself is, naturally, only interested in preserving the agency. The three members are traditionally appointed 1 each by the legislative GOP, Dems, and the governor, so no real help there.

THE ONLY THING THAT WILL WORK is getting fellow citizens involved. Writing letters to newspapers, reminding people how badly the PLCB handled literally everything in this crisis, reposting on Facebook.

Like it says at the top of the blog,

"...there was [in 1997] no overarching passion within the General Assembly, or in the public at large, for privatization. Unless and until there is a general hue and cry, it is very unlikely there will be a privatization initiative that succeeds." -- John E. Jones III, former PLCB chairman

Time for a Change.org

With the State Stores closed, and the PLCB's website essentially non-functional -- 

With restaurants and bars across the state reduced to take-out business --

With the PLCB refusing to service any but the largest accounts (while the Wolf Administration tells Pennsylvania that we should look to the private market to meet the demand caused by the closed State Stores...while denying that market the right to sell spirits)

With thousands of businesses on the brink of failure, tens of thousands of people unemployed -- 

Someone has to do something. 

Why not you? Sign this Change.org petition, asking Governor Wolf and the Legislature (or the PLCB, why not?) to immediately allow the sale of wine and spirits to-go (or local delivery) by all licensees, including beer distributors, through the end of 2020. Give them a chance to make the money that will allow them to stay open, employing some people, and giving others hope for re-employment when the crisis ends.

Buddy, can you spare a signature? 

Before you say, 'Oh, those Change.org petitions don't change anything,' last week a petition just like this one succeeded in getting the government of Ontario to allow restaurants to sell wine and beer to go. We can do that here, just as quickly, just as easily.

Until then, Pennsylvanians will continue to cross the borders, spreading the disease. Those taxes will be lost to the state, where they could help pay unemployment benefits, while the PLCB flounders, trying to serve the whole state from three warehouses with a patched-up website (while the wholesalers who service the PLCB's operations have their offers to help rejected), literally filling only hundreds of orders out of hundreds of thousands of attempts to place an order. 

Is this a total solution? No.
Will this save every restaurant, every bar? No.
Will it adequately compensate every beer distributor for the damage to their business? No.

Is it better than what the State's doing now?  Hell yeah. 

Over 11,000 people have signed as of April 14. This is not a fringe position. 

Please. Sign the petition and share it. Thank you.

Allow Pennsylvania licensees to sell spirits for take-out & delivery thru 12/31/20

Why Not Leave Them Closed?

We have a tremendous opportunity before us. We must not waver. We must not hesitate.

The State Stores could easily be closed by June.

Let me explain. 

I have a tremendous idea!!

By now, you all must know that Governor Wolf has declared that the State Store System of Stores is CLOSED, nominally because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Shut down as of 9 PM on St. Patrick's Day, of all inane coincidences. What's more, the PLCB's FWGS website is no longer delivering booze to your door (you know, because they never really wanted to anyway), AND the licensee "service centers" are also closed (all the bars are closed anyway, except for takeout food and beer, two things with which the PLCB is entirely uninterested).

Wow. And as I was writing this earlier, Wolf issued a proclamation (link will download a PDF of the letter) shutting down ALL licensee operations that involve selling food or drink (of any kind) for consumption on premises. Take-out/to-go is still allowed, but one wonders for how long (see below). The only exception is for hotel room service.

Note: licensee operations only. Restaurants, lunch counters, etc. that are NOT licensed are still asked to voluntarily limit operation to take-out only. Wolf is doing this under the authority of The Almighty Liquor Code: "The PLCB, upon authorization from the Governor, has the authority under the Liquor Code (47 P.S. §4-462) to mandate the closure of licensed establishments in times of emergency."

Here's what you see when you go to Ye Olde Fine Wine Et Goode Spyrites site of Web:

Reaction has been mixed. There was an insane rush to the stores, people standing in line for half an hour, as if they were Fine Bottled Water and Good Toilet Paper Shops. People say, oh, you don't need booze (idiots). Or they say, booze is as necessary as groceries and medicine, which, if you really think that, then why didn't you tell your state rep that years ago and get it out of the state's incompetent control? Eh, another missed opportunity.

Back to today. Why did the governor close the State Stores, and not close beer distributors, not close the sales rooms of wineries, distilleries, or breweries (yes, and meaderies and cideries and kvasserei)? Simply because he could, most likely, and possibly because of union pressure. Naturally enough, why is not a question that's been asked of Wolf directly. It's much more important that we do 'flatten the curve' and get this damned virus under control. Believe me, that's absolutely true. Retail operations, particularly small ones, are going to take a whupping here, and that's going to be disastrous for the economy.

But that's not what we're here to talk about. It's about the opportunity to finally put an end to the ridiculous State Store System of Stores. 

Rahm Emanuel's famous quote was about the 2008 recession. He followed the famous part with this:

"This is an opportunity, what used to be long-term problems, be they in the health care area, energy area, education area, fiscal area, tax area, regulatory reform area, things that we have postponed for too long, that were long-term, are now immediate and must be dealt with."

