Don't We Deserve a Better Board?

If we have to play by the PLCB rules...could we at least get a better set of players?

Back in 2015 in the Annual Report (page 2), the vision of the PLCB was stated as: "Be recognized as the best-in-class wine and spirits retailer, distributor and regulator in the United States."

Which meant that they wanted to be better than Utah, the only other wine and spirits retailer, distributor, and regulator in the United States. Not a high bar, considering Utah is practically an anti-alcohol theocracy. Four years later, how are they doing? Let's start at the top and go from there.

The Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board has three members, none of which over the past 85 years has any previous knowledge of the liquor industry or about running a 2 billion dollar enterprise.

We have a Chairman who has no experience with even a million dollar business, let along something the size of the PLCB. He did make it to Congress, and served on the Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry subcommittee, and Transportation and Infrastructure committee, before the citizens decided that he wasn't doing the job they wanted and voted him out. Since there isn't much call for somebody who's chummy with with politicians, and knows a little about Livestock, Dairy & Poultry, the PLCB was a perfect place to put somebody who was owed a couple of favors.

Governor Corbett appointed Republican benefactor Mike Negra to the board. Mr. Negra does have a history of being involved in multiple successful businesses, so at least he has a concept of what is going on, but no actual hands on with the liquor business, or anything the size of the PLCB.

Lastly we have the newest member and first woman ever to serve on the board, Mary Isenhour. Although you wouldn't know it by looking at the PLCB website. Here it is, over a MONTH after her confirmation, and the PLCB still hasn't decided if she rates being included with the other board members. (Let's see how long it takes for them to include her once this is published.)*

Keeping the public informed through transparency is sadly not the way the PLCB works.  Remember that it took over 100 days before they removed Michael Newsome, and that was only after I poked them with a stick again. Newsome might still be there if I hadn't said anything.

What are Isenhour's qualifications? She was Gov. Wolf's Chief of Staff and a campaign aide. Her business experience is like the others, desperately lacking in knowledge and size. She replaced Michael Newsome, who was Gov. Wolf's CFO in the furniture business -- can't get more qualified to sell liquor than that...or can we?

Remember how we were comparing the PLCB to Utah's State Store System of Stores? So how does the Utah DABC stack up? They have a seven member board that's appointed, but there is also an advisory board of seven members...who must come from defined specific areas of expertise. The Governor can't just willy nilly pick his favorite dog walker to sit on the Advisory Board. Utah specifies that the advisory board members are selected from the following areas of expertise.

Retail Alcohol Industry — Wholesaler Industry — Manufacturing Industry — Restaurant Industry — Utah Substance Use and Mental Health Advisory Council — Alcohol or Drug Related Enforcement — Division of Substance Abuse and Mental Health — Alcohol or Drug Abuse Prevention and Education

The Utah version of a Superstore

Another view. Pretty nice, right? 

It is almost certain that since this system was adopted every Utah DABC Advisory member is far more qualified than any that have ever been appointed to the PLCB. This doesn't mean that Utah hasn't had their share of people of limited competence on the Liquor Board. The Governor selects the seven members of the Liquor Board, so it can be and likely is as full of hacks and cronies as Pennsylvania. The difference is that the Utah board can't go off the rails making arbitrary decisions without an adult from the Advisory Board watching them. No deciding that 12 packs are cases, no robot wine armies, no variably price screwing the citizens, and no being over a Billion in debt. Oh, and they have had women on the Boards for years already.


End the PLCB jobs program - PRIVATIZE


*True to form it only took the PLCB 42 days to finally put up a picture.  Not quite as bad as the 102 days it took to take down the board member she replaced.

Big PLCB Price Hike May Be Coming!

The PLCB is playing hardball with their suppliers, and it looks like part of the process is threats in the media. Check this out from a recent story at KDKA's CBS Pittsburgh site titled "Prices Of Best-Selling Wines & Spirits To Rise."

The PLCB’s Elizabeth Brassell says the suppliers have been told the price for their product is going to go up on the shelf, “unless our suppliers of those products offer us lower acquisition cost to avoid the retail price increases.”
Brassell says the price increases affect “the best-selling 150 brands of spirits and best-selling 150 brands of wine.” In other words, probably your favorites.

You know what we have to say about that, right? Welcome to Flexible Pricing...we told you so! You know why it's going to affect the 150 best sellers? Because those are the only PLCB products covered by Flexible Pricing! Everything else is still under the mandated markup. 

Here's what the PLCB thinks is going to happen. The PLCB is going to hammer the producers in negotiations! They'll balk at lowering prices, because they know the PLCB isn't going to lower the price on the shelf (because they promised to make a LOT off of this), the PLCB will make this childish "don't make us raise prices!" bid in the press, figuring the producers will lower prices, and then they can say "look, your prices stayed the same, we are HEROES!!" while sucking off all the difference to cover their spiraling operating costs and hold off privatization for another legislative cycle...and the producers will call their bluff, and give 'em nothing.

And the PLCB will just have to raise prices and look like the inexperienced amateurs they are, we'll get screwed, border bleed will explode, and maybe, maybe we'll finally tell our representatives to get rid of this moldy old piece of Prohibitionist crap.

The PLCB Act .39 Special, only one made.

And here's the beauty of it all. If I were the producers... I'd be saying "Screw them. Jack the prices, blame it on them, and maybe Pennsylvania will finally wake up and get rid of these idiots. This is our chance!" Run the long game, booze folks, run the long game, and help us dump these rubes.

Because you know what I'm going to do when the prices go up at the end of August? Hop in the car and go buy booze in Delaware. Why not come along? Let's dump these rubes!

