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.

New Year Wishes

I wish the PLCB would stop bragging about going from 601 stores to 608...when they used to have 760.

I wish the PLCB was less focused on hiring "good ol' boys" who know their cockamamie 'system'...instead of people who actually know liquor and liquor retail.

I wish the State Stores were even more convenient than when there were 760 stores.

I  wish that sometime, before the end of the decade, all the State Stores at least had the same name.

I wish that "wine specialists" were actually required to have formal, industry-recognized credentials before they were called "wine specialists."

I wish the people who select wine for the entire state had to have even better credentials than the "wine specialists."

I wish there was somebody at the PLCB who really knew whisk(e)y, above what they read in the labels and importer sell-sheets.

I wish that the Legislature understood that "flexible pricing" is PLCB-speak for "gouging the consumer."

I wish that the Legislature would stop mucking around with beer sales and simply let everybody with a license sell any size or quantity.

I wish that if we couldn't do that, at least the Legislature were smart enough to realize that not every gas station and grocery store wants to be a restaurant, and come up with a purely take-out license.

I wish that if we still have to keep the licenses as they are, we could at least go back to the older, higher quota of licenses per county, so that independent, Pennsylvania-owned small businesses had a better chance of getting one.

I wish that the BLCE was funded at the same level as 2000 so that all these new places could be checked for compliance...including the State Stores, which never are.

I wish that the FBI, once they complete their investigation of PLCB leadership, will come down like the Hammer of God on all involved.

I wish that the PLCB knew something about marketing to realize the exact same selection doesn't have to be sold at every single store from Center City Philly to beautiful downtown Snow Shoe, and that specialization in retail works for a reason.

I wish that the PLCB knew something about math and economics before they made decisions.

I wish the PLCB had people with real world experience make those decisions.

I wish that the PLCB and the Legislature would take a road trip across the Delaware and see what a real "superstore" looks like.

Most of all, I wish that we end this farce of "acting like a business" and let real business handle this business, and leave the PLCB free to do what government agencies are supposed to do: handle regulation and enforcement.

When something doesn't work, or work well, for 83 years, you don't "modernize" it.

Privatization fixes all of the above. Let's stop trimming around the edges and get it done.

Why the PLCB will never be anything but 2nd class

Business, not some funny-money state-owned monopoly business but real business, is driven by being able to supply consumer wants and needs before your competition. Being first to market with innovative marketing and products, seeing a demand and then filling it before somebody else does. That's how business succeeds.

Here in Pennsylvania, we get none of that from the PLCB; we get wine kiosks. They were innovative only in the sense that some bizzaro administrator convinced a board of political donor lawyers with no business acumen, that people really want to blow into a tube and pirouette in front of a camera just to get a bottle of Barefoot. Lesson learned: not all innovation is good.

The PLCB, by its very nature, can only follow. The board, with no experience in the industry, follows the recommendations of the PLCB directors...who in turn also have no real experience in the industry. It's a classic case of the blind leading the blind.

Buy more Baaaaaarefoot!

They can't lead on new trends, because nobody has told them what those trends are yet. They have to be offered products; they do not have the ability or knowledge to search out new things. Even once they are told, there are months of delay while products are submitted and maybe (or maybe not) approved. Does that sound like striving to fulfill consumer wants? Or being a sheep and following the herd?

The PLCB got an award from the control state "business association" (it is to laugh!) this year for being the second first place awardee for the licensee online order system; somebody beat them to it last year. Since there are only seventeen control states left to choose from, and the PLCB got skunked on every major award last year, well, it was their turn this year. But it isn't innovation when you're doing something after it has already been done.

The PLCB only has one goal; to keep the PLCB open. That's what "flexible pricing" is all about. It will allow the agency to keep the lion's share of any price reduction from producers, just to keep its bloated carcass afloat, and "prove" it is good for the state; a "cash cow" as the defenders say. In real business, cost reduction is usually applied to the item for sale to gain an advantage over competitors. No reason to do that here, because in Pennsylvania, there are no competitors. The PLCB says they won't take advantage of this but since there is NO oversight, NO required item reporting, and NO indication to the consumer in the board minutes...How will we know? Wait a year and see that the gross margin went up from 45.46% to 50% or 55%, and realize that every point of that came out of our pockets? What recourse does that give us?

A monopoly with no competition, no need to advertise, with a workforce over 40% part time, and it can't survive on a 45% markup? Walmart's gross margin is 38.2% and Target is 36.1% and they seem to make money just fine. And they have to compete not only with each other but with all the other stores out there. Sounds like the American way of shopping: multiple retailers offering the consumer a choice, trying to get their business by offering lower prices or added value or both. Does that even remotely sound like the State Store System?

