It just hit me like a ton of bricks.
If Pennsylvania's State Store System is as wonderful as PJ and Joe "CEO" say it is...
How come you never see out-of-state plates in the parking lots?
It's like the Worker's Paradise. The Berlin Wall wasn't put up to keep people out of East Germany...
I'll grant, you may see some NJ plates in stores close to the Delaware River. But I'll betcha it's more about people ducking NJ auto insurance rates than it is about visiting the wonderful State Store System.
Still...if you see an out-of-state plate in a State Store System parking lot, and you can get a picture that clearly shows the plate and the store, send it. I dare ya.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Whose Money Is It To Spend?
The latest bone-headed idea from the PLCB? Change the name of the State Stores. Steve Twedt, at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, reported on this over the weekend. This is part of the $3.7 million "rebranding" boondoggle the PLCB has engaged in, for truly questionable reasons.
Happily, there is at least one person in Harrisburg who sees this for the worthless idea it is: Governor Ed Rendell. According the ever-spinning Chuck Ardo,
But that's all silliness and name-calling. What this is really about is wasting your money. When this contract comes up, when the courtesy contract comes up, whenever the PLCB spends on consultants or signage or harassment of former Board members, the stock answer is always that it's not the taxpayer's money, they're a self-supporting agency and that their 'expenses' come out of the money they 'make' selling booze.
Could we cut the bull? The PLCB's real main argument for existence, the only reason they still have the monopoly on liquor and wine sales in Pennsylvania, is because of the money they funnel into the state's coffers. Three-quarters of that money is taxes, and we'll close our eyes and pretend that's a straight push-through. But a quarter of it is 'profits,' going into the general fund to be spent on programs to benefit the citizens of the Commonwealth. If this 'independent agency' is spending some of its gross on questionable stuff like changing the name of their monopoly stores, it is the taxpayer's money that is not going into the general fund.
Just how independent is the PLCB? Who exercises oversight on this agency? It's not the governor, clearly, as his "opinion" doesn't count for spit. Is it the Legislature? Don't know, although Conti and Stapleton were quick to dump most of the criticism of the PLCB's practices in their laps, as being responsible for The Almighty Liquor Code.
At least the PLCB is acting like a proper monopoly: high-handed, unaccountable, and arrogant.
Happily, there is at least one person in Harrisburg who sees this for the worthless idea it is: Governor Ed Rendell. According the ever-spinning Chuck Ardo,
"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."However, as we're frequently reminded, the PLCB is an independent agency. Accordingly, Joe "CEO" Conti was not concerned about the governor's opinion. Indeed, it sounds like they may not have been at the same meeting:
[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.Pardon my French, but one of these two guys is clearly full of crap. If you know Governor Rendell, you know what "strongly discouraged" and "vocal in making his opinion known" means. I'm pretty sure I know what "delighted with everything" means. I'm guessing the Governor is looking at Conti and feeling a bit like Victor Frankenstein.
But that's all silliness and name-calling. What this is really about is wasting your money. When this contract comes up, when the courtesy contract comes up, whenever the PLCB spends on consultants or signage or harassment of former Board members, the stock answer is always that it's not the taxpayer's money, they're a self-supporting agency and that their 'expenses' come out of the money they 'make' selling booze.
Could we cut the bull? The PLCB's real main argument for existence, the only reason they still have the monopoly on liquor and wine sales in Pennsylvania, is because of the money they funnel into the state's coffers. Three-quarters of that money is taxes, and we'll close our eyes and pretend that's a straight push-through. But a quarter of it is 'profits,' going into the general fund to be spent on programs to benefit the citizens of the Commonwealth. If this 'independent agency' is spending some of its gross on questionable stuff like changing the name of their monopoly stores, it is the taxpayer's money that is not going into the general fund.
Just how independent is the PLCB? Who exercises oversight on this agency? It's not the governor, clearly, as his "opinion" doesn't count for spit. Is it the Legislature? Don't know, although Conti and Stapleton were quick to dump most of the criticism of the PLCB's practices in their laps, as being responsible for The Almighty Liquor Code.
At least the PLCB is acting like a proper monopoly: high-handed, unaccountable, and arrogant.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
"I love my job."
