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. 

As required by law......

There are numerous "newswires" available; the majority of them just reprint press releases from businesses. So and so got promoted, Corporation XYZ broke ground for a new building, that sort of stuff.

But in the insecure world of the PLCB, where every single scrap of good news is treated like a cure for cancer, we get crap like this, telling us that the PLCB gave back license fees to municipalities. That's a press release essentially saying "The PLCB is going to follow the law." It even says, right in the release, "As required by law." Imagine if the Department of Corrections put out press releases saying, "As required by law, inmates were released at the end of their sentence." Or if PennDot decided to let us all know, "As required by law, plow drivers will follow traffic signals."

Maybe the PLCB is trying to make up for all the news that's being reported by independent journalists about graft, nepotism, back door deals, lack of ethics, destroying evidence, shoddy record keeping, wine kiosks, Water Heater Joe, overcharging and variably screwing the citizens. I can think of better ways to do it, though. Here's one example for businesses to follow:

Can you imagine the PLCB actually doing this?

Now I'm all for transparency in Government. That's another reason I don't like the PLCB: they are the least transparent of any state organization. Want to find out how much the Department of Education paid for a chair? You can actually look at the bids, see who won, and what the bid was for those chairs. But if you want to find out how much the PLCB paid for that case of vodka...it's suddenly become proprietary information. It wasn't before Act 39, and there is nothing in Act 39 that makes it proprietary; the PLCB just decided it was so. They say this is so Company A doesn't know what Company B is paying, and that makes negotiations fair.

That would be true in the open market...but not in a government-owned and operated monopoly. You see, it doesn't matter if either one of those companies know what the PLCB is paying them - they have nowhere else to go if they want to sell in Pennsylvania. Each product is a game of chicken between the PLCB and the supplier. The PLCB says, we'll only pay this much or we won't carry it, and the supplier says no, you'll  pay this much or you won't carry it.

So who blinks first? The PLCB, because they won't be providing what the consumer wants (even more so than now), or the supplier, who might lose overall sales? Add to that the knowledge that both sides know what a suitable substitute* would cost the PLCB, and you have price competition. The PLCB doesn't know if the price they paid for that substitute is equal to or above what the supplier they're currently negotiating with is willing to take and the supplier doesn't know if the price they are offering is above or below what the PLCB is willing to take. Of course, all that requires work and if done fairly, would benefit the consumer and so is antithetical to the PLCB way of doing things.

Remember: the Board members ultimately make the decisions about what you get to buy. They are political cronies with no experience in the liquor business; almost every one has been a lawyer with political connections. And you don't have any say in who they are. These aren't elected positions, and they aren't hires, subject to the civil service regulations. The one good thing you can say is that they aren't full time employees, so they can't screw things up 24/7.

The lack of qualified people on the Board is mostly the fault of the Governor - all of them since 1934. They could appoint people with industry experience...but they don't. Instead, they use the PLCB to pay back supporters, cronies, contributors, any non-qualified person they can find. And the legislature rubber-stamps them, which makes them culpable, too.

We need to change the system to something that works for the people. A system that allows freedom of choice, allows convenience, allows competition, and allows government to focus on regulation. We need privatization. 


*A suitable substitute is something that satisfies the consumers desire for a product or type of product. For example, Nikolai would be a suitable substitute for Vladimir vodka on the low end, and Ciroc for Grey Goose on the higher end.

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.

The Case Of The Missing Wine

How stupid do the PCLBureaucrats think we are?
As stupid as they are, apparently.

On July 19th I put up a post called Insider Trading, about a missing case of $3,000 a bottle wine, and how it didn't show up on any inventory the PLCB had available to the public. The PLCB explanation was that they deleted all the codes while it was in transit being "hand carried" (because of the heat) to their Ardmore store for sale.

Really? The people who have stackouts of wine sitting the windows of their stores, in the summer sun, suddenly care about heat? Remember, these are the folks who stored wine in the summer in uncooled trailers because they couldn't control inventory.(1) The same people who have been cited by the Attorney General because the auditors: "received little response from management to demonstrate its follow up and resolution to ensure that store inventories are properly accounted for."(2) 

Deleting the codes while the wine is "hand-carried" isn't just a lie, it's a stupid, ridiculous whopper of a lie. Here's why.

1. Items are not dropped from inventory when they are transported. Not once, not ever; you lose the ability to properly account for things if you do.
2. Since the Chateau Ausone 2003 has not been on the inventory since at least June 20th (3) and probably earlier, the PLCB expects us to believe that it took 40 or more days to be "hand-carried" from wherever it was (they didn't say) to Ardmore?
3. Doesn't it seem ridiculous that an extreme luxury product was off-book, not available for sale, for at least 40 days because they were too incompetent to have a listing the public could find?

And on the subject of selling $3,000 a bottle wine... While the Ardmore store is #11 in overall sales, I would have put it in the Philly store on Chestnut Street, or West Chester: you know where the money is. Which begs the question of why it wasn't there to begin with, and why a whole case went to just one store and not split out to three or four. What retailer with 600 locations would do that? Only one: the one that doesn't have to worry about what anyone thinks and is immune from any and all decisions that a real business has to take into account.

Here it is listed on 7-30 but it isn't in the online inventory

To make things even more interesting and proving the PLCB is lying to the public, the Chateau Margaux 2000 (Code #18864, list priced at $2,499.99, on sale for $1,499.99), which was on the inventory on July 28th disappeared on July 30th...but was still listed on the FWGS website. Is it in transit too, being hand-carried by somebody on a leisurely stroll, like the Chateau Ausone? Why is it still listed on FWGS if, as the PLCB says, they remove things when they are in transit? Not even the PLCB can have it both ways.

