Great New Profit-maker for the PLCB!

Great news! As reported here on Philly.com, and in more detail here from the Justice Department's own website, four companies have been ordered to pay a total of $9 million in fines for their role in the unethical practices of three PLCB officials: P.J. "PJ" Stapleton, Joe "Da CEO" Conti, and James "Fall Guy" Short. It took over four years, but they're paying, and even when you're selling booze to a monopoly that doesn't care about its customers, that ain't chump change.

We were glad to see this, since we fully support telling the truth and stating facts, even if they don't necessarily make the PLCB look bad. That's not our main mission: our main mission is proving that the current system is outdated, not good for customers, and yes, naturally prone to corruption and abuses like this. We were also glad to see that our friend (no, he doesn't know it, but he is, just like Joe "Da CEO" Conti was) James "Fall Guy" Short still hasn't been sentenced almost two years after his conviction on fraud charges. Hmmmm...wonder why that is? Bet a lot of current and former PLCB employees are wondering too.

Dat's a right: Malocchio!

Anyway, the Philly.com comments gang — usually a heap of steaming crap; angry steaming crap — managed to come up with a great idea related to this! Check this out from a genius calling themselves Malocchio: "Maybe this can be a new revenue generator for them... entrap their vendors into giving gifts, then assess confiscatory fines against them... instant profit!"

Brilliant. In fact, too smart for the PLCB. It would all fall apart shortly after the gifts were received...and the employees spent them and asked for more. Hey guys! Remember the "entrapment" part? The trap's gotta spring! Guys? Guys?

End the corruption. Privatize now. Not after more "studies," not after more "hearings," not with all the states where privatization works to look at. 

PRIVATIZE NOW. In fact, right now would be a GREAT time: swap the Democrats a fracking tax for full and immediate privatization. Get what we want, balance the budget, and chances are good no one would really even notice the frack tax. Let's do this, PA Legislature, the citizens are waiting.

PLCB - The Avis Of PA Corruption

Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board Celebrates the First Federal Charges of the decade!

 

Harrisburg: The Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board today welcomed local officials and the public to the grand sentencing of the former Fine Wine and Good Spirits Premium Collection Store Marketing Director Jim Short. After the guilty plea, refreshments selected by Mr, Short himself will be available at many State Stores.

Jim's new address offers a warm, welcoming atmosphere for convicts to browse the extensive selection of PLCB Wine and Spirits magazines. The focal point of his new residence is a large center table in the mess hall, where convicts can always find staff to answer questions or provide recommendations. Jim is looking forward to seeing his old friends, Joe "Water Heater" Conti and Pat "PJ" Stapleton soon. Perhaps even Jerry "Muddy" Waters will stop in too.

The PLCB only has us in Liquor Jail, we have them in REAL Jail
Rotten at the top, rotten at the core..

Just like the old AVIS commercial that said they try harder, the PLCB is shooting to be the most corrupt agency in PA, displacing the Turnpike Commission, which held that distinction for years.

This is the brain trust that started "modernization," wine kiosks, spent millions to come up with "Fine Wine And Good Spirits," went into competition against Pennsylvania's wineries in their own state (though strangely all the paperwork has gone missing and nobody can remember who came up with that idea). Did I mention the wine kiosks?

This is what the PLCB has been like for decades, a good ol' boy network of political hacks and has-beens doing favors, taking bribes, arranging sweetheart deals, swimming in nepotism, and generally not giving a crap (until their position is threatened, that is).

Is this what Pennsylvania needs? Or would we be better off with the free market that is proven to work in the 42 other states that don't sell alcohol to their citizens?  What do we really get for this system? Are we safer? Not if you look at the national statistics. Are we better served? Let's ask the people who spend upwards of $300 million out of state: regularly. Are we satisfied? In 40 years of scientific polling there has never been one in favor of the state stores over private retail. I guess the citizens know what works since private retail is how you buy everything else in the state!

This isn't the time for new paint and baskets, this is the time for real change. Change to something that works and has worked since the founding of the state: the free market. The time for 1930's thinking is past and has been for a long time. It is time for the PLCB to be tossed on the junkpile.

END IT, DON'T MEND IT

Ethics questions still percolating at the PLCB

No matter how many pieces of paper the PLCB has to sign, it hasn't changed anything as of yet.

As I reported a year ago today, Jerry Waters, the Executive Director of Regulatory Affairs still has an ongoing ethics investigation and may also be part of the Federal investigation into graft at the PLCB.  If you remember, it took almost two years for the Ethics committee to reach a slap-on-the-wrist decisions for ex-CEO Joe "Water Heater" Conti, ex-Chairman P.J. Stapleton, ex-Director of Marketing James Short, and ex-Director of  Product Selection Matthew Schwenk, all of whom are now being investigated by the FBI.

Nice to know the more things stay the same, the more you can count on the PLCB to do their part to continue be the second-most corrupt agency in PA. Rotten at the top, rotten at the core as the saying goes.

My question is, how long will it be before the next round makes an appearance? If we privatize, there won't be a next round.

News Flash! More ethics problems at the PLCB

In the "Hardly Shocking" Department...

On February 21st, an ethics complaint was filed against PLCB Director of Regulatory Affairs Jerry Waters. It is not the position of this blog to say if he is guilty or not but to report that the violation has been filed. The complaint is listed below (without the numerous pages of supporting documents).

This is yet another ethics complaint filed over the past few years on senior PLCB members, like former CEO Joe Conti, Director of Marketing Jim Short, former Board Chairman PJ Stapleton, and others.  We, the public, have been waiting for the Attorney General to release her decision for some time. Requests are met with the standard "We cannot discuss ongoing investigations" statement. There is some backroom chatter that the the violations have been referred to federal authorities; now wouldn't that be sweet?

Will Corbett Give Conti The Axe?

Check this out, from John Micek's Morning Call politics blog "Capitol Ideas." 

"Absolutely," Corbett told reporters this morning when he was asked whether he wanted to scrap the six-figure position now held by Joe [Da CEO] Conti, a former Republican state senator from Bucks County. Conti, who is paid $156,000 a year, was appointed to the job by ex-Gov. Ed Rendell.
"I have never saw the reason for the initial appointment for the CEO. I still don't see the reason for the appointment of the CEO," Corbett said. "But I need two votes. I need two votes on the board to change that."

"Absolutely." And with the ethics issues that came out today, I'm guessing that the board member he's looking to replace to get those two votes...is PJ "PJ" Stapleton. That will shake things up.

"Shit! We all just got fired!"