I got another response from a person who says they work for the PLCB today (the first one is here). There was no subject line, and I'll keep the name under wraps (to the writer: if you don't mind, or would like your name used, I'd be happy to add it, just let me know); the only thing I will say about the identity of the person is that their e-mail address ("willfulmissconduct") makes what follows a little suspicious...but even PLCB clerks like to have some fun, I guess. Until I have a better reason to believe that the following is a put-up job, I'll take is as genuine.
Here's what she had to say, my response follows:
My response to her:
The PLCB is not a jobs program. The Turnpike Commission, maybe, but the PLCB is not. I have said from the beginning that the plight of the employees is the toughest part; here's what I said in a comment on my very first post on the blog, the day after I started: "The hardest part about writing this, getting people to see the problems with the PLCB, is thinking about the effect it could have on people's livelihoods if I were somehow successful." Since then I believe we've come up with some workable ideas on how to ease that transition, and I hope that some legislators take a look at them.
But...the PLCB is not a jobs program. Shouldn't be, can't be. It's bad enough that it's got the State in retail.
Here's what she had to say, my response follows:
Paid more than other clerks? I don't know how many years these high paid clerks have been in the PLCB, but I make 10.58 an hour. I have been here almost two years. I cannot even afford to pay my rent and bills on that, when all my taxes are taken out. I stay, because I love my job, I love my customers and I have the benefit of very reasonable medical insurance rates. What will happen to me if privatization happens? Will I get medicaid and food stamps? Sure, I can get another job. But.....it will probably cost me 500 to 600 a month for medical. Total Wine? Yeah, right. My friend used to work for them, and they do not even offer medical plans. When they do, it is so unafordable it is not worth it. My friend took a hefty paycut, but is happier at the PLCB.
We do a good job. It's not a matter of training people to do their jobs. It's a matter of firing those that do not. I spend my free time reading wine books and attending classes. Many of my customers thank me and come back and ask for me by name. It is not unusual for me to give my attention to a customer (or set of customers in a group) for 15 to 30 minutes. I love my job. I love my boss, I love the people I work with. We are all just like everyone else, trying to earn a living and support our families. The PLCB is the best thing that ever happened to me. I am a college graduate as well, IQ of 145, and not stupid, as you would like to have folks believe. I went through a horrible divorce and my child and I were homeless at one point. No one helped us. The PLCB gave me hope for a future, supporting myself and taking care of my child, instead of ending up on welfare or in a shelter.
I turn away many people every day who are underage or have no valid ID. Try seeing the same at most beer distributors, when the owner is concerned his or her profits are down. Go ahead.... buy your wine from a grocery store, when all you have to tell you about the wine is the tag on the shelf, put out by the company making the wine. Sure thing they are going to tell you their wine is "good." As far as restaurant markups, complain to the restaurant. It is their decision if they want to buy a wine for 8 bucks and charge 25 for it.
I love my job. I cannot state that enough.
My response to her:
I feel you deserve a response. I have said on the blog, many times, that the situation and future of the PLCB employees is the thorniest part of privatization. It's one of only two issues that really concern me, the other being how to keep the new system fair, insofar as how new licenses are created, approved, issued, and transferred.
When you say "It's not a matter of training people to do their jobs. It's a matter of firing those that do not", I could not agree with you more. I hear from, and about, people like you, who are genuinely interested in their jobs and try to learn more about the products. I recently talked to a young man in a PLCB store in the Philly area who is very interested in single malt Scotch whisky, has developed a nice collection of it, who aspires to travel to Scotland to learn more. People like him, and you, should be rewarded. The type of clerks I unfortunately run into much more often, who either mumble "I don't know," or predictably, cynically, point to the most expensive wine in the section and say "This is good," when I ask for a recommendation -- both of which I've had happen multiple times in the State Stores -- should be getting training and being evaluated on it.
As far as the pay, that's a simple matter of numbers. There is a study out there on salaries of retail clerks nationwide, I've seen it, and PLCB clerks rank rather high on it. That may be more a reflection on how poorly-paid retail clerks are than on how well-paid PLCB clerks are, but the fact remains that PLCB clerks are paid more than most, and "CEO" Joe Conti did say in the PCN interview that experience is not a factor in hiring, and seemed to be concerned about that.
But I take issue with you saying that I think of, or portray, PLCB clerks as stupid. I will say that I have run into some that are ignorant of their own products, or of any products that might not be on the shelves; I'd have to lie to say that hadn't happened. But I don't think the clerks are stupid, and I am always polite and friendly to them, and hopeful of their knowledge. I do think PLCB clerks are handicapped by the system, by the policies of the agency.