9:30PM 7-31. Only some PLCB cube rat knows how to decipher this.

So here it is, 9AM on the first day of the big sale and after over 40 days of being hand carried the Chateau Ausone 2003 somehow did make it to the Ardmore store and the public can find it online. Of course, inventory should be able to be found online in almost real time. No such luck with the Chateau Margaux 2000. It was for sale and found just a few days ago but now it has disappeared into the bowels of PLCB incompetence. When and where it may ever be seen again who knows, certainly not the public.

Just another example of how the PLCB does not benefit the citizens. Lying, graft, nepotism, kickbacks, and who know what else?


Privatize.



(1) From the Auditor General report.

• Pittsburgh: Inventory jumped from 300,000 cases to 575,000 cases in 2010, exceeding storage capacity. PLCB management decided to put 72,277 cases of excess merchandise in 57 non-temperature controlled trailers.

• Philadelphia: Inventory reached 763,470 cases. 20,240 cases were moved to non-temperature controlled trailers.

(2) Auditor General report pg 35. Not online but I have a copy I can send if you want to see it.

(3) PLCB inventory for April 21 shows it listed, inventory for June 20th does not have it. It disappeared somewhere between those dates and didn't show up again until July 30. Again, I have copies of the inventory reports since they are not online any longer...and isn't that a surprise?

Three months and no financials?

It's over three months after their fiscal year ended, and the PLCB has still not managed to figure out how to report their financials. By comparison, the Department Of Revenue, an agency more than ten times the size with millions of accounts has somehow managed to get an unaudited year end totals  out which is all we are asking for. And they did it the day after the fiscal year ended!

I think I know what the problem might be and offer this suggestion.

BRIBES are an expense.

However, KICKBACKS are an asset.

There. That should help speed things along. No charge for the service.

Wiretaps - The most fun you can have with the PLCB

Wiretaps are a wonderful thing.  How I envision the FBI caught the PLCB Marketing Director and who knows how many more. 

MD = Marketing Director
S = Salesman

S: Uh,,,,hello.  Is this the marketing director of the PLCB?

MD: It is, how may I help you?

S: Well, I've got some wines I'd like to talk to you about.

MD: What type of wines?

S: These are pretty good wines that I'm sure you'd like if you tried them.

MD: Sir, there are forms to fill out and deposits to be made.

S: I understand that but if YOU were to try them then I think we could reach an agreement.

MD: I'm not against giving new businesses a chance.  Do you golf?

S: Not well

MD: I'm sure we could meet up on the course to discuss your wines and then sample them after a round or two.

S: That would be great!

MD: I know of a nice little course down in South Carolina that I have been to before. Would that be OK?

S: Ahh....Sure, they have some great courses down there.

MD: Have your driver pick me up at 8 Thursday next week and I can leave from Philly, First Class of course.

S: Of course. We'll have a car and room waiting for you too.

MD: Can I bring a guest? My boss might want to come.

S: I think we can handle that.

MD: There will be some expenses too I'm sure.

S: No Doubt, Will a thousand or two cover it?

MD: Two should cover them.

S: We'll settle that up on the course then.

MD: Good, I'm sure that the PLCB will welcome your addition to our inventory as soon as I get back. Oh, and I'll need a couple of cases to stock our "Tasting Room" with so the Board and other Directors can try it too.

S: Just let me know when.

Bursts of laughter are then heard on the tape presumably from the agents involved.



Corruption causes prices to be higher then they would be otherwise.  So if you don't see prices going down at the local state store - guess what.......

END IT, DON'T MEND IT

Ex-PLCB official pleads guilty to taking kickbacks, bribes

Was There any Doubt?

"Ex-PLCB official pleads guilty to taking kickbacks, bribes"

Now...Who's Next? 

FBI continues investigation

Will it be Joe Da CEO? His Pal PJ? Will we actually see some legislators caught up in this? 

Stay tuned...the Grand Jury will return.

(Edited to add FBI link.)

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

The only number you need to know

Do  you want to know how crappy our State Store System is? All you need to know is this single fact. The number of States, Counties, or localities looking to move toward a system like the Pennsylvania liquor system:

NONE, NADA, NICHTS

Since the bad decisions made at the end of Prohibition, no state has ever shifted from a private free market system to a state-run liquor monopoly. Not once, not ever.

Our system is so good that nobody wants it. No one else believes in it except Utah, the only other state that is like us. Even they are somewhat better off since you can buy beer in grocery stores there! Alabama is looking to change, Montgomery County in Maryland, a "control county," has passed a partial privatization this year, Literally hundreds of towns in Texas alone have "gone wet" and even some here in PA, like Antrim Township.

The truth is that most people do not want to live under the quasi-prohibition model of the PLCB, be they in Pennsylvania or even under the more liberal versions found elsewhere. People want to be able to choose what they want and not what some bureaucrat in the capitol decides they should be allowed to have.

We don't want the corruption monopoly brings, either. Graft and corruption is not limited to the PLCB. North Carloina has its share too. Even 40 years ago there were charges and nothing really has changed since then. PA is no different. 5 senior members charged with graft, longstanding nepotism, junkets and "tastings" for members that have no qualifications to select mouthwash let alone wine for the entire state. 

Painting the PA liquor jail cell a nice bright color, putting up new drapes, and calling it "modernization" will not change the way the system works. The state charging more is no better than anybody else charging more, except that in a free market you can shop somewhere else. You don't have that choice in PA; it's the State Stores...or the State Police.

The State Store System does nothing for the citizens. It limits job creation, tax collection, selection, service, choice, and  entrepreneurial  drive of small businesses.  I think we can do far better: don't you?