Are the State Stores an immediate problem? Are they one that "must be dealt with"? Of course not. I'm not a fool. No one's livelihood or survival is threatened by the continued existence of this Relic of Repeal, this Fossil of Prohibition.

But it is definitely falls under "thing that we have postponed for too long," making this is a unique opportunity to deal with it. The State Stores will be closed for at least two weeks, probably more. And the Governor, a Democratic governor, has openly admitted that the State Stores are not necessary to serve the needs of the citizens of the state. 

He did? When did he say that? In the letter to Pennsylvania businesses (dated March 14) from Wolf's Secretaries of Health, and Community and Economic Development, there is a list of descriptions of "non-essential businesses" that are asked to close. At the end of that list, there are these bullet points:

NOTE: Liquor stores will begin an orderly closure. Individuals can still buy wine and beer at grocery stores with PLCB licenses
NOTE: Restaurants should stay open for carry-out and delivery only

You see? The State Stores can close because people can still buy wine at grocery stores and restaurants. Of course they can, and they do, in huge, growing amounts.

If the State would allow grocery stores (and beer distributors, and restaurants, and deli licenses, and private clubs) to sell spirits by the bottle -- and really, why not? It's all the same alcohol! -- we could just leave the State Stores closed. Never open them again.

It's not that hard. Have an auction, sell off the inventory, and have time for new businesses to get licenses and open with former State Store employees at the register (or at the helm, why not?).

At the very least, the Legislature should immediately adjust The Almighty Liquor Code to allow licensees -- grocery stores, bars, and beer distributors to add off-premise, take-out spirits sales. End this ridiculous prejudice against spirits. Let mom pick up a bottle of Bailey's at the Giant Eagle.

And do away with the stupid cafe requirements (because...we're only doing take-out now, and the world hasn't ended), and the childish "buy four bottles and step outside the door" limit. What ridiculous bullshit is that, anyway?

We could do this. It's just waiting to happen.

"...it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." Clearly Governor Wolf is ready.

PRIVATIZE. And if we can't do that, take the spirits monopoly away from the State Stores. The grocery stores have earned it, beer distributors have earned it by staying open during the crisis...something the State Stores weren't prepared to do. 

Don't We Deserve a Better Board?

If we have to play by the PLCB rules...could we at least get a better set of players?

Back in 2015 in the Annual Report (page 2), the vision of the PLCB was stated as: "Be recognized as the best-in-class wine and spirits retailer, distributor and regulator in the United States."

Which meant that they wanted to be better than Utah, the only other wine and spirits retailer, distributor, and regulator in the United States. Not a high bar, considering Utah is practically an anti-alcohol theocracy. Four years later, how are they doing? Let's start at the top and go from there.

The Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board has three members, none of which over the past 85 years has any previous knowledge of the liquor industry or about running a 2 billion dollar enterprise.

We have a Chairman who has no experience with even a million dollar business, let along something the size of the PLCB. He did make it to Congress, and served on the Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry subcommittee, and Transportation and Infrastructure committee, before the citizens decided that he wasn't doing the job they wanted and voted him out. Since there isn't much call for somebody who's chummy with with politicians, and knows a little about Livestock, Dairy & Poultry, the PLCB was a perfect place to put somebody who was owed a couple of favors.

Governor Corbett appointed Republican benefactor Mike Negra to the board. Mr. Negra does have a history of being involved in multiple successful businesses, so at least he has a concept of what is going on, but no actual hands on with the liquor business, or anything the size of the PLCB.

Lastly we have the newest member and first woman ever to serve on the board, Mary Isenhour. Although you wouldn't know it by looking at the PLCB website. Here it is, over a MONTH after her confirmation, and the PLCB still hasn't decided if she rates being included with the other board members. (Let's see how long it takes for them to include her once this is published.)*

Keeping the public informed through transparency is sadly not the way the PLCB works.  Remember that it took over 100 days before they removed Michael Newsome, and that was only after I poked them with a stick again. Newsome might still be there if I hadn't said anything.

What are Isenhour's qualifications? She was Gov. Wolf's Chief of Staff and a campaign aide. Her business experience is like the others, desperately lacking in knowledge and size. She replaced Michael Newsome, who was Gov. Wolf's CFO in the furniture business -- can't get more qualified to sell liquor than that...or can we?

Remember how we were comparing the PLCB to Utah's State Store System of Stores? So how does the Utah DABC stack up? They have a seven member board that's appointed, but there is also an advisory board of seven members...who must come from defined specific areas of expertise. The Governor can't just willy nilly pick his favorite dog walker to sit on the Advisory Board. Utah specifies that the advisory board members are selected from the following areas of expertise.

Retail Alcohol Industry — Wholesaler Industry — Manufacturing Industry — Restaurant Industry — Utah Substance Use and Mental Health Advisory Council — Alcohol or Drug Related Enforcement — Division of Substance Abuse and Mental Health — Alcohol or Drug Abuse Prevention and Education

The Utah version of a Superstore

Another view. Pretty nice, right? 