Remember: the only way the State Stores can make that extra $50-70 million is if they take it from your pockets, by raising prices, and by not giving you what every other real business does — a choice.

When something doesn't work, or work that well, you replace it.  Pretty simple, really.

Privatize.

Questions that should be asked

Since the PLCB never faces any real questions, or a press corps with the tough ones, we thought we'd provide a look at how that might go. It's all fictional, but hey, the PLCB says they're a "business," so we're on solid ground.

Chairman Holden, board member Negra, and board member Newsome: welcome to Face the Citizens.

   (Holden) Glad to be here Al.

Glad to have you here, gentlemen. As you know, this program is dedicated to helping the Citizens of Pennsylvania understand exactly what the Board does, and the why and wherefore behind some of your decisions. We'll start with your experience for the job. Have any of you been a director-level executive — or higher — in a $2 billion revenue company? Anyone? A $1 Billion company? A $200 Million company? No? Well, do any of you have any experience in the liquor industry? Ahh, yes Member Negra!

Chairman Holden did not actually say these things.

   (Negra) I have a bottle of wine with dinner sometimes.
   (Holden) We used to get pretty hammered after some of the caucus meetings, so I have tried a lot of different spirits.
   (Newsome) No.

Okay, do you know anything about the three tier system? I see a few heads nodding. Could you explain it for the readers?

   (Negra) Well Al, it would take far too much time to properly get across the complexities of the three tier system. We'd need a whole program just for that.

Fine with me, when can you do it?

   (Negra) I'd have to check my schedule and get back to you about that. You know the PLCB keeps us pretty busy; it's at least two or three days a month. It barely leaves time for our other work.

Board member Negra did not actually say these things.

Do any of you have experience with such common business tools as sales price variance analysis, proximity analysis or inter-type agglomeration analysis?

   (Holden) Wait a minute,  there is math involved?  Nobody told me there would be math.

Surely Member Newsome, you used these tools at Wolf Cabinets?

   (Newsome) Not to any great extent. You see, the market for cabinets isn't at all like the market for wine and spirits. The wine and spirits market is a police-enforced monopoly, as God intended. People can buy cabinets anywhere, based on price and quality and outlet convenience. It's quite different.

Board member Newsome did not actually say these things.

Of course. Let's move on to beer regulation. Chairman Holden, you had been voting for giving gas stations licenses that met the café space and register separation requirements up until Member Skip Brion left, then you suddenly started voting against those licenses, saying that your reason was that you wanted to see what the State Supreme Court was going to do. However, they didn't even agree to take the case until three months AFTER you started voting no. Then when Governor Wolf asked the Board to "Free The Sixpack," you just as suddenly started voting for them again. Care to explain?

   (Holden) That's in the past Al, nobody wants to hear that ancient history. What's done is done is what I always say. Especially at legislative hearings.

I see.  How about your new Executive Director? You went from somebody that had a firm grasp of how real retail works — John Metzger — to Charlie Mooney, who has no real world experience. This, at a time when some of the ways the PLCB does things are actually shifting toward how a real business would run. Any comments?

   (Holden) Charlie is a great guy, he's been here forever and knows how we do things.

But isn't how you do things the reason that things are changing? If you were better at how you did things, like say New Hampshire, there wouldn't be all these pushes for change.

   (Negra) Oh, we're not changing, we're modernizing. Think of it like new math. The numbers didn't change, just how you used them. That's the PLCB!

I guess that's another whole program. Moving on again... Last year you had record sales for the umpteenth year in a row. You also claimed record "profits." Let's talk about costs, specifically, why did the pension debt the PLCB owes only decrease by $550,000 in a year when you had all these record sales?

   (Newsome)  That is easy, Al. We spent the money on other things!

What other things? 

   (Newsome)  Other other things. Look, we don't have to pay any interest on the pension debt, so there is no hurry to pay it off. As a state agency, we can't go bankrupt, so it just isn't that important. With all the consultants and relatives we'll have to hire because nobody in house can deal with Act 39, I doubt it will go down much next year either.

But doesn't the state have to pay interest on the money they borrow to cover that shortage?

   (Newsome) Of course the state does, but WE, the PLCB, don't. So...not on our balance sheet!

Thanks for being so upfront about that. It looks like we are just about out of time. Thank you for being on Face The Citizens. I look forward to you coming back again.

(Hot mic catches...)
   (Newsome) Nope,
   (Holden) Not gonna happen.
   (Negra) Don't bet on it.


Do I need to say it? PRIVATIZE. 