END IT, DON'T MEND IT!

Breaking News: PLCB signs new ethics pledge...again

I swear I won't take any more graft ever again and I really mean it this time.. Sincerely, the PLCB

After beating out everyone in Harrisburg except the Turnpike Commission for disgraced employees, the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (PLCB) unanimously voted on Friday to close loopholes in its code of conduct to prohibit employees from accepting any and all gifts from vendors or contractors. The move was to support Gov. Tom Wolf’s recently signed executive order that banned state employes from accepting gifts. PLCB employees were already prohibited from accepting alcoholic beverages offered by vendors or contractors, but there were exceptions that were not covered, such as T-shirts, pens, and other gifts.


"The Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board already had one of the most restrictive codes of conduct in Pennsylvania state government, but these modifications make it even stronger,” PLCB Chairman Joseph "Skip" Brion said.  "No longer will vendors be able to give out 5,000 pens to senior management and get away with it like before. Outfitting our families for the next 3 generations with t-shirts will no longer be accepted, and will force the PLCB to revert back to the time when cash was the only acceptable form of coercion, just like in Grandpa's day!"

PLCB board member Tim "Rex" Holden fully agreed with the Chairnan's statements when caught during one of the board's 22 exhausting work days for this year. When asked what was in the box marked "Bic" this reporter saw him pushing under his desk with his foot, he replied it was "official PLCB business."

Member Mike "Sparky" Negra declined to comment on why the little league team he sponsors suddenly changed their name to the "Captain Morgan Spiced Rum Pirates," saying it was a personal decision not involving board policy or procedures; he noted that his other grandson is playing for the Erie Fireballs and his granddaughter was an American Honey cheerleader.

Pennsylvania citizens can now rest easy knowing that PLCB management, unlike before, now knows that taking graft of any kind is no longer acceptable and has signed a pledge saying so just like they did previously and that big liquor can no longer push the board into deciding what product to sell or brands to feature. [leave this out of the final copy - editor]

PLCB Executive Director John Metzger added, "Look, it's simple.  The longer we can keep unqualified people at the top doing things they perhaps shouldn't be doing — like golf weekends, pointless rebranding campaigns, wine kiosks, or what have you — the more we can promise we're gonna fix things, and the more window dressing we can put out to look like we are. This pledge is just one of those steps." 


Yeah, this is satire, but really, over the long run, nothing significant changes at the PLCB — everything remains the same (and hats off to the Philadelphia Inquirer for recognizing that in today's lead editorial). The only way fix that is to Privatize - the Ultimate Modernization.

Gypsies, tramps, and thieves.

By now, you have heard that the leadership of the PLCB is full of crooks. We already knew that it was full of incompetence: just look at date-rape ads, buying mom vodka for mother's day, the born-to-fail wine kiosks, computer systems 158% over budget, and who knows how much more that hasn't even been exposed yet. Meanwhile, the CEO, Chairman, and Marketing Director were out having a good time when they should have been working (The board only works 22 partial days a year as it is), taking gifts and then conveniently forgetting to report them. Maybe "conveniently" isn't the right word, since we all know the PLCB isn't convenient. How about we say "on purpose" instead....yeah they forgot about $2000 golf trips on purpose, or forgot about a few thousand in free booze on purpose. That sounds more like it.

While the ethics committee has no teeth itself, they apparently thought that these good ol' boys were just  playfully forgetful....after all, what PA legislator hasn't taken a favor or two or two or eight thousand? So they got caught; just fill out the paperwork and pay what you should have paid -- nudge nudge wink wink -- and everything will be fine.

I'm not sure if our AG saw a chance to make a point, or if she really felt these people should pay more than restitution, or if it made her skin crawl that a so-called public servant would disrespect the citizens as they did, but she at least refereed the case to the Dauphin County DA, recusing herself... since her husband has a $12 million contract with the PLCB.  Nepotism isn't new in Harrisburg but this was a bit to high profile to not be noticed.

As reported in the Intelligencer:

Unfortunately, this type of corruption is a symptom of a much larger problem: the government’s complete control of the sale and distribution of wine and spirits in Pennsylvania. If government bureaucrats did not have the sole authority to determine what alcohol is sold in all the state’s liquor stores, businesses would have no incentive to bribe them with golf outings, fancy dinners and free liquor.

Hopefully the DA can give the people what they want:

And...now turn left, convicts!

Joe Conti's Greatest Hits

Joe Da CEO - 12/13/06 -- 2/2/13

Joe Conti's gone, and we're somewhat sorry to see him go. He was, as the alliteration-happy Commonwealth Foundation might put it, The Autocrat of Arrogance, King of The Kiosks, notorious Nabob of Nepotism, and the Duke of (Tone) Deafness. He will be back as a consultant, of course -- he is also the Prince of the Public Trough -- so we have hope that he'll still deliver us a final Endowment of Embarrassment!

In the meantime, here are our most fond memories of Joe Da CEO, and what he did to further the cause of privatization of the State Store System, along with a range of 1-20 points for each incident's CONTI score (that's Corruption, Oblivious-to-Consequences, Nepotism, Thick-Wittedness, and Insider-itis). Plenty of links to the blogposts that describe them too, and I have to say, they're some of my favorites. It was so much fun to rant about Joe Da CEO.

Joe's Job. Conti's CEO position was created out of whole cloth by Governor Ed Rendell, and apparently filled without advertising, without any other candidates being interviewed, and without any real clue on why it was needed. Here's the story. That might explain why Conti seemed to do nothing for the first two years he was in the position (though we were told he spent that time..."planning").
Score: 4. More about Joe, than it is Joe...but the shape of things to come.