This is a great solution. I've been concerned about Conti's gaffes and screw-ups. They're great for privatization, the man is The Gift That Keeps On Giving, but...he's been delivering too much lately. I was afraid that he was finally going to get canned, and then they might replace him with someone who's actually got the chops for the job. That would give us The Newman Problem: a PLCB that's just good enough to lull people to sleep and keep stumbling along, when we could get rid of the thing and get the good booze access other Americans enjoy -- at least, that some of our neighbors do.

But dump Conti and the whole CEO position? Brilliant, why the hell didn't I think of that? It's because governments rarely allow any position to go away, but we might get lucky. If Corbett started cutting a top manager from the PLCB every month...well, it would be a start!

Another Ethics Investigation at the PLCB: this time at the top

The Philadelphia Inquirer reporter who's been covering the PLCB, Angela Couloumbis, dropped a bomb in this morning's edition. The headline:

Top LCB officials said to take gifts, favors from vendors 

That got my attention. The article (citing a leaked report from the Inspector General that was supposed to have been delivered to Governor Corbett in late March) detailed how Joe "Da CEO" Conti, PJ "I Used to Matter" Stapleton, and PLCB marketing director James Short have been found to have "accepted gifts and favors from vendors and other businesses with an interest in liquor," according the Inspector General's office. The IG, Kenya Mann Faulkner

wrote that her agency's watchdog role was limited because the liquor board is an independent agency [a situation I've pointed out before, and one that leads to the agency's incredible arrogance] and its officials could not be compelled to cooperate. As a result, she wrote, investigators did not interview LCB employees or vendors. But they did review e-mails sent on state computers and concluded that the Ethics Act had been breached.

What are the unethical actions that the IG's investigation turned up?

Joe Conti allegedly accepted Phillies and Union tickets from companies doing business with the LCB and "lobbied a vendor and pressed others inside and outside the agency - including Philadelphia restaurateur Stephen Starr - for jobs for his brother and daughter."

PJ Stapleton? "...one LCB vendor secured a round of golf with a pro for Stapleton during a tournament at Aronimink - and sent two employees to serve as Stapleton's caddies." Stapleton also

accepted several gifts from an LCB vendor, North Wales-based Capital Wine & Spirits. The gifts included about $1,700 worth of alcohol for an event at the Hotel Hershey last year that Stapleton and his ex-wife organized - the annual Keystone Weekend, billed as a forum for business, civic, sports, and entertainment leaders to exchange ideas on current issues. Stapleton solicited the alcohol and the LCB vendor donated 60 bottles, the report said. It quoted an e-mail sent to him last Sept. 12 by a Capital executive: "The wine and spirits for Keystone weekend is taken care of."

And James Short? I almost feel sorry for the poor bastard: all he did was take Conti's freebie Union tickets one night when Conti couldn't be bothered to accept one more gift.

According to the article, the report has also been forwarded to the state Ethics Commission. What did the accused have to say for themselves? 

Conti, Stapleton, and Short declined through LCB spokeswoman Stacey Witalec to be interviewed for this article. Witalec said, "The board has never been presented with the report, or notified of any formal investigation. We will be prepared to discuss any details when formally notified."

You know, when I saw that headline, the first thing that flashed through my mind, even before "Ah-HA!", was this. Three years ago, there was a scandal in North Carolina about one of their county ABC Boards (their control is even more byzantine than ours) accepting a sumptuous meal from Diageo reps, a Del Frisco's steakhouse meal for 28 ABC officials and their spouses. This was part of a string of scandals involving the ABC, which included gross nepotism and $20,000 of missing inventory at one store. Now, I'm not saying that the PLCB is the NCABC, it's not like there's been a string of scandals at the PLCB...

No, wait a minute. There is a whole list of truly questionable decisions that have been made by the PLCB: you can find it here. There's the wine kiosk single-bidder fiasco (which triggered a special audit by the Auditor General's office), the questionably-awarded 'courtesy contract' misstep (another audit...), the inventory software screwup (wow, another audit?!), and, of course, the still unexplained incident involving "widespread financial irregularities at the PLCB's Philadelphia warehouse where over 20 employees were suspended.

And before anyone accuses me of dredging up the past, re-hashing old issues...there was this little beauty just two days ago: another Angela Couloumbis article on the lax work habits of the PLCB's stable of private judges. This paragraph pretty much sums it up:

Investigators found that LCB judges rarely stuck to normal workdays, often arriving hours late, leaving the office for hours at a time without taking appropriate leave, and going home early, according to the report. Sometimes, the report said, they didn't show up at all.

Guess we know why it's so hard to get a nuisance bar closed.

These stories are like Christmas morning for me. This is exactly the kind of malfeasance that government monopoly retail breeds, and I was pretty sure it was there...and thanks to Angela Couloumbis, now we know it is. It's very satisfying to see how her stories have changed from slightly pro-PLCB to a more adversarial relationship. After all, as Mencken put it, the only way a journalist should look at a politician is down.

Does this mean anything for privatization? You bet it does; it makes it a LOT harder for the PLCB to claim the moral high ground. Time to press the advantage. Tell your legislator you don't want want a monopoly in the hands of arrogant people with questionable ethics who are clearly out of touch with what Pennsylvanians expect. Break the monopoly; privatize. We have a bill on the floor...fix it, pass it, and let it happen.

Regime Change?

Privatization may or may not happen. I understand some of the Labor Party -- sorry, Democratic Party legislators are going to be proposing some changes to the PLCB and the Almighty Liquor Code (the ones PJ begged for to "untie their hands"), so the Legislature MAY stay lazy and keep the damned thing. Hey, let's be honest: we may be stuck with this swaybacked mule of a liquor system, this fossilized relic of Repeal, this coprolite.

In that case...could we at least have it run right? As I pointed out in a recent post, the current PLCB administration has presided over an absolute Carnival of FAIL. Can they be held responsible? I think they can. Check the new poll: PJ and Joe Da CEO should resign, or be fired. It's reached that point. As a "shareholder" in this cockamamie "business"...how do you vote?

Auditor General: "The Board and the vendor lost credibility..."