It is almost certain that since this system was adopted every Utah DABC Advisory member is far more qualified than any that have ever been appointed to the PLCB. This doesn't mean that Utah hasn't had their share of people of limited competence on the Liquor Board. The Governor selects the seven members of the Liquor Board, so it can be and likely is as full of hacks and cronies as Pennsylvania. The difference is that the Utah board can't go off the rails making arbitrary decisions without an adult from the Advisory Board watching them. No deciding that 12 packs are cases, no robot wine armies, no variably price screwing the citizens, and no being over a Billion in debt. Oh, and they have had women on the Boards for years already.


End the PLCB jobs program - PRIVATIZE


*True to form it only took the PLCB 42 days to finally put up a picture.  Not quite as bad as the 102 days it took to take down the board member she replaced.

Reality check: how is "modernization" working out?

The end of February marked eight months gone of the fiscal year, and just under seven months of Act 39's "modernization" of the state's police-enforced monopoly on wine and liquor sales, changes that Governor Wolf trumpeted as "historic."

So things are booming for the State Stores now, right? Well...not exactly.

Remember how bailment was going to cut inventory costs and save the citizens all sorts of money? It may have but it didn't last. Inventory cost went up over 10% so far this year and has now gone up over 46% since bailment was implemented in 2012. It will certainly pass pre-bailment amounts next year with a modest 3% increase. For the same period of time, the inflation rate went up 6.2%. (2012 Inventory $175,902,668; 2017 Inventory (so far) $257,285,382; Pre-bailment inventory $265,816,891)

Still, with all that inventory they must be making more money right? Sorry! Total Operating Income is down almost 5% year to date, while total assets squeaked out a gain of 4.2%. Meanwhile, Total Liabilities jumped almost 16%, from $803.7 million to 930.5 million. (And you know who has to cover that; you and me, the taxpayers.) Total debt is up almost $50 million more than at this time last year; $264,454,330 or about $26 million in additional debt than at the end of last fiscal year. To be fair, the PLCB statement has numerous notations about 'See Note X, Table Y', but they don't provide what those notes are. Are they valid reasons, or just lame excuses? The public doesn't know, and the PLCB clearly doesn't think we need to; it's kind of like their selection, if they don't have it, we don't need it.

The Never-Ending PLCB Story!

The PLCB is selling more product while making less money. In desperation, they're dipping into reserves to make a big payment to try and fend off  privatization, blowing smoke as thick as possible so you don't notice that they're going even further in the hole with liabilities approaching a Billion dollars...all the while remaining as incompetent as ever.

The benefits of modernization? I'm not seeing any evidence of that extra $137 million the Governor said they would make, and I'm willing to bet I won't, with only four months left in the fiscal year.

How many reasons do you need to get rid of this broken system and replace it with one that works for the consumer?

The numbers don't lie...but somebody is

In the House Appropriations Budget Meeting for the PLCB held earlier this month, the PLCB leadership said that they would have to dip into reserves to meet the Governor's anticipated request for $185 million. Why is that, if "modernization" is going to be the windfall that the Governor (and clerks' union president Wendell W. Young IV) says it is? Are their arguments that facile?

The Governor said in his "Budget In Brief" of 02/07/17 (pg.15) that through modernization ..."an additional $137 million in LCB revenues will be generated." The PLCB didn't correct or disagree with that number. So let's see what doesn't add up. If their income for FY 2015-16 — after paying for the BLCE, but before the General Fund Transfer — was $103,856,933 (which it was, according to their financial report), then a $137 million increase would take it to just over $240 million. But if the PLCB has to dip into reserves to pay $185 million, that has to mean that their so-called "profit" is less than $185 million.

OH NO!  42 million of my friends are missing!

However, during that same budget meeting — in sworn testimony — the PLCB said that even with record sales again, they would only make about $90 million for FY 17-18. That $90 million and $137 million "modernization bonus" take it to $227 million in total. That's $42 million more than the $185 million they said they could pay IF they dipped into reserves. So where is this $42+ million going? If they make the $90 million they project, and the $137 million additional that they didn't object to, then turning in $185 million to the General Fund should be no problem. Remember that these numbers are what the PLCB calls "profit," so everything (except the $238 million in pension debt...but that's another story) is already covered.

We have to ask: why after all the "modernization" is in place does the PLCB think they are actually going to make LESS than they did in FY 15-16?

Could it be that "modernization" is a sham, and that it isn't going to bring $137 million, or $100 million, or even $80 million? Is being off by well over 60% how the Governor and the PLCB do estimates? How big a failure is this going to be? The MINIMUM $42 million off would push this well beyond wine kiosk failure, or the 66% computer cost overrun, or selling house brands or anything I can think of. This would be a failure the size of the 82 year lie that the State Stores would be convenient to the public. They got what they wanted, "flexible pricing" and all, so show us the modernization money, PLCB!

Do the math and decide: are they just stupid? Or is the PLCB deliberately misrepresenting how much money they will bring in for the Commonwealth?

Let's Sum Up: the last nine years

It's not exactly nine years since I started this blog, but it's close enough, considering where we are. Seemed like a good time to take stock.

There was a lot of sturm und drang in the first seven years, "Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing." The idiots in this case, of course, were the Republican members of the Pennsylvania Senate, led by the surprisingly obstructionist Senator Chuck McIlhinney (R-10), who managed to consistently thwart a clear majority for liquor privatization in the House, led by Speaker Mike Turzai.