Dr. Rendellstein's Monster. This was a minor incident, but one of my favorites, because it illustrated just how overly-independent the PLCB is. Rendell hears about the original TableLeaf "rebranding" idea, and has Conti in to talk about it. "The governor expressed his opinion that the PLCB stores as currently named were recognizable and had a brand value of their own and he strongly discouraged PLCB from attempting to change the names of the stores... The governor was vocal in making his opinion known." Conti recalled the meeting differently. "[Conti] described the meeting with Mr. Rendell as "more a directional discussion" covering a wide range of topics. "The governor was delighted with everything he saw," said Mr. Conti." Just amazing.
Score: 8. A small gem of Continess.

Playing Restaurant Favorites. On Conti's watch: the PLCB opened a mini-winestore inside Garces Trading Company, Jose Garces deli/grocery. Really kind of cool...and really kind of unfair to all the other BYOs in Philly who would love to have a little winestore in-house, but never got asked (except when Conti allegedly offered one to Stephen Starr...see below). No more have opened, and Garces has distanced himself from the concept.
Score: 9. Tone-deaf, but Conti was not too publicly vocal about it. 

TableLeaf. He spent a lot of money on it for no understandable reason: rebranding a legal, police-enforced monopoly? When that got too ugly, he changed his mind and taped it on the front of a PLCB-created "house" wine brand. And then, when people got pissed off that the house brand was deliberately undercutting private winemakers...he lied about it.
Score: 10. Classic Conti characteristics, but a fairly small affair; an extra point for some bold lying. 

Fighting Privatization. Despite noting several times that it wasn't his job to fight privatization -- that was all up to the Legislature! -- Conti spent a lot of public time doing just that. One of the best was during this Legislative hearing, where he did what he does so well. He lied (about how much money privatization would "lose" the State, and about the results of the PLCB's internal review of the wine kiosks), he blustered, he threatened, and he obfuscated...all of it while fighting the idea of privatization, which he said he wasn't there to do.
Score: 11. No corruption, just doing his job. Wait...he said it wasn't his job. It's confusing.  

How many wine kiosks did you want?

The Death of the Wine Kiosks. Almost as much fun as the spectacle of the Wine Kiosks themselves was Conti's complete loss of reality-grip when the The Invincible Wine Robot Army (see below) was finally defeated at the Battle of Wegmans. Faced with total annihilation of his cherished idea, and the utter commercial failure of the misbegotten wine automata, what was Conti's reaction? "It certainly wasn't a failure." "I still think there is merit to the program." "It didn't end up successful, but we learned a lot and we will end up better for it."
Score: 13. Would have been higher, but no nepotism or (detectable) corruption. Just arrogance and stupidity. 

The Courtesy Contract. If you've forgotten...the PLCB let a contract (on a low-ball bid) for "Improving basic customer service skills" to a company run by the husband of a PLCB regional manager. Conti's watch, and he loved it: "This is a vast adventure, and it's one we have to take," he said And the training was ridiculous, probably unnecessary (there was a customer complaint once every 288,000 transactions...), and ineffective: customer complaints actually went up after the training. And Conti decided to continue it. The Auditor General said: "Although this contract was awarded according to the letter of the law, there are several incidents that occurred that raise serious concerns and put the PLCB's procurement procedures in question." Conti's reaction? Vindication. Classic.
Score: 14. No obvious personal corruption. And the nepotism was someone else's... 

The Wine Kiosks (AKA The Invincible Wine Robot Army). The most amazing idea that could never work. Here's a video of just how ridiculous they were in case you'd forgotten:



Conti oversaw this Carnival of FAIL from the initial flawed idea, through the single-bidder contract (to the completely inexperienced company that was heavy with contributors to Gov. Rendell's campaign), through overriding the advice of a PLCB internal review to reject the idea (which he then lied about to a Legislative hearing) to the bloated execution (which hid costs) and the eventual disaster that was the implementation. You can see most of that here.
Score: 18. Close to perfect, but no obvious nepotism.

Contigate. According to the state Inspector General, Conti accepted Phillies and Union tickets from PLCB vendors and "lobbied" vendors and restaurateur Stephen Starr for a job for his daughter; Conti may also have hinted in the same conversation with Starr that maybe Starr could get one of the sweet in-store PLCB "winebox" pop-up stores like Jose Garces got (and NO ONE ELSE seems to be able to get). And...he was dumb enough (or arrogant enough; your pick) to use his State-issued Blackberry to do the business.  Score: 20. Doesn't get much more Conti than this.


Ah, Joe, Joe...it was great to have you around. It kept the fight interesting, and kept it fair, too. I mean, it was just 2/3 of the citizens of the Commonwealth vs. the UFCW and the Legislature! But you and your great ideas like the wine kiosks kept us going!

Too bad the PLCB's dumb enough to hire you back at $80 an hour as a consultant. Yeah, really, they are...on an official "emergency" basis. That's a move so dumb you'd almost think it was Joe's... Score: 22.

Is Privatization Dead? Not at all!

The Legislative session is effectively over, and the privatization bill has died with it. No one's doing anything till after the election, at which point privatization would have to be re-introduced. Mike Turzai, the vocal champion of privatization in the State House, damaged himself badly with a gaffe about voter ID, and by failing to bring privatization to a vote. Governor Corbett has said recently that privatization is still a top priority, and that he will present a proposal next year, but the Legislature may change hands, and his approval ratings are low.

We're screwed, it appears.

Oh, shut up. That's just what the PLCB partisans want you to believe! The truth is that the PLCB's incompetence is the gift that keeps on giving. As long as they keep screwing up, privatization is going to be in the Legislature's face, and the Internet makes it even easier to keep up the pressure.

