You Were Right; The Pappy Lottery Was Rigged

Reported on PennLive.com: Five PLCB executives were investigated by the State Ethics Commission for, let's not mince words, cheating on the PLCB's Pappy Van Winkle "lottery." 

Let's do a perp walk. 

• Board member Michael Negra
• Cliff McFarland, director of supply chain 
• Tom Bowman, director of product selection
• Bryan Kelleher, director of the bureau of business development for wholesale operations
• Carl Jolly, a retail operations manager

All five of them were found to have participated in a scheme to snap up 'unclaimed' Pappy Van Winkle 12 Year Old bourbon (the "Lot B" bottling prized by the pros) and other allocated whiskeys. See, the PLCB would hold a lottery (which often led to website crashes, and was widely believed to be rigged, though no evidence of that has surfaced...yet) for PA residents to take a chance at buying one of the state's allocated bottles of various whiskey releases. After the results were announced, the winners would then be able to buy the bottles at the PLCB list price, which was, admittedly, often hundreds of dollars less than at private stores in other states. 

'Shopping' at the PLCB Executive Store

But amazingly, not every bottle would be claimed. For instance, the lottery cited in the PennLive article, the January 2020 lottery for the Lot B bottling, had over 17,000 entrants for 999 bottles, and 24 went unclaimed. The rules of the lottery said that those bottles would then be released for a "second-chance" lottery...but the PLCB decided not to do that, and instead the vultures at the top feasted on the remnants. 

Want more? The lottery allowed winning entrants to purchase a single bottle. Ha! Jolly, for instance, despite not having even entered the lottery (why would he? That's for us suckers), "bought three bottles of Pappy Van Winkle bourbon for $410 and separately a bottle of Weller 12-year Reserve Bourbon for $40." That was in one lottery. We're not told how many bottles in total 0were bought by these PLCB parasites. 

There is an aspect to this that is particularly hard to swallow. Their participation is not contested; they all did it, some of them multiple times. They didn't steal the bottles; they bought them, at list price, with their own money. There is apparently no credible evidence that they flipped the bottles to make money; Lot B, for example, is currently going for well over $1,000 in the so-called "secondary market." 

But because there was "insufficient clear and convincing evidence of a pecuniary benefit", the State Ethics Commission found that there was "no violation" of the state ethics code. That's bullshit. The whiskey wasn't theirs to buy, and even if they didn't sell it, they had that potential. That's like saying you're not guilty of theft because you stole a Van Gogh...and then just kept it. I mean, you didn't make any money on it, right? No harm, no foul, baby!

Despite that "innocence," the Ethics Commission's report says that they were each "ordered to fulfill his agreement to not purchase any items offered by the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board outside of the process by which a Commonwealth resident may purchase such items." Don't the words "fulfill his agreement" sound like a deal was made? 

Of course a deal was made. And once again, the PLCB gets away with this crap. And what do we do? Nothing. That's what we do. Because the miserable PA Legislature has other things to do. Like making it harder to vote, and easier to frack.

Do you remember when the PLCB was the ONLY retail operation to shut down voluntarily in March of 2020? Absolutely closed for six weeks, and not only that, they boarded up the windows because they were afraid of us, that we rampaging drunks would loot their stores. 

Actual PLCB store, Wilkes-Barre, March 2020

Why are these guys still around? Will no one rid us of this troublesome agency?! 

Apparently not, because neither Shapiro's or Mastriano's campaign responded to me when I asked them about their positions on PLCB privatization. I'd remind you that I'm a nationally known whiskey writer, I've testified about these issues before the legislature; I'm not just a blogger howling in the night...but they didn't respond. 

Which leads me to believe that we're screwed. Shapiro is just another Democrat who will veto any privatization bill -- for reasons unclear -- and Mastriano apparently is either beholden to the religiously anti-booze or will be too busy fighting for freedom, whatever he thinks that means. 

But don't worry. These guys promised not to buy booze outside the normal channels again. Pinky swear. 

Looks like it's gonna be a long eight years. 

"Given our need inside this building..."

Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board member Mike Negra may have inadvertently told the truth (he'll probably be fined for that). Quoted in a story about the PLCB's recently announced price hikes that ran in several state newspapers, Negra let it slip that the PLCB's main mission is the survival of the PLCB, its jobs, stores, and cushy bureaucratic positions. How else are you supposed to interpret this quote?