Me and King Dork

Whatever the reason, McIlhinney worked with the Democrats (de facto, if not actual hand-in-glove) to keep a solid privatization bill from being laid on Governor Tom Corbett's desk. Corbett would most definitely have signed it, too. McIlhinney knew that, so he never gave him the chance. Could Corbett have been re-elected if he'd been able to deliver liquor privatization? Maybe, and then we'd be in the middle of four more years of King Log, instead of the current ham-handed reign of King Dork, but it's impossible to know.

Then came the election in 2014, and things changed, in a strange way. The GOP increased their legislative majority, but the party's abandonment of Tom "One Term Tommy" Corbett made that less useful by giving us Tom "One Term Tommy" Wolf (I really want "One Term Tommy" to become a Pennsylvania colloquialism for any Governor who fails to win a second term, no matter what their first name actually is). That upset the balance, but once the long budget logjam finally broke (a nasty defeat for King Dork), suddenly things happened.

Lurking in the background; why is
he still allowed to drink in PA?

Bang! We got takeout wine sales at licensees (right, not at groceries or convenience stores, just ones with tavern licenses, and with the stupid "cafe" requirement, and a limit of four bottles, and it's gotta cost the same or more as the State Stores, and the PLCB is still the wholesaler, and of course no spirits sales), we got direct wine shipment (only from wineries, no out of state retailers or importers, and again limits), more stores open on Sundays...whoopee...and we got a surprising little grab bag of other kind of neat stuff like looser cider and mead regulation...none of which really affected the state's retail/wholesale monopoly. And of course, we also got flexible pricing, the gleaming hook inside all the colorful lure of the rest of it.

They were, unfortunately, almost all things that McIlhinney wanted. Why does this man, this second-rate hack from Bucks County who's in a variety of pockets, get to rule over the liquor reform we've wanted for decades? The GOP put him there, and continues to leave him there, despite the way he thumbs his nose at the House majority and the Speaker on these issues.

Yep: you can get the whole thing, or just one bottle.

Ye gods and little fishes. Of course, we also, finally, cross it off the list, saw an end to the much-hated Case Law. Which was awesome, and great, and all that...except of course that the Case Law's evil twin, the Two Sixpack Law that afflicts bars, restaurants, and grocery stores is still firmly in place. And I have to admit, I'm not sure if it applies across types; if I went into the State College Wegmans, could I get two sixpacks and four bottles of wine? Mind blown.

The sad thing is how excited we all are about this. We're whooping it up -- the Case Law is dead! We kin buy us wine at the Giant Eagle! -- so much that we don't even notice how sad it still is.

1. We still aren't even up to "normal," let alone "world class." New Hampshire is still better off: lower prices, better State Store System (much much better), and wine in stores all over the place; New Jersey is much better off, Maryland, Delaware...we're finally a step ahead of Utah, and that's cause for celebration? 
2. Spirits haven't changed a bit, except for the flexible pricing that will soon be costing us more.
3. And worst of all: the half-assed way that we finally were allowed to buy beer and wine at grocery stores -- by letting them buy one of the restricted number of tavern/restaurant licenses -- is causing the price of those licenses to skyrocket, as I warned here (I've warned about this for years). Over $500,000 for a liquor license, just for the piece of paper, so a Giant Market can sell sixpacks? That's putting small independent grocers out of the game (and likely out of business), and making it too expensive for restaurants to have a bar. Hope you like BYOB.

The Case Law is dead, and that's definitely progress. The changes for off-site and cross-license sales for Pennsylvania breweries/distilleries/wineries/cideries/meaderies are a tremendous opportunity (one the State Stores surely weren't delivering). And the 'zombie license' auction, even though it transparently benefits chain stores and the PLCB over everyone else, does, at least, free up some more licenses.

But we still have a long, long way to go.
We're not done till there's whiskey in private stores.
We're not done till they don't need a "cafe" to sell booze.
We're not done till the state's out of the retail and wholesale booze business.
We're not done till this whole thing gets sorted out.

And when we're done...what happens to the guys who got us through this stupid period? The GREAT sixpack shop owners and managers, the GREAT owners and managers of the exceptional beer distributors? You know, the folks who will now own a largely worthless business, as supermarkets and convenience stores undercut them relentlessly on prices, while inevitably shrinking selection (not completely, maybe, but it's never going to be their focus)?

What happens to all those State Store System employees, a significant number of which do a decent job at the register, and some of whom honestly do have a passion for what they're doing? Do they find new jobs? Do they open liquor stores?

What happens when the Legislature finally gets its gumption up and puts a real stake through the heart of this zombie relic of Repeal?

What then? WHAT THEN?

Gun it! The Finish Line is in sight!

I don't know. But specialist booze emporiums do survive and thrive in states where supermarkets sell booze. So they can work here, once we get to that point.

So let's get going, let's keep going, and get this done. Don't slow down, don't listen to the last ditchers who will tell you "We have to give these changes a chance to work out!" No, actually, we don't. We can admit that they were a compromise that didn't need to be made. The time to change this is now, before we have another entrenched set of entitlements.