Don't believe me? Take a look at this recent Philadelphia Inquirer poll. "The poll found that 55 percent of respondents supported privatization, 28 percent opposed it, and 17 percent either did not know or did not answer." That's almost 2 to 1 in favor among those who have an opinion. It gets better: "61 percent of respondents in the bipartisan survey said they supported allowing grocery stores to sell beer and wine." Even the clueless Legislature can't ignore numbers like that forever (except they will, because the unions that represent the State Store workers continue to get right in their faces and remind them that they vote and that they give lots of juicy campaign donations).

The PLCB stepped in it again during Sandy last week, when they shut down the entire State Store System for two days. Now, some of the stores were without power, and some were in areas where it was dangerous to drive...but the PLCB drove home the problem with a stupid state-wide monopoly by shutting down every single store, regardless of local conditions. Even some of the employees admitted it was a stupid thing to do.

Want more? How about even more bad press for the goofballs who run the PLCB and the State Store System? That's right, Joe Da CEO was in the news again, and it wasn't because he's a great humanitarian. It's about that dopey Tableleaf in-house wine brand they shoved down the throats of Pennsylvanians. The Legislature wanted to know how and why this lowball wine brand came to be on the State Store System Shelves in (unfair) competition with other brands, and Conti told them that vendors approached the PLCB with wine samples. But that's not the story PLCB marketing director Jim Short tells: he says he went to the wine companies looking for cheap wine to put under the Tableleaf label. Hmmm...a falling out between two of the people at the PLCB under investigation for corruption with vendors? 

It gets worse, according to a story on the TribLive website:

Conti told the House committee that the Wine and Spirits Advisory Council, a group of consumers and liquor license holders empaneled by the LCB, tasted samples of wine submitted for consideration by a number of vendors competing for the TableLeaf brand, transcripts show. But those council members deny being involved.

...

In later interviews with the Trib, Conti changed his story again, stating that an LCB wine educator and outside sommelier tasted samples submitted by vendors.

But Judy Carroll, a wine educator for the central region of the state, said educators don’t play a role in choosing products. “I do classes and seminars with the people who work in the (state) stores,” Carroll said.She said her six counterparts elsewhere in the state all do the same thing: conduct classes to educate state store workers.

And Melissa Monosoff, the sommelier under contract with the LCB from December 2007 through November 2011, said she was not involved in the development or selection of TableLeaf wines “in the slightest” and had “no idea who was.”

Conti, once again, has apparently misspoken. That's the arrogance of the PLCB for you.

Want more? How about this: The LCB, the Board itself, is making a dumb show of its obligation to meet publicly. Check this out, again from the TribLive website:

A Tribune-Review analysis of nearly three years of LCB meeting records, along with attendance at meetings, shows many of the board’s twice-monthly meetings lasted just 15 to 20 minutes with little or no public discussion before votes. Critics speculate the lack of discussion means the bulk of the agency’s decision-making occurs out of public view.

“It appears that ... the staff and the board members have developed a way of doing business that is difficult, if not impossible, for an average citizen to follow,” said Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, R-Delaware County, an advocate for increased government openness.

“Certainly, these issues of how the board operates will be given a fresh look as we work through the legislation for changing the way citizens are able to buy alcohol,” Pileggi said.

Unfortunately, what Pileggi means here is that the Legislature is still considering the ill-advised "Modernization" program that the PLCB is advising! Does this make sense? Here's an agency that is crippled by incompetency, riddled with corruption, consumed with its own arrogance...and you think it's a good idea to let them tell you what's needed to fix their problems?! 

We have a big job ahead of us in 2013. We need to remind Governor Corbett of his promises. We need to remind the Legislature and Senator Pileggi that we want privatization, not some crappy "modernization." We need to get a good, fair bill that gives us privatization that makes sense, not the cock-eyed greedfest that got passed in Washington (that people still seem to prefer to the old state store system). And we need to get serious about it. 

Get started now. If you're in the Philadelphia area, please come out this Thursday to Yards brewing for our second beer laws forum: if you WANT it to cover privatization, I'm willing to expand the conversation. We had 100 people at the last one, I'd love to have an overflow crowd. We're going to be talking about how to take action. It's time to get rolling.

More on Contigate

Monica Yant Kinney scorched the two apparently ethically-challenged heads of the PLCB -- Joe Da CEO Conti and PJ "PJ" Stapleton --  this morning in her Inquirer column. It made me think more about this, because she brought up some good points, not least of which was this: why were these guys dumb enough, cheap enough to do this stuff on their State-supplied email and computers...after Bonusgate and the conviction of Bill DeWeese?

Putting in an order for more Phillies tix

It's worth pausing to shudder that Harrisburg remains so clueless about the need to separate public business and political enrichment in the aftermath of Bonusgate and Computergate, the scandals and trials that led disgraced former House Speakers John Perzel and Bill DeWeese to share a prison cell.
Have those who run this state learned nothing about relegating greed to their home networks? Surely these guys can afford a second BlackBerry. After all, Gmail is free.

Apparently they haven't.

I posted this on Facebook, and some have brought up that this kind of thing is common in many industries. Well, sure. I have to say, the booze companies think nothing of this kind of stuff. It's open knowledge that I accept samples -- practically everyone in the business does, even journalists at newspapers with solid ethics codes (when you get samples from everyone, there's no influence to be "nice" to anyone in particular) -- and I've been on junkets to production facilities. Those were only when I had an actual story to write, and believe me, the Caribbean rum trips and cognac trips I've turned down, jeez, I woulda liked to have gone....but that didn't pass my personal sniff test.