I'm back from vacation...and apparently just in time! Auditor General Jack Wagner's audit of the wine kiosk fiasco -- sorry, program -- is out today, and it's pretty much unforgiving. Well, the man's an auditor; of course it's not forgiving, that's not his job, and this was a fiasco. Some pertinent stuff (the full report's here in PDF format; the AG's statement is here (added emphases are mine, of course)):

Wagner’s special performance audit...chronicled the problems that existed from the beginning of the ill-fated kiosk program. The six findings, are:

• The board used kiosk technology that effectively controlled the purchase of alcohol (about the only positive statement in the whole report)
  
• The board followed state procurement requirements, but the request for proposals did not enable fair and just competition
  
• The board and the sole responding vendor negotiated the kiosk contract in ways more advantageous to the vendor than necessary
  
• The board spent $1.12 million more than it took in over two fiscal years and has invoiced the vendor for the losses. But the vendor has not paid
  
• The board and the vendor lost credibility when the kiosks malfunctioned,
  
• The board overstated the convenience of the kiosks

Note that he says "effectively controlled the purchase of alcohol." Not "efficiently," or "nonintrusively." The same thing could have been "effected" by a live person standing at each kiosk -- which the malfunctions eventually also required -- and the statement would have still been true. But weak competition on an RFP, vendor-favorable negotiations (when the vendor is heavily invested in campaign contributions to a sitting governor), losing money on a supposedly cost-free project, operation failures during the busiest sales season of the year, and the total cluelessness on the definition of "convenience?"

Look, read the statement, which covers most of this. Read the actual report, and pay particular attention to Section C, beginning on page 71, where the Board responds to the report. The AG's report takes that response and pretty much shreds it, saying over and over that the Board simply chose not to respond to some (the most awkward) of its findings.

But the message here? The wine kiosk program was a failure. Black and white, accountant-certified, this thing was a catastrophe. The break-even point -- as stated by the PLCB -- was 210 bottles a week per kiosk; only 3 out of 32 machines met that threshold; 17 -- over half! -- sold under 100 bottles a week. They simply didn't work: in the first three months of operation, "auditors determined that 1 out of every 21 transactions was problematic." That's leaving the general shadiness of the contract and the apparent lack of any escape hatch for the Board aside!

And the response from PJ Stapleton (who apparently may have been reading a different report)? "As it has done throughout this process, the Board will attempt to take whatever steps it can to maximize the possibility that the wine kiosk program will succeed."

PJ. Dude. It's over. Walmart blew you off. Wegmans blew you off. Where are you going to put these things? In Post Offices? In courthouses? Wait, wait, I know: how about in the State Stores! 

As I have said for a long time, the major problem at this agency -- beyond the tonedeaf attitude, beyond the terrible business model, beyond the insane insistence that the little stores out in the sticks carry thousands of SKUs when there's no demand for them, beyond the personnel system that doesn't properly reward product knowledge and sales competence, beyond all these serious problems -- is hubris. PJ and his Pals on the Board, Joe Da CEO, and their lieutenants have consistently responded to criticism with an attitude of 'you don't understand, what you call failure is innovation; what you call unethical is faithful to the letter of the law; what you call inconvenient is controlling the best interests of the people of the Commonwealth.' As if we are somehow too stupid to see that this is simply very bad management.

Let me lay this out in such straightforward terms that it can't be ignored.

• The wine kiosks are a public relations and sales disaster that have indeed cost the Board credibility
• The very real disaster of the PLCB's Oracle-based inventory system (subject of another audit) that wound up costing the Board hundreds of thousands in ruined wine (though they say it's fine, and what the hell do they care) and ad hoc storage fees in an absolute orgy of managerial ignorance
• The "courtesy contract," which exposed the PLCB's total lack of basic sales skills and was awarded in a way that showed poor judgment and created the appearance of a conflict of interest, not to mention being an expense that was not worthwhile...according to the AG again (in...yeah, another special audit)
• The embarrassing spectacle of over 20 workers at the PLCB's Philly warehouse being fired for undisclosed "financial irregularities" -- and they are still "undisclosed" 10 months after Joe Da CEO promised an investigation
• The PLCB's large number of unprofitable stores -- in a police-enforced monopoly -- and questionable business models
• The beer registration raid fiasco, where the PLCB's ineptly-kept beer registration database led to pathetically comic 'raids' by armed BLCE officers on three respectable Philly restaurants and one respectable Philly wholesaler, costing them thousands in lost time and sales (read it all here and here)
• The terrible record on nuisance bars (sure, it's the BLCE doing the enforcement, but the PLCB does the administrative punishment, and it's soooooo sloooooowwww....)

That's just in three years. Three years! I mean, speaking pragmatically, PJ and Conti have been a godsend; they're making my job easier. But speaking as a PA taxpayer? When are they going to resign because of their incompetence?! These are major screwups, this is a terribly run agency that lurches from one disaster to another, reacting to the Legislature, arrogantly ignoring the Governor and lawyerly disagreeing with the black and white criticisms of the Auditor General. But who do they answer to? Apparently no one. Which is, in my mind, one of the biggest Reasons of all that they need to be completely restructured, and the retail monopoly taken away from them.

PLCB toots own horn, shows amazing knowledge of market

Just got this off my daily email from Shanken News Daily:

After Record Year, PLCB Chairman Says Premiumization Will Be Key To Further Gains
Following yesterday’s announcement of a 4% sales increase to $1.96 billion in the year through June at the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (PLCB), chairman Patrick “P.J.” Stapleton III told Shanken News Daily that future growth will depend on consumer trading-up patterns. “In the past year, most of the growth came from the premium to budget level,” Stapleton said, adding that he hasn’t seen much premiumization in recent months. Still, the new fiscal year has started off strongly. “The first weekend of July was very encouraging,” he said. “On a same-store comparison with last year, we were up 8.3%. So there are signs that we’ll have another very good year, but the extent of that will depend on consumer buying patterns and whether they’re willing to trade up.”
Pennsylvania overtook Michigan as the top spirits control state in calendar 2010 and remains by far the largest control market for wine, which accounts for around half of its dollar sales. The PLCB’s Chairman’s Selection premium wine program—up 19% to over $50 million in the fiscal year—is growing in popularity. Chairman’s Selection wines range from $8 to over $100—with wines normally selling for $20-$50 often discounted to between $10-$15 within the program. Stapleton said the $10-$15 range continues to be the sweet spot for wine market growth in the Keystone State. He added that the PLCB has abandoned plans to extend its supermarket wine kiosk program into spirits, acknowledging that the kiosk initiative has had a “rocky road” so far.

Let's parse this. The PLCB is making much of their 4% sales increase and record "contribution" to the State's General Fund. Of course they are, they know they're in deep crap, and "revenue" is like shiny bits of glass and tasty pieces of bacon and chocolate to legislators: irresistible. This ignores that the State Store System has the humiliating advantage of the Police-Enforced Monopoly to force us to buy whatever they put out there, and also ignores that PA's liquor and wine taxes are bizarrely high (have a good look at that report; we'll be talking about that soon, too).

Then, "premiumization"? Jeez, PJ, are you behind the freakin' curve again, or what? Premiumization's only been the biggest news in spirits for the past ten years, y'know? Once again, the PLCB is wickedly late to the game.