"Given our need inside this building and throughout our agency due to rising costs of employee benefits and so forth, a lot of that is out of our hands, we felt it was something we needed to do," said board member Mike Negra. "That's what is behind it."

Any PLCB bureaucrat

You see that, right? "Given our need inside this building..." None of the usual window dressing and self-sacrificing bullshit about how the PLCB does so much for the state. Nothing about the General Fund, nothing about the state's financial crisis, nothing about the State Police, nothing about actual alcoholism prevention (what about the children???), and certainly nothing about you, you poor shlub. No, the prices are going up because the bureaucracy needs to fund their ever-increasing operating costs. 

We told you, over and over, that "flexible pricing" would mean "higher pricing." We take no joy in being right, we just wish someone would have listened.

Now can you finally call your rep and tell them it's time to privatize this mess? All of it?

Questions that should be asked

Since the PLCB never faces any real questions, or a press corps with the tough ones, we thought we'd provide a look at how that might go. It's all fictional, but hey, the PLCB says they're a "business," so we're on solid ground.

Chairman Holden, board member Negra, and board member Newsome: welcome to Face the Citizens.

   (Holden) Glad to be here Al.

Glad to have you here, gentlemen. As you know, this program is dedicated to helping the Citizens of Pennsylvania understand exactly what the Board does, and the why and wherefore behind some of your decisions. We'll start with your experience for the job. Have any of you been a director-level executive — or higher — in a $2 billion revenue company? Anyone? A $1 Billion company? A $200 Million company? No? Well, do any of you have any experience in the liquor industry? Ahh, yes Member Negra!

Chairman Holden did not actually say these things.

   (Negra) I have a bottle of wine with dinner sometimes.
   (Holden) We used to get pretty hammered after some of the caucus meetings, so I have tried a lot of different spirits.
   (Newsome) No.

Okay, do you know anything about the three tier system? I see a few heads nodding. Could you explain it for the readers?

   (Negra) Well Al, it would take far too much time to properly get across the complexities of the three tier system. We'd need a whole program just for that.

Fine with me, when can you do it?

   (Negra) I'd have to check my schedule and get back to you about that. You know the PLCB keeps us pretty busy; it's at least two or three days a month. It barely leaves time for our other work.

Board member Negra did not actually say these things.

Do any of you have experience with such common business tools as sales price variance analysis, proximity analysis or inter-type agglomeration analysis?

   (Holden) Wait a minute,  there is math involved?  Nobody told me there would be math.

Surely Member Newsome, you used these tools at Wolf Cabinets?

   (Newsome) Not to any great extent. You see, the market for cabinets isn't at all like the market for wine and spirits. The wine and spirits market is a police-enforced monopoly, as God intended. People can buy cabinets anywhere, based on price and quality and outlet convenience. It's quite different.

Board member Newsome did not actually say these things.

Of course. Let's move on to beer regulation. Chairman Holden, you had been voting for giving gas stations licenses that met the café space and register separation requirements up until Member Skip Brion left, then you suddenly started voting against those licenses, saying that your reason was that you wanted to see what the State Supreme Court was going to do. However, they didn't even agree to take the case until three months AFTER you started voting no. Then when Governor Wolf asked the Board to "Free The Sixpack," you just as suddenly started voting for them again. Care to explain?

   (Holden) That's in the past Al, nobody wants to hear that ancient history. What's done is done is what I always say. Especially at legislative hearings.

I see.  How about your new Executive Director? You went from somebody that had a firm grasp of how real retail works — John Metzger — to Charlie Mooney, who has no real world experience. This, at a time when some of the ways the PLCB does things are actually shifting toward how a real business would run. Any comments?

   (Holden) Charlie is a great guy, he's been here forever and knows how we do things.

But isn't how you do things the reason that things are changing? If you were better at how you did things, like say New Hampshire, there wouldn't be all these pushes for change.

   (Negra) Oh, we're not changing, we're modernizing. Think of it like new math. The numbers didn't change, just how you used them. That's the PLCB!

I guess that's another whole program. Moving on again... Last year you had record sales for the umpteenth year in a row. You also claimed record "profits." Let's talk about costs, specifically, why did the pension debt the PLCB owes only decrease by $550,000 in a year when you had all these record sales?