I've turned down offers that were just plain over the line. Like Phillies tickets, and concerts. Only time I've ever been in a Phillies box is when I was hired to do a beer tasting in one; only free tickets I've ever accepted were from the Red Cross as a thank-you for platelet donations. I don't do that. I keep it to stuff that will actually, honestly help me do my job by getting me into relevant facilities and areas that I wouldn't otherwise be able to visit. And when I do, I make a point of noting that it was paid for, and I try to write about it as honestly as possible.

The difference is, by the rules these guys acknowledged when they took the jobs, all of that kind of thing is illegal and unethical. They are government officials, in charge of a retail monopoly, and therefore have to play by different rules. Apparently they forgot that, and yes, that does make you wonder about the "culture" at the rest of the agency...especially an agency that's been the subject of multiple special audits in the past few years for possible ethics violations (that found that while the agency had met the letter of the law, the spirit of the law was bent or broken).

Does all this have anything to do with privatization? Does it say anything about the agency and its mission? Or is it, as one State Store clerk and union rep told me, simply an ad hominem attack on the people at the top, and has nothing to do with the State Stores? Stepping aside from his misunderstanding of the ad hominem fallacy, I would argue that even so, there is a direct relationship between the agency and the behavior of its leaders...particularly given that the same kind of ethical violations took place at another, very similar agency (the North Carolina ABC, see below), and that, as I mentioned above, this isn't the first ethical question that has come up at the agency.

This is an independent agency. It answers to no one directly. The Governor can't fire Joe Da CEO, he can only ask the Board to do so, and has made it clear that the Board has defied him on that (something they did to Ed Rendell fairly regularly). The Legislature can't make the PLCB do anything without changing the Liquor Code, something they've shown very little stomach for -- at least, any effective change. The PLCB has its own judges (lazy though they apparently are), its own police agency (yes, under the State Police, but at the PLCB's beck and call; it's called the Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement, after all), and most importantly, its own budget. The Legislature can't even cut off their funds, the usual method of reining in a rogue agency.

The PLCB has grown to be lazy, arrogant, and wasteful. The administrative costs of the retail operation are out of control; there are fewer stores and more employees than there were in 1999, for example. It is a patronage pit; Conti's job alone proves that. Privatization will cure that. The regulatory functions will run cleaner without the contradictory retail function, or they could easily be assigned to other agencies (as suggested here and here), which would save even more money.

We'll have to take it to the Capitol before this is over.

The Legislature may have dropped the ball...again. Doesn't mean we have to. I'm working on a plan of action, and hope to have it up here shortly. This is opportunity, people: Turzai's shit plan HB11 has failed. We need to press our desires home to the Governor's office, but they won't give a damn if we don't give a damn.

Read that quote up to the right, the one that's been here since the day I started this blog. It's the truth, and it's the only way we'll get this done.

"...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

Wine Kiosks...what a beautiful debacle

The ridiculous Wine Kiosks have turned out to be a microcosm of the PLCB: corrupt, incompetent, inconvenient, bloated, and wildly unpopular with Pennsylvania citizens. They are, as I predicted, a public relations disaster for the PLCB.

• The bidding process was suspect (a single-bid contract).
• The company that made them, Simple Brands LLC (again...a "hi-tech" company with no website?), was suspect (company officers were mostly large Rendell donors, and the principal's main experience before was with neonized skeeball machines).
• The contract was suspect (the PLCB kept saying the machines didn't cost them anything...except maintaining and supplying them, and the drone employees looking at videocamera feeds in Harrisburg, and then the drone employees sitting beside the malfunctioning behemoths).
• The machines themselves were crap.
• The whole concept was flawed from the beginning...and the PLCB knew it.

Eh? What was that last bit? Crazy, but true: jump to this story in today's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and read about how the PLCB received a report from an internal committee prior to signing the wine kiosk contract, a report that strongly advised against going forward with the contract. For instance, the committee pegged the top problem: the kiosk idea simply sucked.

"The committee has a general concern that the proposed process for purchasing products via the kiosk machine is cumbersome and may meet with public criticism for not being 'user-friendly,'" according to the evaluation memo submitted by Matthew Bembenick, a middle manager who recently left his position with the LCB.

The committee had real problems with Simple Brands, the way they operated, and the contract they presented.

The memo also addressed concerns that Simple Brands continually changed its business plan "on the fly as the committee has broached operational issues and concerns." According to the memo, "The committee is concerned that the lack of a coherent business plan will open the [LCB] up to public criticism and could contribute to a potential project failure."

Smart people they had working at the PLCB...too bad they not only didn't listen to them, they completely disowned the report, and 'disappeared' it in Orwellian fashion:

The day after the committee submitted its recommendation, an attorney for the LCB instructed employees to hand over all hard copies of the report and to delete all electronic copies.

Now...spokesperson Stacey Witalec is quoted in the piece saying that it's normal to destroy electronic copies, it's to maintain the integrity of the original; no bits and pieces floating around. As an old records management type, I can understand that. But...hard copy? That's damage control, and when you do damage control before something even goes public? DING DING DING DING! That's a serious red flag. Hope the upcoming AG audit on the wine kiosks knows about this.

Meanwhile, the PLCB is fighting an endgame with Simple Brands that  looks a lot like a desperate search for an exit strategy that will allow them to can the wine kiosks with a statement that clears them of any blame (or stupidity) while pinning the failure on Simple Brands. Have a look. Simple Brands is exposed as the fly-by-night operation it always was; the PLCB is lashing out in an attempt to blame the failure of the kiosks on the company that they were warned was problematic. No one wants these misbegotten monsters, and is that a surprise to anyone?