Hey, here's a thought: given that the PLCB doesn't seem to know squat about selling, maybe the sales are at a record because inflation continues to drive up prices, the monopoly is still firmly in place, and the economy has recovered somewhat in PA (and alcohol was not severely affected by the recession to begin with)? Hmmm? Show me what the PLCB has done -- other than the brilliant kiosk program -- to earn any kind of praise for what largely looks like an act of nature, and I'll consider it. Face it, PJ: Pennsylvanians buy from the State Store System because they have to. They have no other choice. If you can't make money at that, you might as well practice law.

And I thought Joe Da CEO was clueless...

Check out this tone-deaf defense of the wine "kiosk" debacle by PLCB Chairman PJ Stapleton in today's Inquirer.So much amazing stuff here, like this: "it is worth remembering that Wegmans made an investment with full knowledge that the kiosk reached far outside the face-to-face customer service Wegmans was accustomed to providing." So it was Wegmans' fault that the "kiosks" were so far to the left on the customer service bell curve that you couldn't see them with binoculars; they knew that these machines were supposed to operate on their own and should not have been surprised by that. Got it, PJ! Wegmans is crazy! (Well, except...the "kiosks" didn't operate that well on their own, which is probably what surprised and eventually seriously disappointed Wegmans.)

More? How about this petulant foot-stamping: "The wine kiosk was evidence of innovation at its finest, something the wine and spirits industry had not seen before. This made it an easy target for criticism." It clearly was not "innovation at its finest," since it didn't work the way it was supposed to. It was a kludge, an ATM welded to a soda machine, bolted to a security camera, with a breathalyzer duct-taped on the front (note: that was sarcastic, and no actual duct tape is used in the "kiosks." I don't think so, anyway). That's what made it an easy target for criticism...which both Wegmans and the Inquirer recognized. Not to mention...it was unnecessary "innovation," since there's already modern technology available to do what the wine "kiosk" was supposed to do, and do it better: it's called shelves.

Then he winds up with this whiny crap: "...what we could use is fewer inaccurate political attacks and more productive discussion and action on behalf of all Pennsylvania consumers." First: not political. It's an unpopular bureaucracy. No politics involved. Second: not inaccurate. Wegmans said the "kiosks" didn't work and made their stores look bad. They demonstrably didn't work as advertised, and that definitely makes the stores look bad (not to mention, taking up valuable retail space while they weren't working).

Finally, what would be "more productive discussion"? They give PJ space with a straight face, and that's not the first time the PLCB has been allowed on the editorial page. The PLCB doesn't want to discuss this, they want to keep doing what they're doing. Sorry, no longer on the agenda. Privatization hearings are coming, PJ: put on your dancing shoes.

And be sure to read the comments. Wow. Hope these people write their reps with anger like that.

Debating PJ Stapleton on Privatization

If you didn't catch me on WHYY's Radio Times show this morning, well, I think it went pretty well. They did a show on the PLCB's desperate attempt to stave off privatization -- and despite what PJ Stapleton said this morning about they're just an agency, not trying to shape the debate or anything, it's very hard not to see this burst of ideas to make the PLCB suddenly more like a private system as anything but a desperate attempt for everyone to keep their jobs...by keeping us under their thumbs.

Stapleton wants more stores open on Sundays, for longer. He wants more wine kiosks in stores. He says he is in favor of home delivery of wine (watch carefully, though: that one promises more than he can deliver). He wants the PLCB freed from civil service requirements so he can hire wonderful people who love wine! It's this program that I think I'm going to call the FDI: the PLCB's False Dawn Initiative. After Stapleton laid it all out, they brought me on to lay it all waste.

You can listen to the show here. I came in about 15 minutes into it, a replacement for Senator Turzai, who's spearheading privatization in the Legislature, but couldn't make it today. Like I said, I thought I did well, but there were so many things I just didn't have time for! Like all this:

•      Lack of choice. Not just what’s on the shelf: there is no other option. I actually did get to this one, but Stapleton either just didn't get it, or was evading it. All he wanted to talk about was the selection on the shelf and the "wonderful" SLO system.
•      Not enough stores. There are more stores in Delaware, more stores in Chicago alone.
•      Lackadaisical service. Your training contract is an admission of this.     
•     No beer. In most other states, you can buy beer, wine, and liquor in the same place.
•      Unfair business practices. The wine kiosks — sad as they are — are only in stores anointed by the PLCB; Jose Garces is the only restaurateur to have a mini-State Store right in his BYOB.
•      Unfair business practices II. The PLCB is in charge of regulating a business that is, in effect, its competition: beer retail. However, the State Stores are not subject to enforcement actions by the BLCE because they are not “licensed establishments.”

And that's just the stuff I had in my notes. My main point? Why should we give you all this stuff to act like a private business...when we could just do away with you and have a private business?

We did do a little happy talk at the end: Stapleton and I agreed that the PA Liquor Code needs overhauled. We just see different needs. He thinks it needs to put more lipstick on his pig. Me? I'm thinking about pork chops and bacon for dinner.

Anyone know where I can debate Wendell?

Wine Drinker? Take a look at these

I know I haven't delivered on the reasons why wine drinkers should be in favor of privatization. I just don't know enough about it. Besides, there's that big safety valve in southeast PA; the biggest concentration of population in the state is right up against two state borders, and the liquor stores right on the other side keep folks from getting too angry about the PLCB. I really wonder if privatization wouldn't already be here if the BLCE did serious border patrols...

Anyway, here are two good recent pieces about how the PLCB affects wine drinkers. The first, by Dave Falchek at the Scranton Times-Tribune, is about how the PLCB warps even the forces for freedom in the wine world: Free The Grapes won't fight for freedom in PA. The second, by freelance wine writer Mark Squires, is just a flat-out screed about why the PLCB is obsolete, why it's bad for wine and wine drinkers, and why it simply has to go.

Read up! And catch me this Monday on the 10 AM show of WHYY's Radio Times (91 FM in Philly, or listen online at www.whyy.org); I'll be providing counterpoint to PLCB chairman PJ Stapleton's alternatives to privatization. Should be fun...

PLCB's "Secret Plan" front-page news? Really?

Lead story in today's Philadelphia Inquirer:LCB offers modernizing ideas to counter privatizing.