I also disagree with you about carding at beer distributors. I've seen carding going on, and I've seen people turned away. I did it myself when I worked beer retail in PA back in the 1990s. The people at beer distributors are just as conscientious as PLCB employees, and by so callously saying it is not so, you do them -- and yourself -- a disservice. It's a simple fact: most underage drinkers don't buy with fake ID. They get booze from relatives or friends who buy it for them, something that happens at State Stores and beer distributors, and nothing clerks do can stop it.
As for grocery store wine sales and restaurant markups... If I just want a bottle with dinner, and I know what I want, what's wrong with buying at the grocery store? Nothing. If I want better wine than that? Well, if I lived in a non-control state, which I have in the past, I would go to a store that specialized in better wines and service, just like I go to my local cheesemonger when I want something other than block cheddar. Choice. It's what private stores are all about.
Restaurant mark-ups aren't really the issue in Pennsylvania, either. It's about the price the state charges to the restaurant, and the lack of service delivered to the restaurant, and the lack of options. Why do you think Philadelphia has many more BYOBs than other big cities in America? One reason: Pennsylvania's archaic, overbearing, monopolistic liquor code.
The main point of your e-mail, though, is about your job, and I don't blame you. I don't want you to be unemployed. You sound like just the kind of clerk I'd love to run into. But the PLCB is not a jobs program. The state should not be in the retail business, any kind of retail business. There is no good reason for the State Stores to exist.
I'd love to see you get a severance package of loans and discounts from the State that would allow you to open your own wine store, maybe in partnership with your current boss and fellow clerks, that would let you run with your love and serve the people who appreciated it. Believe me, there would be so many happy wine-lovers to support you, your store would be a runaway success. And you'd be making a lot more than $10.58 an hour.
That's the way wine retail is in New Jersey, in Delaware, in Maryland. That's the way it could be, should be, in Pennsylvania.
Sincerely,
Lew Bryson
The PLCB is not a jobs program. The Turnpike Commission, maybe, but the PLCB is not. I have said from the beginning that the plight of the employees is the toughest part; here's what I said in a comment on my very first post on the blog, the day after I started: "The hardest part about writing this, getting people to see the problems with the PLCB, is thinking about the effect it could have on people's livelihoods if I were somehow successful." Since then I believe we've come up with some workable ideas on how to ease that transition, and I hope that some legislators take a look at them.
But...the PLCB is not a jobs program. Shouldn't be, can't be. It's bad enough that it's got the State in retail.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, March 16, 2009
The Chairman (not the CEO) Responds
The following letter from PLCB Chairman PJ Stapleton to state Senators Orie and Eichelberger (who publicly questioned both the courtesy contract and its award to Solutions 21) was posted, in full, on the website of WGAL-TV and other places. I've re-posted here (in what I believe constitutes fair use, since this is a letter between two public officials) in order to comment on Chairman Stapleton's points; I've also added emphasis at times. It's an informative view into how the thinking on the other side of the issue goes.
Dear Senators Orie and Eichelberger:
Thank you for your letter regarding professional development at the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board. I would like to take this opportunity not only to answer every one of your questions, but also to make certain you and all those who care about public policy in Pennsylvania understand that the PLCB is a careful and responsible steward of the resources entrusted to us. We know that the taxpayers of Pennsylvania expect nothing less than our very best in managing those precious resources – particularly given the vulnerable state of our nation’s economy.
Unfortunately, the media coverage that led to your inquiry was profoundly misleading. A $173,000 contract on teaching manners – as has been widely reported – would be ridiculous. It would also be unnecessary, as our employees already are widely regarded as being welcoming and polite to our customers.
As you know, the Liquor Control Board operates 620 Wine & Spirits stores, which had sales of more than $1.7 billion in 2007-08. These sales generated some $428 million in 2007-08 for the Commonwealth’s General Fund in taxes and profits (please keep in mind: the taxes are about 3/4 of the take, and would be the same -- or more likely significantly larger -- under a private store regime). This makes us a significant retailer, whose successful financial management has a tremendous positive impact on the Commonwealth. The most successful retail business leaders know that creating and maintaining first-rate customer service is vital to their survival and success. So like our retail colleagues in the private sector, we are making this critical investment in our business. The fact that the LCB is a monopoly does not diminish this imperative. Our customers and your constituents still deserve a top-notch retail experience. (As we have for years -- still waiting -- and could have had with a privatization resolution.)