 

The kiosks are clearly a failure; they were flawed from Day One, functioned below expectations, were despised by the very people they were meant to enthrall, and every party involved is racing away from the stench of their rotting demise. The Philadelphia Inquirer editorial staff put it so well last month.

With any luck, though, the Commonwealth's beleaguered wine-droid army will someday have one proud distinction: It will be regarded in retrospect as the LCB's Waterloo. Rarely before has any government agency so succinctly, thoroughly, and convincingly made the case for its own elimination.

With any luck, indeed.

In New York: State Liquor Authority told to "Shape up!"

And in other states, part 1:

New York's Senate just confirmed Dennis Rosen as the new State Liquor Authority chairman, and in the process, Rosen was warned that he was expeceted to "shape up the agency." The job (which pays $120,800) is responsible for licensing and enforcement. Senators noted -- correctly! -- that the SLA's performance must improve "because it is so critical to the state's economy." The senators were distressed that liquor license applications were taking months to be processed: up to four months in Buffalo, as much as 11 months in NYC. Ridiculous! Anti-business!

Corrupt, too. "The Inspector General's Office raided the Harlem office of the SLA this spring. Law enforcement officials claimed officers there were taking illegal payments from outsiders to expedite applications."There is no one agency that has caused more pain or caused more loss of jobs than the State Liquor Authority," said Sen. George Maziarz, R-Niagara County. He has called for aboloshing [sic] the SLA. Scott Wexler, executive director of the Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association, said the SLA may be impossible to fix. [Wow, does that sound familiar?]

(Digested from the Albany Times Union)

Didja Ever Doubt It?

Remember this?

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.

Now read this. Pittsburgh's ABC affiliate, WTAE, breaks the story: there is a Rendell-Simple Brands connection. "Two of the main investors with Simple Brands have given Rendell nearly a half-million dollars in campaign contributions." And Joe "CEO" Conti is right in there pitching it.

[WTAE reporter Paul] Van Osdol: "Any concerns about the perception that might be created from something like this?"
Conti: "As I said, of course, we're concerned about the perception. We understand the nature of your question and we understand why you're here today, but we think we -- in an abundance of caution -- went through a very fair and open bidding process."
Van Osdol: "Was it really fair if there was only one company that responded, and that company was the one that made the original proposal?"
Conti: "It was a very fair and open bidding process."

Sound familiar? Sound just like the "courtesy contract" the PLCB awarded to the company owned by the husband of a PLCB regional manager?

What does it take? How long are we going to continue to put up with this crap? We're told one of the reasons that privatization is a bad idea is because private businesses often defraud the government. Hello? Obviously that argument's a wash.

The kiosk idea is a dopey one -- stick your whole arm into a machine to buy a $15 bottle of wine? -- and the kiosk contract stinks like roadkill in August. It's time --past time to write your legislator and demand that privatization of liquor and wine sales in Pennsylvania be put on the legislative calendar immediately -- or at least, as soon as they've managed to pass a damned budget. The system is antiquated, the system is stupid, the system is corrupt...but worst of all, the system does not serve the citizens of the Commonwealth. The PLCB Should Be Abolished.

"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.

PA AG Says PLCB exercised "poor judgment"

Pennsylvania Auditor General Jack Wagner has released his report on the audit of the PLCB's "courtesy contract," a $173,820 training contract that was granted to Solutions 21, a Pittsburgh-based company run by the husband of the PLCB's Western Region manager.

Auditor General Jack Wagner said today that the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board did not violate state law but that it did exercise poor judgment in awarding a $173,820 employee training contract to the husband of a PLCB regional manager, creating the appearance of a conflict of interest.

"In awarding a contract to the spouse of one of its regional managers, the PLCB should have anticipated the reasonable public questioning that would result over a potential conflict of interest, regardless of whether that conflict was an actual conflict or the appearance of a conflict," Wagner said.

That's right, Chuck Ardo: far from accusing the PLCB of curing cancer, those of us who questioned this contract were actually engaging in "reasonable public questioning." That's from the state auditor general, Chuck, so you can take that to the bank. Wagner wasn't just talking about the awarding of the contract either, according a story in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

Mr. Wagner said training to improve employee courtesy, manners and product knowledge wasn't a worthwhile expense. At the least, he said, it should have been done in-house.

So it was a dopey idea, and we were right about that. But the important thing is that state ethics laws were not broken!

Investigators found no evidence that the Western regional director used the authority of her employment or confidential information to assist her husband's business in obtaining the contract, Wagner said.

How did they determine this? Well, the regional director, Susanne Hobart, told them that the business was started before she married her husband, that she doesn't have any financial interest in the company, and "that she was aware her husband's company was going to submit a proposal in response to the RFP issued by the PLCB but she and her husband had agreed not to discuss it." How about that! They agreed, in the sanctity of their own home, not to discuss it.

What's the Auditor General say about that?

Wagner said his department's review of Solutions 21's corporate documents and the Western regional director's statements of financial interest found no evidence to contradict her statements. The report notes that the investigators' ability to determine the substance of communications between a married couple is obviously limited.

So what we have here is a contract let by the PLCB, to a company run by the husband of a high-level PLCB manager (who has no financial interest in the company, but...she's married to the guy, so you gotta figure she's got a financial interest in that), and that's legal because she told the auditor general that she and her husband had agreed not to discuss the RFP. Great! Good ethics laws we have, and I feel good about that!

Then it turns out that there were other irregularities in the evaluation process -- score-shaving, and one contract proposing to employ a PLCB employee as their on-site representative -- that taken all together raised some real red flags.