The "secret plan" that the Commonwealth Foundation leaked last month came out in the open yesterday -- minus the blatant 'future profits' bond issue scheme -- and for some reason, the Inky decided that this was the most important story of the day. Odd choice, made even odder when the reporter -- Angela Couloumbis -- apparently seemed to think that the PLCB's ideas for transforming the agency through a series of legislative changes were great stuff. There wasn't a negative word in the whole story, and Chairman Jake Corman's beautiful wind-up question was lost:

“I hear you saying that you want to be more like a private business. That begs the question of why not just privatize like 31 other states,” Appropriations Committee Chairman Jake Corman, R-Centre, told agency officials as they wrapped up their appearance.

Couloumbis paraphrased that as 

And while Sen. Jake Corman (R., Centre), who chairs the committee, wondered whether Pennsylvania should fall in line with 31 other states and privatize wine and liquor sales, he acknowledged: "I don't have people knocking down my door for privatization."

Well, honestly, no one's going to knock down any doors for privatization. This issue is most important to licensees; most of whom I've talked to would purely love to have private stores that would deliver to their bars and restaurants, and actually know something about wines, spirits, and business, and they're not going to chance rubbing the PLCB the wrong way; not happening. To us, well, I'd like to see privatization, but I'm not going to Harrisburg to demand it. (Write? You bet. Call? Sure, if it will help! And you should too!)

But more importantly, when a legislator says "That begs the question," it's more substantive than...wondering. "That begs the question" is the legislative, legal equivalent of "Well, duh." Corman's response is just like my response to the PLCB's wowser statements about how convenient the wine kiosks are: Really? Convenient? Compared to picking a bottle off the shelf? Get serious.

Compare this story to this one in the Wilkes-Barre Times-Leader. "Again and again, legislators grilled liquor board members on how the agency operates, on their efforts to make the LCB more consumer friendly and whether a privatized system would result in increased access to alcohol by minors." (Both stories missed this one, which I got at Statehouse News.com: "State Sen. Lloyd Smucker, R-Lancaster, said many of the PLCB’s requests would double as arguments in favor of privatization.“Those decisions are perhaps best left for business. It can be more nimble with decisions to be made in reaction to market conditions,” said Smucker.)

Meanwhile, Couloumbis just repeats everything PJ Stapleton suggested -- longer Sunday hours at more stores, exemption from civil service rules, change the mark-up, and direct shipment of wine (and good though that would be...what the hell's it got to do with the PLCB's so-called business model?) -- while adding slurp-slurp-"I love the union!" quotes like this:

Sen. Jim Ferlo (D., Allegheny) called the agency "a great public asset" and said privatizing would be financially "foolhardy." This year, the agency is kicking $105 million just in profits into the state treasury, he and others noted.

There have been pro-PLCB editorials in Pennsylvania newspapers over the past 6 months, I'll admit that. But has anyone else noticed that every single one of them was written either by a current or retired State Store employee, a union official (I'm looking at you, Wendell W. Young IV), or a Democrat (and therefore presumably pro-organized labor) legislator? I haven't seen a single one written by anyone else.

This story misses the point. Stapleton's suggestions are desperate attempts to pass the blame to the Legislature and hammer down all the nails that are sticking up: too few stores (longer Sunday hours, more open on Sunday); crappy wine selection (you can get it yourself, we don't care!), prices too high (it is not cheaper in New Jersey; we changed the mark-up and lowered the price! (for a year...till you forget all about privatization...)), and unhelpful, untrained clerks (deep-six the civil service rules so we can hire wine-savvy people...for a year...till you forget all about privatization).

People! We've seen this before!  When Newman took over as chairman, people hated the state stores. He made some small changes, gave us some deals on some good wines, and we forgot about privatization... And what happened? Same Shit, Different Governor: Rendell created a $150K job out of nowhere to run the liquor stores (apparently because PJ Stapleton was tired of being asked questions about wine) and gave it to an out-of-work legislator...and the system immediately began sliding back into the craphole Newman had started to winch it out of.

But the truth is, Stapleton's right about one thing. The real problem is The Almighty Liquor Code. It stipulates this moronic system, and if Stapleton wants to keep his plum job (why not? It's found money), and save all the union jobs, changing the code is the way to go. My question: is it simpler to change it Stapleton's way...or to cut the State Store System out entirely. Chop-chop!

Or another thought: How about we leave the State Store System in place, as is...and simply add an equal number of private liquor store licenses, and a number of private wholesalers. The State Stores can't buy booze from the private wholesalers; the private stores can't buy booze from the state. Bars and restaurants can buy from whoever they want. It's cheaper and more certain than doing endless studies; it's empirical. We just let it run in parallel for five years.

Does anyone doubt the outcome?

Thank God: Wine Kiosks Still Viable!

It looks like my usually reliable source was wrong: the wine kiosks live! I'm so happy; I was really looking forward to seeing these wastes of money in operation. Thank you, PLCB, for restoring my faith in your bad decision-making capability!

Check out this latest hot wine kiosk news, in which PLCB Chairman PJ "PJ" Stapleton threatens that prototype wine kiosk deployment will take place at the Wegmans in Silver Spring Township, Cumberland County (which also sells beer!), and the Giant Food Store in Susquehanna Township, Dauphin County (which does not...). These are both hot-spots of wine-savvy grape mavens, I guess. Or maybe they're down the road from someone's house, I dunno. They're close to PLCB HQ, of course, and, like Jose Garces's restaurant -- I'm sorry, his grocery store, they were hand-picked by the PLCB to receive the largesse of extended monopoly.

According to the article, "The LCB has been testing the machines in a warehouse in Mechanicsburg for three months, making mostly technical and mechanical alterations to ensure the kiosks work properly, Stapleton said." I'll just bet. Wouldn't you like to have been there to watch the bottles full of water (you don't think...would they actually use real bottles of wine?!) come rolling out? The excitement as the teleoperator (were they in a completely different room of the building?!) determined whether the person utilizing the vending kiosk was the person their ID said they were, and were sober? There's a beaut: did they actually get someone drunk to test that?

I can't wait to drive to the Weggymans and try this dope device out. I may even buy a viddie-cam to share the moment with you. Won't that be fun!

Folks...the way to get wine sales into supermarkets -- which is clearly where the people who actually buy wine in Pennsylvania want them -- is to dump the State Store System and go to private sales: put wine on the shelves, not in some souped-up gumball machine. It's something we should have done 50 years ago. Here's hoping the kiosks are the final straw that demonstrate just how asinine this system is.

Oh, almost forgot: cui bono?You need to ask? Read this again, and then think: ask not what you can do for your State; ask what your State is doing to you.

Conti & Stapleton on PCN again...

Sorry I missed this one: Joe "CEO" Conti and PLCB chairman PJ Stapleton were on PCN's call-in show again on Monday (thanks to the readers who sent me the link!). Check it here for now; go to the PCN Call-in. I'm listening to it now.