Please donate to the PLCB Super-PAC

Based on the previous leadership of the PLCB, we all know they want more than just a simple feeding at the public trough. Booze, jobs, trips, sporting events, and men's clubs are just some of the extra perks they were looking for.

How can we use that to get the PLCB to actually do some of the things that we, the citizens, wanrt? Enter the PLCB Super-PAC. Those PLCB officials can't coordinate with the PAC to tell us what they want, but we can guess pretty well. Sure, thanks to Governor Tom "Don't Take That Cookie" Wolf, they've signed another "I'll be a good boy" pledge, but that hasn't stopped anything in the past. Besides, they won't be asking for anything and we won't be giving them anything.  It will all be leased or loaned for "research"  (nudge nudge, wink wink)

This could be the new PLCBMobile

Imagine that a new Porsche shows up in the PLCB's driveway with a note saying it is free to use for as long as the agency wants; maybe the director of product selection should try it out. (P.S. We want more different flavored vodkas.) See how well that has worked in the past! Imagine how we citizens can make over the state stores.  Want more than one or two bitters? A reservation at Barclay Prime or Prime Rib at the Warwick in Philly for the Board may be all it takes.

Real innovative ideas like a specialty spirits shop in Philly and Pittsburgh may take a bit more ingenuity: maybe letting a few Directors "find" a pre-paid week's worth of tennis lessons at the Burj Al Arab in Dubai. I'm sure the PAC can think of something.

This could be Mike and Skip!

Please make your non-tax deductible contribution to the PLCB Super-PAC, so another generation of Pennsylvanians don't have to suffer like we have for the past 82 years. If they won't privatize, we'll just have to pay them to act normal.

Do it for the children.

Paypal, Visa, Mastercard, American Express, K-Mart, Target, and Diner's Club accepted,

Burj Al Arab

Burj Al Arab

Burj Al Arab

Burj Al Arab

Burj Al Arab

Burj Al Arab

The Burj Al Arab

The Burj Al Arab

The PLCB has nothing to hide...unless it makes them look bad

Chairman Tim Holden:
What's the PLCB hiding?

As reported Sunday in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review the PLCB, an agency with no business reason to hide anything (since they have no competitors), has not been very open or honest when dealing with their bosses — that us, the citizens of Pennsylvania. After all, that's what their supporters keep telling us, that we're the owners of a "valuable public asset." Shouldn't the "owners" be able to ask questions and get answers?

That's not what happened, according to the Trib's reporter, Kari Andren; instead, the LCB instructed their press secretary to delay the release of such information by forcing the Trib to go through Right To Know channels:

The agency's board members directed a press secretary not to provide basic information about a former employee, such as dates of service, job title and salary, unless the reporter filed a formal request — a move that could have delayed the release by more than a month, the emails obtained under the state's Right to Know law show.

“We have to watch what we ‘give' her regarding employees without going through the Right to Know channels, even if it is public information,” board member Michael Negra wrote in a Sept. 23 email. “Agree,” Chairman Tim Holden responded the same day.

LCB spokesperson Elizabeth Brassell said the agency, “fully respects and supports the release of public information to interested parties.” But Erik Arneson, head of the agency charged with overseeing the state's open records act, said the board members' actions were not in keeping with the intent of the law. “The Right to Know (RTK) Law was not designed to be a tool used by agencies to delay access to clearly public information,” Arneson said.

More proof of this use of delaying tactics is the now 111 days over which the PLCB has refused to release their yearly financial statements. Some were verbally stated during the Ross hearings over two months ago, but so far nothing has shown up on paper or online. If the PLCB were a "real" business, they would have had to release their yearly statement before the first quarter earnings statement. However, the PLCB doesn't update the citizens with quarterly statements. Why not? It's a painfully simple answer: they aren't a real business, and never have been, and never will be.

Melissa Melewsky, a media lawyer with the Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association, agreed that the LCB's approach doesn't follow the spirit of the open records law, or Gov. Tom Wolf's call for government transparency. Wolf said he was “confident in Chairman Holden's ability to continue to make the LCB more transparent,” and the previous Chairman (and still current board member) Skip Brion has said, “This is a state agency; we should be as transparent as possible.” Apparently he has changed his mind.

This is not the first time the board has used RTK to delay, or has done things in the dark that should have been in the sunshine of public scrutiny. Years of notational votes (where the Board members meet informally and off the record to make decisions, and then only vote on 'that thing we talked about' in official meetings) and vague to non-existent board meeting information have keep the "owners" (you and I) in the dark about the working of the PLCB.

Who knows, if the public were privy to the machinations of the State Store System, we may never have had wine kiosks, or $66 million in computer system cost overruns, or paid over $4 million for an out-of-state firm to come up with that snappy "Fine Wine And Good Spirits" branding. All money well spent, I'm sure...once the real facts finally come out in a few years, the brilliance of it all will shine clear. Or not.

This is not the first time the PLCB has been publicly charged with ignoring the intent of state law; this is not the first time they've lied by omission. This is not the first time they've delayed the release of reports on their performance. So we have to ask: why the delay this time? We see the smoke, what is the fire that the PLCB is trying to hide while privatization is still a very real possibility in the Legislature? We urge the Trib to keep digging — faster, if possible — and encourage the reporters at the Inquirer, PennLive, the Daily Record, and the Post-Gazette to do the same. Because we the citizens — the owners — need this story to come out before privatization slips away. It's clear that the PLCB feels threatened by it; that's enough reason to dig out the truth.

The time to privatize is now.