Why This Isn't Already Done

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

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

Here's why.

I was so spunky back then.

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

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

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

Dezinformatsiya...UFCW style

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

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

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

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

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

Privatization? No. HELL no.

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

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

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

Like it says at the top of the blog,

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

Meanwhile, in Saskatchewan...

How long has booze privatization been debated and promised in Pennsylvania? Decades.
How much has been done about booze privatization in Pennsylvania? Nothing. 

Meanwhile, in Saskatchewan, the Saskatchewan Party campaigned this spring on a platform that included transitioning their provincial monopoly liquor stores to privately-owned stores. They were put in power by the electorate, and now, less than two months later,, they've announced that they will convert 40 of the 75 government liquor outlets to private stores, and create twelve new private stores.

Dear Pennsylvania General Assembly:

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

Postponed II...and a modest proposal

Privatization is on hold till the fall, according to KYW (and an interview with Rep. Turzai), and I'm thinking that's not a bad thing. HB11 as it stood was not good enough, and was pissing off people who had to be in it to make it work. And it sounds like Rep. Turzai was pissing some people off as well; maybe the Governor's involvement will help.

In the meantime...we should help too. Take a look at my earlier suggestions for a clean bill, and discuss them with your representatives and senators. We don't want a repeat of the Washington bill, we want one that will give us normalcy.

Or if you want to make it really simple...check out this 1987 proposal for privatization that would cut through the whole Gordian shebang.  How about it:

The plan shall provide for the transfer of all the property, inventory records and employes of the State Store system and the liquor wholesale distribution system to the Department of General Services on or before June 30, 1987, for appropriate disposition as provided by §  7.343 (relating to divestment of State Stores and initial private licensing). 

That's right, check out 7.343, because it's a doozy, a brutally simple way to get the damned job done.

(3)  Termination of State Store operations. The Department of General Services shall develop a plan for the disposition of the State Store system which provides for the continued operation of each State-owned liquor store for up to 90 days following the auction of the right to purchase the property of the store. The Department shall further provide for the continued operation of liquor wholesale distribution for a maximum period of twelve months to the extent necessary to provide an adequate supply of consumer products and services during the phase-in of operations of private retail outlets and wholesale distributors. Each State-owned liquor store may remain in operation for not more than 45 days, but not later than June 30, 1988, following the opening of the substitute privately licensed wine and liquor store in order to assure adequate continuity of services to the public. 

Hear that sound? That's a clean break with the State Stores. Tell your representatives to have a look at this...because they LOVE pre-written laws that they don't have to work on.