Didja Forget About the Courtesy Contract?

Do you remember how pissed off everyone was about the PLCB's "courtesy training contract?" Back in March, it came out that the agency was going to spend $173,820 on training State Store System clerks "how to greet someone, where to stand, and how to read a customer's cues." When that hit the fan, the PLCB tried to distance themselves from it by denying it was about manners: "A $173,000 contract on teaching manners – as has been widely reported – would be ridiculous," said PLCB Chairman PJ Stapleton. Yet the RFP for the training stated the following as the very first objective for the training:

1. Improve basic customer service skills, such as greeting customers appropriately, servicing customers, and completing sales with professionalism and courtesy."

"Greeting customers appropriately" and "completing sales with...courtesy" don't involve manners? Let's not be coy: bullshit, PJ. "Basic customer service skills" are good manners.

But that's old news...and that's the whole point of this post. We all got terribly upset -- rightfully so -- and more so when we found out that the contract had been awarded to the husband of one of the PLCB's regional managers. We were outraged, and an audit was called for, which exonerated the agency on legal grounds, but found that the agency had exercised poor judgment in awarding the contract to the husband of a manager and that "training to improve employee courtesy, manners and product knowledge wasn't a worthwhile expense." HA! So there, PLCB!

...and then we forgot about it, leaving them off the hook, again.

Well, not my man Eric Heyl at the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Eric's a columnist there, calls me for comment (a classic at the end of that one) from time-to-time when he has a booze story. For some reason, the Pittsburgh newspapers are hotter on exposing the PLCB's idiocy that the Philly papers are, and Heyl wields a blowtorch in his latest column, titled "Excuse me, but your discourtesy is showing."

Heyl brought back the courtesy contract. It went ahead, you know: training started in April, and Heyl, a taxpayer, wanted to know if what we'd bought (although the agency states that it's not tax money, it's their revenue that paid for the training, I can only assume they're being facetious in this claim: if they hadn't spent it, it would have gone into the general fund, so I fail to see a meaningful difference) was having any effect. As he put it:

The controversy was dying a lingering death in relative anonymity when I decided to nurse the poor thing back to health. I did so by using the LCB's own statistics to attempt to measure the manner-polishing program's effectiveness since it began in April.

See, the PLCB actually keeps track of customer service complaints, and Heyl got those numbers. What triggered the desire to improve customer service, the training? 84 customer service complaints between April and October of 2008...out of 27.2 million transactions. As Heyl said, "No wonder Solutions 21 was hired. Agency officials had to be embarrassed over that deluge of dissatisfaction." Indeed.

So, what did we buy, how has the training addressed this burning issue? "Between April and October 2009, the LCB received 103 complaints in 29.7 million transactions." Yeah. It got worse: one complaint for every 288,000 transactions, as opposed to one in every 324,000 before the training. The training was ridiculous, unnecessary, and it was ineffective. Nice trifecta.

Heyl asked Joe "CEO" Conti about this, bless his soul (all emphases added):

"Eighty to 100 complaints is really so anecdotal that I don't know that we'd use those as a barometer" of the program's success, he said[...] (But 84 complaints was enough to trigger a training contract at $173,00?)
The LCB can renew the Solutions 21 contract annually for the next five years. While the agency hopes to eventually perform the training in-house, Conti would not commit to that happening as soon as next year.
"At this point, I can't give you a firm yes or no as to whether we will need an extension (for Solutions 21)," he said.

How about you, boys and girls? Can you give "CEO" Conti a firm yes or no as to whether we need any more of Solutions 21's "training?" Well, don't bother, because he won't listen. Tell your state Senator! Tell your Representative! Tell them something like this (I just did):

The PLCB hired Solutions 21 to teach basic sales manners to their clerks in April. The Auditor General found that the agency had exercised poor judgment in awarding the contract to the husband of a PLCB manager, and that such training was in general not a worthwhile expense. Not only that, it hasn't worked: the PLCB's own statistics show that customer service complaints have gone up since the training started. PLCB CEO Joe Conti recently said that Solutions 21's contract may be extended. Please consider advising Mr. Conti that this would be an unwise use of funds that would otherwise go to the General Fund.

Get mad. Get active. After all, as Arlo said, "If you want to end war and stuff, you got to sing loud."

Thank you, Beaver County Times

It's sad that the only media outlet that pointed out the real problem with the "ethics" of the recently-awarded PLCB 'courtesy contract' was the Beaver County Times. Take a look: they nailed it. In a nutshell? The Auditor General had no choice but to say that the contract was "legal." And there's no doubt that the contract presented -- at least -- the appearance of a conflict of interest; it was awarded to a company run by the husband of one of three PLCB Regional Directors. As the editorialist says, "While legal, the contract speaks volumes about a political environment that parses what’s legal and what’s right with great care."

What's really sad is, given how obviously wrong it was, how arrogantly the PLCB strutted their innocence after the Auditor General's reluctant statement of legality. Chairman PJ Stapleton had this to say in a letter to Wagner (that he also released to the press, he was so damned proud of it): "We are gratified by your conclusion that we affirmatively and properly dealt with potential conflicts of interest when they arose. "

I don't really remember Wagner saying that. And the only way the PLCB "dealt" with the potential conflicts of interest was by requesting an audit -- which they knew would pass on legality, clearly the only thing they cared about -- after there was a hue and cry about that potential conflict of interest in the press and the governor questioned the contract. That's "affirmative and proper"...in Pennsylvania.

He goes on about how smart they were to award the contract even after realizing there was a potential conflict of interest:

"The rejection of such a qualified proposal for a service deemed to be necessary and without substantial legal justification would expose the PLCB to litigation. Further, when a properly conducted RFP process produces a qualified bidder at substantially lower cost to the Commonwealth (and I'd still like to know more about why the winning bid was so much lower than the other bids), we are duty bound to regard that as a positive development to be availed, rather than cause for scrapping the process and starting over... Thus, while our two agencies agree as to the goal sought, it appears we have differing perspectives on this particular matter, differences we feel obliged to respectfully note."

Yeah, they have "differing perspectives," all right. The Auditor General clearly said that while what the PLCB did stayed within the letter of the law, it presented grave problems of potential conflict of interest. The PLCB clearly said...they didn't give a damn, it was all about the money.

I just wish that the PLCB would act this arrogant and "I'm a monopoly, I'll do what I want to" when it comes to doing a bunch of pointless "make nice" stuff like changing the names of the stores and "creating a brand." That would save us some serious coin. And I'm sure it would be "legal."

But then, it appears we have differing perspectives on this particular matter.

One Year Later

I started this blog a year ago today.