We've got the momentum. Let's finish this.

New Positions, Old Positions

The PLCB says, over and over, they want to run like a business. I did a comparison of how they attempt to go about that in my "Run Like A Business - Really?" post at the beginning of this year.

One of the things businesses do, one of the most important things, is hiring personnel to do the work and run the operations. The PLCB way is not so much to hire qualified people in 99% of those occasions, as it is to prefer the policy of promoting from within. In general, though, those people know nothing about how real retail is run, because all they know is the Socialist Monopoly PLCB retail model, which has little to do being "run like a business." Governor Wolf continues the tradition of hiring hacks, people with no liquor retail experience, with his latest addition to the board.

Who runs the "business"? The Board seems to have abdicated that responsibility, reserving to itself the job of rubber-stamping license applications (and reading letters from the Governor), testifying to the Legislature about how wonderful things are (despite how they look), and hiring people to actually run the "business." People like Joe "Da CEO" Conti and John Metzger and whoever Metzger's replacement will be when he retires at the end of September.. Nice work, boys.

Now we have the new made-up position of COO (Chief Operation Officer), which you usually find in businesses with more than one thing going on. Maybe he is in charge of the liquor testing lounge too. Just another $120+K slot that didn't exist before this year, filled by another born and bred PLCB insider, the former Director of Retail Operations Charles Mooney.

Besides getting paid every two weeks, just what has Mooney done? Not much so far, that we can see. But that's not surprising, considering that he was the guy who took years to replace Renovo's store, a year to move the Mountaintop store 50 feet (give or take), and pulled the State Stores out of downtown Lewisburg and Lock Haven against the wishes of the community, the local Representative, and their state Senator. You can read some other consumer friendly (I'm kidding) things he's had his hands in here. I don't expect much to change in the new position. Charlie's replacement is another brainwashed 30 year PLCB vet, Carl Jolly, so you know there won't be any innovation happening, just like during Charlie's tenure. Same old, same old, that's the way we've always done it here at the good old State Store System.

I'm not sure how this is going to work. In a real business, all the "Chief" officers are higher up the food chain than Directors. But at the PLCB we now have a COO and have had CIO (Chief Information Officer), both ostensibly under the Executive Director, at least according to the PLCB's own wire diagram in their Fiscal Year In Review (page 9 if you are following along). Just like every business you've never seen.

It is a typical PLCB answer to a PLCB problem. Throw money (or in this case, Mooney) at it and see if that fixes it. Adding more bureaucrats to an already top-heavy, incompetent organization is not the fix that is needed. Neither is keeping and promoting the old guard who only know the PLCB way. PLCB lifers have no real business experience, because the PLCB isn't a real business.

But if the PLCB is intent on creating high-paying positions that they don't have anybody qualified to fill, I'll offer these suggestions so they can fully mimic what a real business does.

CXO - Chief experience officer - A chief experience officer is the officer responsible for the overall user experience (UX) of an organization. This executive is ultimately responsible for the strategy and user interface design to connect the consumer to the organization's products and services, and may further oversee marketing communications, community relations, internal relations and HR relations. This would then supply someone convenient to blame for the millions of customers who have and continue to have poor experiences with the PLCB. Very handy for the Board to deflect criticism; this should be someone especially expendable.

CFO - Chief Financial Officer - This person manages the corporation’s financial risk.  They deal with data analysis, financial planning and record keeping. Being $240 million in the hole might require somebody to blame, so who better than the CFO?

CHRO - Chief Human Resources Officer - With all the new hires, the PLCB will need to be open longer hours and Sundays, and deliver products. That's gonna take a CHRO to combat the likely 40% turnover rate for new employees (and to blame for it).

CMO - Chief Marketing Officer - Somebody has to be in charge of the new, exciting coupons (and take the blame for their inevitable failure to meet revenue expectations).

CRO - Chief Revenue Officer - You really need this guy to explain to the unions and other PLCB supporters (and maybe even the Democrats in the Legislature) that "revenue" is not "profit". 

CSO - Chief Strategy Officer - Somebody has to be the point of focus to fight every pro-consumer initiative, every threat to the status quo, and any changes that weren't approved by Gifford Pinchot himself. (This position is unique in that it doesn't accept blame, it creates it. Very useful.)

How a real dysfunctional business works. Maybe the PLCB's not that far off...

Of course, all of these people need to report to a CEO, which they haven't had since Conti smeared crap all over title like an incontinent monkey, so you can add that salary to the total. You should be able to waste at least a few million on these folks and their staff  in addition to your new COO position. To make sure you expend the maximum amount, remember to only hire people with no experience in real life retail or liquor — just like was done over the past 80 years.

The only way the liquor and wine business in this state will ever "run like a business"...is if it is a business. Even better: lots of businesses.

Privatize. Accept nothing less.

The Most Important Letters at the PLCB Are Not "U" or "I"

The most important letters at the PLCB are C...Y...A. That's right; the agency runs on Cover Your Ass. Have a look.