   (Newsome)  That is easy, Al. We spent the money on other things!

What other things? 

   (Newsome)  Other other things. Look, we don't have to pay any interest on the pension debt, so there is no hurry to pay it off. As a state agency, we can't go bankrupt, so it just isn't that important. With all the consultants and relatives we'll have to hire because nobody in house can deal with Act 39, I doubt it will go down much next year either.

But doesn't the state have to pay interest on the money they borrow to cover that shortage?

   (Newsome) Of course the state does, but WE, the PLCB, don't. So...not on our balance sheet!

Thanks for being so upfront about that. It looks like we are just about out of time. Thank you for being on Face The Citizens. I look forward to you coming back again.

(Hot mic catches...)
   (Newsome) Nope,
   (Holden) Not gonna happen.
   (Negra) Don't bet on it.


Do I need to say it? PRIVATIZE. 

PLCB "buying power" a myth

This is the single most important piece of information I've written about.

The House appropriations committee had the PLCB in for their annual hearing on February 25th, and besides the normal tap-dancing that they do ("Well, sir, it's my personal feeling that we'll meet those goals, yes"), the Chairman of the PLCB let it slip out that the PLCB doesn't really have any buying power.

Ooops! In a response to a question put forth by the Appropriations Committee about where they might be able to find more income, LCB Chair Tim Holden said that because of the current 30% markup structure, the board can't negotiate for the best price. According to Mr. Holden, the manufacturer sets the price they want to sell their product for, and the the PLCB backs down from that through the 30% markup, 18% Johnstown Flood Tax, bottle fees, and whatever other charges they have that they've hidden from you, to come up with a buy price that they will pay. Unlike a real business that tries to get the best possible price and then adds on what it needs to make a profit and cover expenses.

This quote is taken from the Appropriations meeting; you can see it here, at about 2:43 in. Holden says, "People somehow believe that we have the ability to negotiate with the vendors. We have to do it proportionately so we have to have a markup that's consistent. And we believe that the money that can be made by negotiating a better price on different products is where the greatest amount of [increased] money can be achieved."

A little later, Board member Mike Negra backs him up, even more clearly: "The manufacturer sets the MSRP, the manufacturer's suggested retail price, and through the system it's backed down to determine what we pay for that product. Not necessarily your typical retail relationship between us and the manufacturer. We can't really leverage our ability of purchasing, our 'buying power' is not really leveraged in that manner. There are significant dollars, we believe -- it'll take a lot of time, it'll take a real learning experience for our vendors and for our buyers to change that." Remember: Negra is the first Board member in a while to have any actual retail experience!

Now I can understand why the lazy way is taken. It is less work for the PLCB if they don't negotiate every price. But I have yet to find any justification in the Liquor Code for the attitude that they can't negotiate for the lowest price, which is what the board members are saying here. That reasoning seems to go against the what the Code says the Board should be doing already. The Code says the price has to be "proportional," not that it has to be proportional from the MSRP or that it can't be negotiated.

Section  2-207 (b) of The Liquor Code under General powers of board says: "Prices shall be proportional with prices paid by the board to its suppliers and shall reflect any advantage obtained through volume purchases by the board." Isn't that the definition of 'buying power'? If they aren't negotiating prices, which the Chairman says they are not, just how are they leveraging their volume purchases beyond what the vendor says they will give? As Negra admits, they aren't.

I'm going to say this in really big letters so you can't miss it.

There is no volume discount on standard stocked items, because the goal is to sell them at MSRP.

If you are the 2nd or 3rd largest retail buyer of ANYTHING and don't try to get a better price, then the entire organization needs to be replaced, eliminated, done away with for sheer incompetence.

The board not only doesn't want to save you money, they want to take away what money they could save you by negotiating lower prices by using the nebulous "flexible pricing" they want as part of "modernization." Believe this: "flexible pricing" means negotiating a lower price and still charging you the higher "MSRP" they charge now, and keeping the difference. At the PLCB, they don't care about the consumer. All they care about is covering their ever-increasing expenses so they can keep the boondoggle machine running at full speed.

Do we really need this? Privatize and let real businesses try to save you money by being in competition with other businesses, because they're motivated to keep you as a returning customer...rather than knowing that you have to come to them because that's the law.

Honestly? Sometimes you have to wonder how stupid we all are for putting up with kind of crap for eighty years.