Our customer surveys have shown that our 3,000 union store employees generally provide good, and at times exceptional (I'd like to see the measures and definitions used), customer service to the citizens of this Commonwealth – a perspective that was repeatedly reinforced in much of the television news coverage this week. But it is our desire to provide excellent customer service consistently to all customers -- all the time. So, for the first time in many years, this program endeavors to give our hard-working employees the education and tools needed to provide our valued customers the superior service they expect and deserve.
This initiative is not news. In May 2008, we announced a series of steps to transform the shopping experience both inside our stores and online. It’s part of our comprehensive effort to put our customers first. At that news conference, which was well attended by the media, I announced that our efforts would include a fresh, new and welcoming look for our stores and, yes, more training for store staff to give them the tools they need to offer customers an outstanding shopping experience. Investing in such training is standard operating procedure in retail environments nationwide.
Consider:
Training Industry Inc., which monitors employee training trends, reported that U.S. companies spent $129.2 billion last year on the sort of professional development we have planned. A recent survey by the National Retail Federation found that more than 40 percent of retailers spend at least $500 per employee, per year, on training. The contract in question here amounts to less than $50 per employee (again: lowball bid? Too little to be effective?). Other state agencies have also recognized the importance of educating their employees to provide the best possible customer service.
Investing in improved customer service is a proven way to sustain sales – and thus sustain our support of the Commonwealth’s General Fund – during an economic downturn. Publications such as Business Week have reported that some companies are fighting to preserve customer-service initiatives during the recession while others are adding to these programs. If our customer-service initiative raises our sales just 1 percent for just one week – or $339,706 based on 2007-08 figures – it will have paid for itself more than twice over. (By increasing the gross by that amount? Doesn't ROI work on net? And...how will you know the increase came from the training? By using the measurement tools Solutions 21 designed?)
To fulfill the policy we announced last May, the LCB in November 2008 posted a public Request For Proposals (“RFP”) to solicit proposals for a contract under which the winning bidder would provide professional development training to the LCB’s retail store employees. Further, the winning bidder would provide leadership training to allow supervisory employees to continue the professional development initiative once the contract has expired. The LCB received five (5) qualified bids that were evaluated by a committee chosen for this task. The bids consisted of a technical submission and a cost submission, which are evaluated separately, when determining the winning proposal. After review of the technical submission of the proposals and in accordance with the Procurement Code, the cost submissions of the three highest scoring bids were reviewed. The winning proposer, Solutions 21, submitted a bid of $173,000. The other two bids were $453,521.76 and $1,212,175.00 (wow, that Solutions 21 bid is low). This fact has been left out of every news report on our awarding of the contract to Solutions 21. The only inappropriate use of our resources would have been to reject a qualified proposal to pay two-and-a-half or even seven times more.
I would also take this opportunity to address the unfair implications of media reports involving a devoted and long-term LCB employee, Susanne Hobart, who is married to the president of Solutions 21. Ms. Hobart is the regional manager for our stores located primarily in the western and northern part of the state. Neither Ms. Hobart, nor any of the employees she supervises, was involved in the procurement process. Neither Ms. Hobart, nor any of the employees she supervises, were part of the committee that reviewed the bids submitted under this RFP.
The State Adverse Interest Act prevents a Commonwealth employee from influencing or attempting to influence the making or supervision of any contract with the Commonwealth in which the person has an adverse interest. The Act defines an adverse interest as being a party to such a contract or having an interest in a party to such a contract. Ms. Hobart does not have an adverse interest, and she was not involved in the making or supervising of this contract. She is not the contract administrator, nor does she supervise the contract administrator. Her only involvement in this contract is that she and employees she supervises will receive training under the contract (and spending the money Buddy brings home?). Similarly, the Ethics Act, which deals with the awarding of contracts to state employees or their family members was not violated through this public procurement process. We believe that any fair review of the process will find that both the Liquor Control Board and Solutions 21 acted appropriately at all times. We would wholeheartedly cooperate in any such review. (I would hope so. And I hope it is a full review.)