In that time we've seen the PLCB propose automated wine-selling 'kiosks' and expensive name changes to their monopoly stores. We've seen Joe "CEO" Conti come out of his planning cave to start taking action; much like that symbol of Pennsylvania's greatness, the groundhog, though it's hard to say whether Conti saw his shadow or not. We've seen a contract let -- under questionable circumstances -- for training that appears to be beneath basic expectations. We've seen failures in the State Store System's on-line ordering system. We've seen the PLCB propose a partnership with individual restaurateurs that would be a breath-taking example of unfair monopolistic power. We saw Conti and PLCB Chairman PJ Stapleton bear up under a largely critical audience on a TV call-in show.

We've also pointed out 15 Reasons why the PLCB should be abolished. We've suggested ways for the State to make money on the process, we've suggested ways to cushion the blow to the system's employees, and we've suggested ways for you, the citizens of Pennsylvania, to help this happen. We've run amusing polls on the site. We've made allies in the general public, in the State government, and in the restaurant business, and we've brought some of those people together. We've linked to numerous stories about the PLCB in Pennsylvania's newspapers. We've even published e-mails from PLCB employees.

I've been interviewed for newspaper and radio stories. I've done a video interview. I've written letters to Pennsylvania newspapers. I've written letters to Pennsylvania legislators, to Governor Rendell, and to the PLCB, and received some responses. Despite being a freelance writer, I've yet to sell a story or make a dime on the issue. (That's okay; this is a hobby.)

Have we had any impact? I believe we have, albeit small. We've fed arguments and ideas to people who can use them with greater leverage. We've created a Web presence around which anti-PLCB/anti-State Store System anger and action can coalesce and concentrate. We've connected people who can now work together. We've given the idea of privatization a bit more impetus and legitimacy.

What do I have planned for the next year? Most importantly, more wine. I want to get some guest bloggers in here, people who know what the PLCB's screwing up in wine sales. That has the potential to bring a lot more people in on our side. More alliances, as we find more people and groups who have a natural antipathy to the PLCB: business groups, political groups, enthusiast groups. More confrontation, as we start to take this fight to Harrisburg. More Reasons, of course: we've only scratched the surface. More outrage, probably, as the PLCB moves to implement its plan for spending more of your money to put more lipstick on its piggish monopoly face. And more hammering away to smash the liquor monopoly the State has held for over 70 years.

The State should not be in the retail booze business. The State has no compelling reason to continue the monopoly sale of wine and spirits. The PLCB Should Be Abolished.

The Conti and PJ Show!

I watched the PCN Call-In with Joe "CEO" Conti and PJ Stapleton tonight. It just wound up, and here's what I took down. I'm scrambling and trying to remember, so I may not have who said what exactly correct, but the gist is here.

Host Brian Lockman (who interviewed me on PA Books, nice guy) went right at them with questions about the courtesy contract. Stapleton first said that the training is "desperately needed" for the employees to perform their jobs. "Desperately?" Really? This is the guy who said training on 'manners' would be ridiculous and unnecessary, because "our employees already are widely regarded as being welcoming and polite to our customers." Of course, he stuck to the line that it wasn't really about manners, even though the first priority of the tasking in the RFP is to "Improve basic customer service skills."

Not sure if it was here, but at one point Stapleton started talking about how the training is also about not serving underage or intoxicated people and said "If it saves one life, that's worth the price." God! I'm looking right at the RFP, the whole list of what this training is supposed to accomplish, and there's not one word about that. The only thing that even comes close is the last one, a catch-all: "Encourage engagement with the PLCB's current agency-wide initiatives; instilling a desire and ability to support these initiatives in interactions with customers and in merchandising techniques." Yet Stapleton made it sound like there would be specific training to save the children. Truly pathetic.

Lockman asks Conti about the possible problems with the awarding of the contract to Solutions 21, in light of the president of the company's wife being a high-ranking PLCB regional manager. Conti says they knew of the issue with the contract, ran it past counsel, and decided it was legal under the state's rules. Interestingly, he wound up by saying that the rules may need to be changed by the Legislature. Indeed. PJ says he feels strongly they made the right decision on the contract, cites the cost. No one questions why it's so low. Bummer.

Lockman asks if the RFP was put out and awarded too fast, as has been suggested by two of the losing bidders? Conti says not, really. PJ says it's standard stuff, and it is, and RFPs go out fast. It's not like teaching someone basic retail -- customer skills, conflict resolution, "embracing organizational change" -- is something earth-shatteringly new. Well...except for the PLCB employees who desperately need it, according to Stapleton. We'll see why in a bit.

Lockman asks Conti, so what have you been doing in two years? Essentially, he's been planning for two years. Strategic store initiatives, new look, new stores, new websites. You know, all that stuff they don't really need to do because they're a monopoly." We will be the specialty retailer we always should have been." Yeesh.

Lockman tosses Conti the cost softball: why are prices higher in the State Stores. Conti rips it up and tosses it aside, saying they aren't higher, except compared to Delaware, and that's because they don't have taxes, those naughty boys. No one ever mentions how well that seems to work for Delaware and the business it attracts. Lockman asks him if the Johnstown Flood tax is really for the Flood. No skin off their nose, that's the Legislature's fault. "The tax is a remnant." Conti dangles the possibility of lowering the Johnstown tax if more sales come in. (But isn't that The Legislature's call?) They repeatedly talk about how much the PLCB "brings in" without ever mentioning that 75% of it is taxes that would be collected anyway under privatization.

Lockman asks what's the Board do, what's Conti do? Stapleton babbles a bit, says the Board makes decisions, and "has the assistance" of Conti. Conti runs day-to-day operations. I guess he does, except when he's planning for two years. He admits the PLCB is a "Prohibition era bureaucracy." Then he dangles more money in front of us: "We want to provide revenues to the general fund so other taxes can be reduced." Oooo! Sure, that could happen, and if it does it would likely be the first time in the history of the state.

Lockman asks, is there a built-in conflict in the agency's two missions? Stapleton says that the stores provide customer service and encouragement for responsible use. "We 'control' the responsible use of alcohol." Wow.

Finally, the first call, from Narberth, I think, and it's the Jose Garces question. Two questions: What's the goal? And what's PLCB going to do to ensure it's fair to other restaurants? The initial concept is to provide a boutique wine experience, wines that aren't available in the stores. "We will be a tenant of his." No liquor served. 600 sq. ft. area next to it. Match and pair wines with foods. It's important to team with Jose Garces, because he's cool and respected. And then, no surprise whatsoever, he completely ducks the fairness question. Nicely done, Chairman Stapleton. The second-hardest question of the evening, and he deftly avoided addressing it. No follow-up.