In the Winter/Spring issue of the PLCB propaganda magazine "Taste," they had, on the cover, featured a drink called the Aviation, which requires creme de violette. It is a crucial ingredient in the cocktail, a necessity. But the PLCB didn't sell creme de violette at the time, except as a "special liquor order" (the aptly-named SLO) with a minimum order of six bottles. It sure seemed like they were telling anybody who wanted to make the drink featured on the cover of their own magazine -- who didn't want to spend $100 on a six-bottle SLO -- to go out of state to buy the proper ingredients. Of course, after having that pointed out, the PLCB approved creme de violette 2 months later. I'm not sure if it is really on the shelf yet, and how long will it be before they decide it isn't meeting their Five Year Plan of Sales and de-list it...again?

This isn't the first time the PLCB has put drinks in their rag that you can't make if you're stuck shopping at the State Stores, and I'm sure it won't be the last, either. ..again.

Get it while you can...or go out of state...again

Of course the most famous incident of CYA in the PLCB was when they tried to hide the whole wine kiosk fiasco as documented here. Nothing like trying to destroy evidence to inspire confidence in a public organization. Then there was the whole TableLeaf (and others) house brand disaster, and again, somehow all the paperwork on who instituted the idea, who initially approved it and why - all of that has disappeared.

We can go back to the big Oracle upgrade that went more than 200% over budget ($25.8M to $66.6M) because the PLCB couldn't read and understand the contract they signed. The Auditor General had a great time with that one, stating, "This raises questions about the PLCB's ability to adequately contract for information technology solutions." And that wasn't even the first time that was brought up by the AG. That earlier report is no longer on line at the AG website but I have a copy if you want to read it.

In fact, just reading all of the AG audit reports show a history of CYA. Remember the smile training that the husband of a senior PLCB official "won"? While the AG did say it was legal -- barely -- that didn't stop the PLCB from authorizing a second year as if to rub it in. Strangely enough, customer complaints increased.

We're happy to get you anything you want (if that has been authorized by people who know nothing about the liquor industry)!

"Each board member evaluates each license application on its own merits, thoughtfully deliberating over each decision and voting as he deems appropriate," says Elizabeth Brassel, Mistress Of Propaganda PLCB. Except when the Democratic Governor asks the Democratic Chairman to change his vote, like just happened when the Board "Freed The Six-Pack"....in a whole nine stores. That's about 1,416,667 people per "freed" store. I hope they hired extra cashiers.

Lining up for them freed six-packs; thanks, Wolfman!

.

The Dam's Breaking!

Hot news out of Harrisburg: a bill loosening rules on wine sales has passed both houses of the General Assembly (passed by the Senate back in December; the House Rules Committee brought it up, passed it, and sent it to the floor all this morning, and the House passed it early this afternoon) and is on its way to the Governor's desk. The bill -- a creation of Senator McIlhinney's -- does not eliminate the State Stores or the wholesale monopoly, but it does allow licensees to sell up to four bottles of wine for takeaway, including of course the licensees that are supermarkets and gas stations. The bill passed with bipartisan support in both the committee and the full House (two Democratic Senators voted for it in December).

Stealth bill, zooming under the UFCW radar!

Governor Wolf released a statement on the bill's prognosis:

"Today the House concurred with the Senate on historic liquor modernization legislation that provides greater customer convenience to the people of Pennsylvania. As I have always said, my goal is to modernize the sale of liquor and beer in Pennsylvania to ensure convenience and satisfaction for customers. Once the bill reaches my desk, I will conduct a final review of the legislation to ensure it meets my goals of enhancing the customer experience, increasing much-needed revenue to help balance our budget, and bringing our wine and spirits system into the 21st century."

So...maybe, maybe not, but it's going to be hard for him to veto a bill that passed with significant Democratic support that doesn't actually privatize the State Stores or the wholesale system. What it does do is potentially take a LOT of sales away from the State Stores, and UFCW Local 1776's Wendell W. "President For Life" Young IV knows it. "This is the first step to killing the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board and the Republicans know it," Young said.

It's a wobbly step, a baby step, and a head-shakingly stupid step that recapitulates the useless mistake of the case law...but it is a step. The State Stores will be in deep crap from competition, and things will get worse, especially as people want more convenience. They're going to be irked that they still have to go to the stinky old State Store to buy liquor; they're going to be irked by the stupid four-bottle rule; and they're going to be angry and confused that they can't buy booze at every supermarket and gas station. And that's what's going to break the dam. Finally. The end may be in sight.

Privatize, don't modernize.

There are lies, damn lies, and...Governor Wolf

We're still seeing a lot of talk about how Governor Wolf is behind "freeing the six-pack," when honestly, all he did was send a politically opportune letter. Here's how the Governor spun "supporting" what was going to happen anyway into propaganda for the masses, taken directly from the Governor's blog: a closer look at the claims. 

I’m hearing a lot about how Pennsylvania “Freed the Six-Pack.” What does that mean?
"Last week, following Governor’s Wolf’s request, the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board approved nine licenses allowing gas stations to sell beer. These approvals freed the six-pack for certain gas stations with appropriate accommodations that can now to sell six-packs of beer."