Finally, and despite media reports to the contrary, the awarding of the contract for professional development did not involve taxpayer money (Of course it did). As you are aware, the LCB is self-supporting and spends no tax money; as stated earlier, it generates several hundred millions of dollars each year for the Commonwealth General Fund in terms of taxes and profits. (And any money spent out of the PLCB's gross to support this training is money taken from the taxpayer that never gets to the general fund. The LCB takes in millions in tax monies; are we to believe that the money is not fungible? Of course it is.)
Thank you for giving me this opportunity to address the issues raised in your letter. If we can provide additional information in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me again.
Very truly yours,
Patrick J. Stapleton, III Chairman, Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board
Perhaps the most "ridiculous" thing in this whole letter is the talk about the product knowledge of State Store System employees. Yet it is fairly widely believed that State Store employees are not allowed to make recommendations, and never specific brands. Not the kind of reputation you'd expect in a system full of subject matter experts.
I'd say this training was desperately needed...only what's desperately needed is privatization. This is embarrassing, this is frustrating, this is ludicrous, and it only points up how ridiculous the entire system, the entire concept is. Take this albatross from around our necks. Abolish the PLCB.
Dear Senators Orie and Eichelberger:
Thank you for your letter regarding professional development at the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board. I would like to take this opportunity not only to answer every one of your questions, but also to make certain you and all those who care about public policy in Pennsylvania understand that the PLCB is a careful and responsible steward of the resources entrusted to us. We know that the taxpayers of Pennsylvania expect nothing less than our very best in managing those precious resources – particularly given the vulnerable state of our nation’s economy.
Unfortunately, the media coverage that led to your inquiry was profoundly misleading. A $173,000 contract on teaching manners – as has been widely reported – would be ridiculous. It would also be unnecessary, as our employees already are widely regarded as being welcoming and polite to our customers.
- (No offense to the clerks, but this is news to me, as in, I've never seen that reported. I've generally found State Store employees to be adequate at best, and at times mulishly uncooperative. I have heard from a few people about exceptions to that average. If there is a more scientific survey available, I'd be happy to report on it.)
- (There's about two pages in the document that deal with those priorities; the rest is boilerplate).
- ("1. Improve basic customer service skills, such as greeting customers appropriately, servicing customers, and completing sales with professionalism and courtesy." (Yet Stapleton says characterizing this as 'teaching manners' is "ridiculous.") "2. Promote a positive atmosphere and attitude towards customer service in the PLCB stores; one in which providing excellent, knowledgeable customer service is celebrated and encouraged.")
- (nothing specific about this in the contract either, just a vague "Encourage engagement with the PLCB's current agency-wide initiatives..." and something about "managing difficult customers.")
- (So the party providing the mechanism of evaluation of the contractor's product...is the contractor, not the PLCB. Sweet.)
- (And I hope the Senators take him up on this, and do their homework first.)
As you know, the Liquor Control Board operates 620 Wine & Spirits stores, which had sales of more than $1.7 billion in 2007-08. These sales generated some $428 million in 2007-08 for the Commonwealth’s General Fund in taxes and profits (please keep in mind: the taxes are about 3/4 of the take, and would be the same -- or more likely significantly larger -- under a private store regime). This makes us a significant retailer, whose successful financial management has a tremendous positive impact on the Commonwealth. The most successful retail business leaders know that creating and maintaining first-rate customer service is vital to their survival and success. So like our retail colleagues in the private sector, we are making this critical investment in our business. The fact that the LCB is a monopoly does not diminish this imperative. Our customers and your constituents still deserve a top-notch retail experience. (As we have for years -- still waiting -- and could have had with a privatization resolution.)
Our customer surveys have shown that our 3,000 union store employees generally provide good, and at times exceptional (I'd like to see the measures and definitions used), customer service to the citizens of this Commonwealth – a perspective that was repeatedly reinforced in much of the television news coverage this week. But it is our desire to provide excellent customer service consistently to all customers -- all the time. So, for the first time in many years, this program endeavors to give our hard-working employees the education and tools needed to provide our valued customers the superior service they expect and deserve.
This initiative is not news. In May 2008, we announced a series of steps to transform the shopping experience both inside our stores and online. It’s part of our comprehensive effort to put our customers first. At that news conference, which was well attended by the media, I announced that our efforts would include a fresh, new and welcoming look for our stores and, yes, more training for store staff to give them the tools they need to offer customers an outstanding shopping experience. Investing in such training is standard operating procedure in retail environments nationwide.