"Although this contract was awarded according to the letter of the law, there are several incidents that occurred that raise serious concerns and put the PLCB's procurement procedures in question," Wagner said.

Wagner then "made five recommendations to improve the PLCB's management controls, procurement policy and operational procedures, and three recommendations related to the prevention of conflicts of interest." These fall into the category of increasing paperwork and CYA activities, and some things that sound a lot like the office equivalent of the "courtesy" training:

• Exercise good judgment when awarding contracts to avoid even perceived conflicts of interest.
• Ensure that management and employees understand and comply with laws and policies pertaining to conflicts of interest.
• Require the members of future evaluation committees to properly document changes on their individual scoring sheets (like arbitrarily changing scores?).

Ummm... Duh.

How's the PLCB feel about this? Vindicated, sadly enough, and -- as you might expect -- truculent. Joe "CEO" Conti and PJ Stapleton said that they had received legal advice that if they had rejected the bid from Solutions 21, the PLCB might have been sued. For rejecting a bid from a company owned by the husband of one of their managers. “You could certainly characterize it might have been more difficult to reject bids for that reason,” said Conti. Yes, I suppose you could. Rejecting bids for ethical reasons must be a real bitch, at least for some agencies.

As you might guess, I have a much simpler and much more satisfying proposal than Wagner's for solving this kind of continuing problem. Abolish the PLCB. Get the state out of the retail liquor and wine business, where it has no place. Privatize the sale of spirits and wine. Join the 21st Century. And leave this kind of embarrassment behind.

Let's have a little more "reasonable public questioning" about that, eh?

"All conflicts of interest should be investigated"

The Governor has a refined position on the courtesy contract controversy. According to the Inquirer, he said at a press conference in Pittsburgh on Wednesday that "All conflicts of interest should be investigated." The ever-helpful Chuck Ardo "added that the governor didn't necessarily believe the contract was wrongly awarded, 'but rather believes that the facts should be investigated and the truth should come out.'"

I like the Gov's position better. The facts are pretty plain. It's the intent and the spirit of this thing that need investigating. Which is why I'm not liking the response of PLCB Chairman PJ Stapleton to the situation. According to the Post-Gazette, Stapleton sent a letter to state Sens. Jane Orie and John H. Eichelberger Jr. (who had questioned the contract and how it was awarded) that said, in part, that the "contract is appropriate -- both in its content and in the way it was awarded." He further responded to questions from the Post-Gazette that "there was no legal basis to exclude Solutions 21." In fact, the State Auditor General will be auditing the contract, and Stapleton is sure they will find nothing inappropriate. Nothing, that is, that violates the letter of the state's Adverse Impact law.

Tell me something, PJ. If, just for an example, Governor Rendell's god-son were to bid on a PLCB contract...would that be okay? Because, you know, technically they're not related. I'm sure it would be legal, but this is the kind of thing we read about happening in third world countries, and we shake our heads about those poor countries with corrupt governments.

Get the State out of this business.

"If the LCB were to find a cure for cancer..."

Either Governor Rendell or his press secretary, Chuck Ardo, apparently thinks people like me -- and maybe you -- are just anti-PLCB cranks. Check this out from that Pittsburgh Post-Gazette piece on the courtesy contract controversy:

Such criticism was to be expected from longtime critics of the PLCB, countered Chuck Ardo, a spokesman for Mr. Rendell. "The LCB decided their retail staff needed some training to ensure courteous service," he said. "If the LCB were to find a cure for cancer they would find a reason to criticize it."

"Cure for cancer"? In light of what's been going on lately, it seems more likely that someone at the LCB's brother-in-law would be peddling Laetrile, Chuck, and yeah, I'd criticize that.

In fact, even your own boss criticized the courtesy contract controversy...at least, until someone got to him and, er, pointed out the facts. Check it out, and how Chuck spun it right around (emphasis added, cuz I wouldn't want you to miss the important stuff...):

Mr. Rendell, when asked about the customer service training contract at a news conference, said it was the first he'd heard of it -- and of the relationship between the consulting firm's president and an PLCB manager. "If it's true, it's something that should be corrected," Mr. Rendell said.

But the governor made that comment before he had all the information about the contract, Mr. Ardo said. "He is not calling for the contract to be rebid," said Mr. Ardo. "He answered instinctively [because] the way the question was asked it seemed there might be a problem, but once the details unfolded it was clear there is no problem."

Clear? You bet! It's clear to me that Rendell's "instinctive" response to hearing about a fairly large state contract being let to the husband of a high-ranking agency manager was that it was "something that should be corrected." How much more information do you need? That it's "in compliance" with the state's Adverse Interest Act, according to LCB spokesman Nick Hays? Yeah, that's a tough standard. Check out the Post-Gazette's careful, damning parsing of that:

Hays said the contract was "in compliance" with the state's Adverse Interest Act, which among other things prohibits state employees from influencing contracts in which they have an interest.
The act also prohibits state employees from having an "adverse interest" in any contract with the state agency that employs them. The act defines that interest as being "a stockholder, partner, member, agent, representative or employee" of a company seeking such a contract. Hays said Susanne Hobart does not do any work for her husband's firm.

Let me get this straight. Is this coming from the same state agency that recently required an investor in Philadelphia brewpub Earth Bread + Brewery to sell his investment to his wife (because he was also an investor in another small Pennsylvania brewery, which might influence the managers of EB+B to buy beer from that brewery), and then further required his wife to sign an affadavit that her husband would never profit from her investment? Really?

Did they require Mrs. Hobart to sign a similar affadavit? They're married. The state's "Adverse Interest Act" doesn't cover that? I guess that's one of the "details" Chuck was talking about.

The Gov should follow his instincts more often.