Reality - The Board had already approved licenses for places that also sold fuel, which is what let to the current case in front of the State Supreme Court. There was no reason to think the Board wouldn't approve other licenses that met their requirements. In fact, if they didn't, they would likely be taken to court just like when they tried to stop grocery stores from selling beer in "cafes" in 2010.

Why is this such a big deal?
"'Freeing the six-pack' will make the commonwealth more inviting for consumers and businesses by improving customer service and convenience for Pennsylvanians. Here’s what Governor Wolf has to say about it."

Reality - With the quota system in place (one R license per 3,000 people per county), those licenses had to come from somewhere. Robbing Peter to pay Paul doesn't change the total access or number of places to buy. While you may be able to buy beer at a couple of gas stations, there are fewer places to have a beer with your meal (unless you really want to have lunch at a gas station "cafe," you poor thing), and any new places that open will be more expensive.

Stop right there! There will be no wine or liquor convenience while I'm Governor!

What exactly happened at the May 25 PLCB public meeting when these licenses were approved?
"At the regularly scheduled May 25 Board meeting, nine license applications from businesses that also sell gasoline were considered, eight of which had been held at prior meetings because they did not achieve the required two votes for either approval or denial. Now that the Board is at its full complement of three members, a number of licensing applications that have been awaiting Board action for months may be considered again.
"After careful consideration of various factors – including Commonwealth Court precedent upholding the granting of liquor licenses to convenience stores and grocery stores with alcohol sales locations separate from fuel sales operations – the Board unanimously voted to approve these nine license applications."

Reality - The PLCB first decided to allow beer sales at a convenience store location that also sells fuel on July 14, 2014, This decision was upheld by the Commonwealth Court on  July 31, 2015. By that time, the PLCB had approved more licenses for grocery and convenience stores that also sold fuel on the property.
It was Board Chairman Tim Holden (appointed as chairman by Wolf) who was voting against approval of further licensees when the board was down to just two members (after Joseph E. "Skip" Brion left on Nov, 19, 2015), supposedly because he wanted to see what the State Supreme Court would do with case of the appealed Commonwealth Court decision. However, the Supreme Court didn't agree to take up the case until Feb 18, 2016. That left a three month period between Brion leaving and the Supreme Court agreeing to take up the case where Holden voted against further licenses. Think about it: the 'no' votes could not have been for the reason he stated. Since it only takes two votes by the board for approval, and he had approved other licenses previously for properties that sold fuel — what changed?
May 25th 2016 was the first time the Board had three members since November the previous year. The Governor had sent his letter to the board asking them to "free the six-pack" (which really meant just chaining it up somewhere else), and suddenly Chairman Holden decides he can't wait for the Supreme Court decision, because it may take too long!

Will there be more licenses like this approved?
"Governor Wolf has requested that the PLCB approve similar subsequent applications that otherwise meet PLCB standards. The PLCB Board members have indicated that while each license application is reviewed and evaluated on its own merits, they, too are supportive of additional consumer convenience and growing Pennsylvania commerce."

Reality - "Licenses like this" are the only licenses available; there is nothing special or different about them.  Having a gas station buy an "R" or "E" license takes that license away from a bar or restaurant. It doesn't change convenience at all since the number of locations hasn't changed, and it is questionable if it grows employment, since a restaurant usually has more employees than a gas station.

How soon can these businesses start selling beer?
"As soon as each license is administratively finished up and issued to the licensee, that business can start selling beer. This could happen in as little as a day or two following Board approval."

Reality - Or it can take months, like the seven months it took to make the decision on some of these licenses, even after all the administrative work was finished and waiting.

How do additional gas stations get approval for selling beer to go?
"A number of different PLCB license types allow for sales of beer, including restaurant, eating place and distributor licenses. Each license type has different qualifications and grants different license privileges."

Reality - Because of the current system, every license that gets approved for this use is taken out of the pool of licenses that could be available for bars, restaurants, distributors that can effect a downtown revitalization and community growth. I don't hear too much about a convenience store or gas station doing that. This makes it more expensive for small businesses to get a license and thus leads to higher prices needed to pay off the license which means higher prices for you the consumer and possibly a need to sell more alcohol to make up the increased cost. Also, there just aren't that many licenses available right now, and until there are...no more gas station beer.

Conclusion - The Governor didn't free the six-pack, as there was and is no increase in availability. He also didn't do anything to make the system better, as pointed out by Lew Bryson in his excellent piece. He did use this to deflect privatization because people do tend to think of beer, wine, and spirits together, even though that hasn't been the case in this state for over 80 years. The six-pack is not freed, it is just now allowed to be chained to a different owner, still a slave to the absurdity of the PLCB and their "interpretations" and regulations. If the Governor wanted to really free the six-pack, he would be proposing legislation and not interpretation. Do you see that happening? No, and you don't see the Legislature doing anything either.

Abolish the PLCB; rewrite the code!

BEER IN GAS STATIONS!!! No, it's not, and Wolf had nothing to do with it

Everyone's losing their minds because Pennsylvania gas stations can now sell beer, and Governor Wolf made it happen. We saw headlines like this (exclamations added..):

Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board Approves 6-Pack Sales At Gas Stations!
Pa. Liquor Control Board allows gas stations to sell 6-packs!
Gas and brews: Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board approves beer sales at gas stations!
Pennsylvania Finally Catches Up With The Rest Of America, Legalizes Selling Six-Packs Of Beer At Gas Stations!