Consider:
Training Industry Inc., which monitors employee training trends, reported that U.S. companies spent $129.2 billion last year on the sort of professional development we have planned. A recent survey by the National Retail Federation found that more than 40 percent of retailers spend at least $500 per employee, per year, on training. The contract in question here amounts to less than $50 per employee (again: lowball bid? Too little to be effective?). Other state agencies have also recognized the importance of educating their employees to provide the best possible customer service.
Investing in improved customer service is a proven way to sustain sales – and thus sustain our support of the Commonwealth’s General Fund – during an economic downturn. Publications such as Business Week have reported that some companies are fighting to preserve customer-service initiatives during the recession while others are adding to these programs. If our customer-service initiative raises our sales just 1 percent for just one week – or $339,706 based on 2007-08 figures – it will have paid for itself more than twice over. (By increasing the gross by that amount? Doesn't ROI work on net? And...how will you know the increase came from the training? By using the measurement tools Solutions 21 designed?)
To fulfill the policy we announced last May, the LCB in November 2008 posted a public Request For Proposals (“RFP”) to solicit proposals for a contract under which the winning bidder would provide professional development training to the LCB’s retail store employees. Further, the winning bidder would provide leadership training to allow supervisory employees to continue the professional development initiative once the contract has expired. The LCB received five (5) qualified bids that were evaluated by a committee chosen for this task. The bids consisted of a technical submission and a cost submission, which are evaluated separately, when determining the winning proposal. After review of the technical submission of the proposals and in accordance with the Procurement Code, the cost submissions of the three highest scoring bids were reviewed. The winning proposer, Solutions 21, submitted a bid of $173,000. The other two bids were $453,521.76 and $1,212,175.00 (wow, that Solutions 21 bid is low). This fact has been left out of every news report on our awarding of the contract to Solutions 21. The only inappropriate use of our resources would have been to reject a qualified proposal to pay two-and-a-half or even seven times more.
I would also take this opportunity to address the unfair implications of media reports involving a devoted and long-term LCB employee, Susanne Hobart, who is married to the president of Solutions 21. Ms. Hobart is the regional manager for our stores located primarily in the western and northern part of the state. Neither Ms. Hobart, nor any of the employees she supervises, was involved in the procurement process. Neither Ms. Hobart, nor any of the employees she supervises, were part of the committee that reviewed the bids submitted under this RFP.
The State Adverse Interest Act prevents a Commonwealth employee from influencing or attempting to influence the making or supervision of any contract with the Commonwealth in which the person has an adverse interest. The Act defines an adverse interest as being a party to such a contract or having an interest in a party to such a contract. Ms. Hobart does not have an adverse interest, and she was not involved in the making or supervising of this contract. She is not the contract administrator, nor does she supervise the contract administrator. Her only involvement in this contract is that she and employees she supervises will receive training under the contract (and spending the money Buddy brings home?). Similarly, the Ethics Act, which deals with the awarding of contracts to state employees or their family members was not violated through this public procurement process. We believe that any fair review of the process will find that both the Liquor Control Board and Solutions 21 acted appropriately at all times. We would wholeheartedly cooperate in any such review. (I would hope so. And I hope it is a full review.)
Finally, and despite media reports to the contrary, the awarding of the contract for professional development did not involve taxpayer money (Of course it did). As you are aware, the LCB is self-supporting and spends no tax money; as stated earlier, it generates several hundred millions of dollars each year for the Commonwealth General Fund in terms of taxes and profits. (And any money spent out of the PLCB's gross to support this training is money taken from the taxpayer that never gets to the general fund. The LCB takes in millions in tax monies; are we to believe that the money is not fungible? Of course it is.)
Thank you for giving me this opportunity to address the issues raised in your letter. If we can provide additional information in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me again.
Very truly yours,
Patrick J. Stapleton, III Chairman, Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board
Perhaps the most "ridiculous" thing in this whole letter is the talk about the product knowledge of State Store System employees. Yet it is fairly widely believed that State Store employees are not allowed to make recommendations, and never specific brands. Not the kind of reputation you'd expect in a system full of subject matter experts.
I'd say this training was desperately needed...only what's desperately needed is privatization. This is embarrassing, this is frustrating, this is ludicrous, and it only points up how ridiculous the entire system, the entire concept is. Take this albatross from around our necks. Abolish the PLCB.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