Conti fields a question from Lockman: what about these wine kiosks. It's ongoing, God help me. "Very interesting." They're going to be using biometrics to determine your age and intoxication! It's 12 - 18 months away from getting out there. Lockman asks, Are the machines more secure than a clerk? Yes, Conti says. Even after this amazing training? Biometric technology to ensure 21 and not intoxicated. "Incredible technology." I'll bet. They will be testing the machines. Moving forward. They could be used in the stores.

Next call: A suck up, just as predicted. Doing a great job, great wines, used to shop elsewhere. The contract: there's always room for improvement. Wow. Amazing. Do you think there will be any calls like this on tomorrow's show with the Attorney General? Hey, AG, great job you're doing putting away those criminals!

Third call: weirdly pissed off person who wants to know how many other contracts on training they've let in the past year? Um, none. Just this one. Even I knew that one.

Lockman asks about selling beer at Wegmans. Had to be asked, but it's a waste of time: they're just administering the Liquor Code. The Wegmans are licensed establishments. Yada yada.

Next call: free drinks at casinos are not a fair playing field for taverns. It is a pure legislative manner, says Conti, and he's absolutely right.

Next call: why are we spending this money? We don't have a choice to go to some other place! People are sick and tired of waste. Yeah, and he was angry. I'm just sick and tired of not having another place to go to.

Next call: just angry. I'm cool with that, because, after all, these guys are not going to make any mistakes that might result in answering a question.

Next call: is there any patronage on the wine kiosk contract, anything that might benefit anyone related to someone at the PLCB, or the Governor's Office? (Does this guy know something?) Conti ducks it by saying it followed the same track as the courtesy contract, a track that he already questioned the effectiveness of, but said it was legal. Okay...so you heard it here: Conti is implying that there is no questionable connection between the PLCB or the Governor's office and Simple Brands LP, James Lesser president, of Bala Cynwyd, the only bidder on the contract, according to news stories on this project.

This one smells funny. This is a big, tech-heavy, expensive project. Yet Simple Brands has no website, no web presence at all that I can find, which seems kind of odd for a company bidding on such a technology-heavy project. Anyone ever heard of Simple Brands, or James Lesser? Who's he married to? Who's he know? He was formerly the head of JDL Management, and made retro-fitted Skeeball games with red balls with flashing lights. Great. If you're curious, the contract is here; you can see the RFP and the contract by clicking on the successive PDF links.

Next call: Stapleton and Conti essentially admitted that they hire employees with no real experience or training. Good God. They blame the civil service system they're stuck with. Stapleton says that the future includes "A formal PLCB training academy." Really, he said that. Can't wait to see the bill on that one.

Lockman asks: why are State Store employees paid so much more than clerks in liquor stores in other states? (And they are, I've seen the same report he mentions.) Stapleton appears surprised by this, takes moral high ground by saying they're not ashamed of paying the clerks a living wage. I don't recall Lockman saying that the other clerks were poor, just that the State Store employees were paid a lot more than other retail clerks. Yet on the last question, Stapleton admitted that these were inexperienced employees.

Lockman ask, before Conti was hired, was Chairman was highest position at LCB? No, says Stapleton. The Board is responsible for decision-making. Ah. "Decision-making." That's not important. He says there was no office to oversee all the departments, someone to distill all the info and requests. It's an antiquated system. Yet, Lockman asks, you functioned for years without a CEO, who is now paid 2.5 times chairman salary. Stapleton says the chairman was not running the shop. Who the hell was? And they're about to add three new executives. Wonder what their salaries are.

We get another suck-up call. You're doing a great job and I don't want to stand beside drunks in the grocery stores, thank you, thank you. So...anyone buying off-premise beer is a drunk? But the people who buy off-premise wine and spirits at State Stores aren't? What a fraud call.

I finally get through, and while I'm waiting, I hear someone on the phone asking my question: if things are so good, why are all those stores on the border? They tap dance. The prices aren't really that good, they're only better right at the border, you go ten miles into New Jersey and the prices go up. (So what? I'm not going to go ten miles in Jersey then, am I?) Selection? Those stores don't really have a better selection -- a brazen lie, I'll happily take him to Total Wine and make him eat it if someone can get him to go -- but they're very good at talking you into buying something else. Not just a lie, but nasty.

They said over and over again that the State Stores had such a great selection and served the state so well. Horsecrap. I don't know how they can possibly serve the state that well when the number of stores is about 1/3 the number states of similar size have, and the 'great selection' is all online and special order, many of which you have to buy multiple bottles of. That's not a great selection, that's an annoyance. When they had their little temporary kiosk at the Pennsylvania Whisky Festival, back in November, they didn't even have all the brands available at the festival: you had to special order stuff they knew was going to be there! Ridiculous to compare that to a fully-stocked liquor store.

So when I got on, I asked, look, I see a lot of PA plates in those cross-border stores. Do we know how much in sales and taxes we're losing in cross-border bleed? If it's so great here, why do people go there? They quoted a study they had done -- love to see a copy -- that showed that very few of such trips were 'destination' trips; people weren't going there just to buy booze. And that they still bought 75% of their booze in PA. And they were only losing 3-4% to cross-border bleed. Burying me in numbers that mean nothing if I can't see the methodology.

You know what? I know someone who crosses the border just to buy box wine. They save a few bucks on each box, so they get two or three whenever they go to Maryland. That's not a destination trip, but it's definitely part of the trip. I can't help looking at the concentration of stores across the border and wondering: if there's not much to be made in luring Pennsylvanians across the border, why are those stores there, and why do they continue to run full-page ads in the Inquirer?

And that was it. No surprises. No revelations. No real answers. And some really misleading stuff. I was very sorry no retailers called in...but I'm not surprised.

PLCB's 'CEO' Conti and Chairman Stapleton on PCN Call-In tonight

Got questions about the PLCB? Want to know why your favorite wine (or bourbon, Sam) has disappeared? Curious about SLO? Jealous of the towns that have beer sales at their Wegmans or Sheetz? Can't figure out why we have the case law, or why beer is sold in private stores but not wine and liquor? Want to know why the PLCB is training their clerks to be polite? Want to ask Joe 'CEO' Conti just what it is he does? Would you like to hear them defend their very existence?

Itch for knowledge no longer. Both 'CEO' Conti and PLCB Chairman PJ Stapleton will be on PCN-TV tonight on the Call-In show for an hour, at 7 PM. I'd urge you to watch this. If you do call in a question, please be civil. I'd hate to have Chuck Ardo think you were criticizing them for curing cancer.

This should be fun.