No, no, and no. Gas stations near you probably still won't be selling beer (without jumping through ridiculous hoops first) and Governor Wolf had nothing to do with it. It's just one more chunk of pathetic bullshit from Harrisburg, designed to dazzle and placate you and keep your mind off how crappy the booze sales system in this state is. Allow me to explain.

First? This is about nine gas stations in the entire state which bought existing licenses (of various types; that's explained quite well here if you're interested) -- like the supermarkets that are "allowed" to sell beer 12 bottles at a time -- and just wanted to have those licenses approved...because, of course, the Almighty Liquor Code actually "prohibits the sale of liquid fuels or oil by licensees."

Just add beer...sorry, not allowed in Pennsylvania!

So that means that the Board is once again ignoring the law ("The board shall refuse any application for a new license, the transfer of any license to a new location or the extension of any license to cover an additional area where the sale of liquid fuels or oil is conducted"), just like it did last year when it said a 12-pack is a case. ("No distributor or importing distributor shall sell any malt or brewed beverages in quantities of less than a case or original containers containing one hundred twenty-eight ounces or more").

Now, I'm all in favor of ignoring the Almighty Liquor Code myself; I do it all the time by running to NJ for booze. But it's one thing when I do it; it's completely something else when the state regulatory agency in charge of enforcing and interpreting The Almighty Liquor Code is doing it. This kind of arbitrary decision leads to madness and badness.

What kind of badness? Realize this: every time one of these gas stations buys a license, that's a bar license (R license, "deli" license, or a straight-up D distributor license; they're buying whatever they can get their hands on) that's out of circulation for years, not being used as intended. Ordinarily, I'd say, who cares? But this is Pennsylvania, where the number of bar licenses is limited by population: 1 license per 3,000 people per county. Then realize that bar and deli licenses, unlike every other kind of license, can be bought and sold on the open market for whatever the market will bear, and you see that every gas station and supermarket that buys a license makes the price of other licenses higher. And that means fewer start-up bars, more chain restaurants, and more high-end expensive bars...and more bars that are likely to try to sell as much booze as possible to make that monthly payment on the license. Not good. I wrote about that here. What else? Well, how about...the Board can easily play favorites, because they can decide the next batch of applications don't get approved, and they don't have to give any reason, nor are they bound by precedent...because that's how the PLCB works. Every ruling stands on its own. Period.

It would be much better to have a new license for retail beer sales, without the stupid 12-pack restrictions and separate register foolishness, than to continue to do this workaround. But that would require the Legislature to do something, and that would upset the tavern owners AND the beer distributors...even more than this is.

To my pleased surprise, the decision also was not well-received by the Brewers of Pennsylvania, who responded -- correctly!-- that "To truly “free the six-pack” as Governor Wolf requested from the PLCB, then the future call to action must be to allow six-packs to be sold in many more businesses than just gas stations... To truly achieve consumer convenience as well as provide for a variety of purchasing options for consumers, the BOP highly recommends allowing six-pack sales in all channels of trade. Doing so would immediately benefit all small craft beer producers in Pennsylvania..." BOP president Bill Covaleski (of Victory Brewing) told me "the consumer is at the forefront of our thinking. We are headed in the direction of the consumer, we need them to tell us where that is." He noted that "where that is" clearly seemed to be in every grocery store and convenience store. It's refreshing to see that the brewers get what the Legislature doesn't: the consumers should be considered first, not the special interest groups.

Second? Once again, this is about nine gas stations in the entire state. It does NOT mean "gas stations can sell sixpacks." You won't be seeing beer at every Wawa anytime soon, especially not in southeast Pennsylvania, because bar licenses are really freakin' expensive here; like around $400,000 in Montgomery County. So why is everyone so excited? Because Governor Wolf made a big deal about this.

Yay me! I wroted a letter!

Third? What does Governor Wolf have to do with it? Nothing but shameless self-promotion, that's what. Wolf heard that the PLCB was about to vote on these applications, and like everyone else in Harrisburg, he knew the PLCB was likely to say yes. So he sent them a letter asking them to do that as a favor to his friends, the people of Pennsylvania, and then made a big stinking deal out of it when they approved the applications. As a friend of mine said, tomorrow Wolf will send out a press release predicting the sun's gonna rise in the east, and he'll be two for two!

Did anyone know Wolf was a big supporter of "free the six pack"? No, you didn't, because "Free the six pack" was just something Wolf hitched his wagon to the day before the PLCB was going to approve these piddling nine applications. He's an opportunistic fraud.

To recap: not much has changed; Wolf had nothing to do with it; and this is still a terrible way to change things. As I've said for years, the arbitrary nature of the PLCB and the byzantine impenetrability of the Almighty Liquor Code make for an ever-worsening situation here.

So when you don't see beer at your local gas station...remember this, will ya? And tell your legislators to Rewrite The Code, with you in mind, not the unions and the beer distributors and the tavern owners and the convenience stores and Pat Deon. It's the only way we'll ever change this.