The Past is Prologue: don't forget the wine kiosks

"Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it." 

 We laugh at the idea of the wine kiosks now. That was in the past, and it was crazy, but, we tell ourselves, it's over now, and even the PLCB gets it. That was just that crazy Joe "Da CEO" Conti and his effort to make the PLCB "modern" (and maybe pay off some political cronies).

Except many of the people responsible for the wine kiosks, the bureaucrats, are still in place. Conti's gone, and PJ "PJ" Stapleton is gone, and James "Fall Guy" Short is gone (though still not sentenced...), but the faceless minions at 910 Capital Street are largely still there, still making some great decisions.

Remember those? Going $33+ million over budget for the new computer system, basically because they couldn't read a contract. Storing wine in un-air conditioned trailers in the summer. The keen plan to undercut PA wine producers with out of state house brands. And paying an out of state company about $4 million to come up with the incredibly generic "Fine Wine And Good Spirits." (Considering they were called "Wine and Spirits Shoppes" before, that comes out to about $2 million a word for adding "Fine" and "Good." Great spend, guys.)

Wine Kiosks Redux

Still, the wine kiosks were such a disaster, one that made Pennsylvania a national laughingstock, that it's worth having a full look at just how stupid it all was, and exactly how it happened. First, a summation from House Speaker Mike Turzai, from when the kiosks fell apart, back in September 2011.

Wine Kiosks A Big Mistake From The Beginning 
9/20/2011 – Majority Leader Mike Turzai (R-Allegheny) released the following statement regarding the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board’s (PLCB) decision to end the wine kiosk program:
“I don’t think it comes as a shock to anyone outside the PLCB’s top echelon that the wine kiosk program was a complete failure. The kiosk program was a joke from the very beginning and the PLCB knew it. The agency’s own internal evaluation committee recommended against the kiosk idea. Yet the board went through with the cockamamie program anyway.
“This is just another example of why a government agency should not be attempting to mimic private industry. The wine kiosk program resulted in machines that sometimes worked, and sometimes didn’t; and it forced consumers to actually blow into a cumbersome machine – no one wants to buy wine that way. Real customer convenience will only come once the sale of wine and spirits is moved to the private sector.”

How did it actually happen? How did we wind up with the Incredible Robot Wine Army? We've got it all, right here.

PLCB Wine Kiosk Timeline: (be sure to check the links!)

• March 28, 2008 – Public Notice of Wine Kiosk RFP on PLCB and DGS websites; proposals due May 8, 2008. Simple Brands (Simple) is the only applicant.
• July 9, 2008 – PLCB RFP Evaluation Committee submits report to PLCB Chief Counsel’s Office for inclusion in that day’s board meeting. Report advises against contracting with Simple, not a well-founded business plan; failure to get advisory opinion from TTB (federal government) on permissibility of Kiosk program; awards Simple a score of 305 out of 1,000 points for its proposal.
• July 9, 2008 – RFP Evaluation Committee advised that the board would not be reviewing the committee’s report; committee members told to destroy all copies/documentation relating to the report; and that CEO Joe Conti would meet with them on July 10.
• July 9, 2008 – LCB members met and voted to approve Simple Brands proposal.
• July 10, 2008 – Conti met with Evaluation Committee members, told them not to speak of the evaluation; to destroy all copies; and their concerns would “be taken care of.” (Copies of cover-up RFP and emails)
• January 29, 2009 – Effective date for Contract 20080318 between LCB and Simple for 100 wine kiosk vending machines.
• June 30, 2009 – Relationship between Simple investors and former Governor Ed Rendell discovered: Investor Herbert Vederman gave Mr. Rendell $346,276, including a $100,000 lump sum in 2002, campaign finance records show. Mr. Vederman also served as the governor's campaign finance chairman. His business partner, Ira Lubert, meanwhile, gave Mr. Rendell $140,980 in that time period.
• June 23, 2010 – LCB places two kiosks in Harrisburg area grocery stores: Giant Foods in Dauphin County and Wegman’s in Cumberland County.
• June 30, 2010 – End of FY 09-10, Profit and Loss statement. Kiosk program showed a net loss of $255,077.
• July 9, 2010 – LCB conditionally accepts delivery of two kiosk machines subject to Simple remedying operational problems with the machines (doors failing to open or close, credit card machine failures and general failures with particular transactions).
• September 1, 2010 – Second letter sent to Simple giving conditional acceptance of two kiosks provided they remedy operational problems within 60 days of notice.
• September 8, 2010 – Contract with Simple amended to include a $1 per transaction fee (collected from the consumer and paid to Simple) and a 50-cent per bottle “advertising fee.” The amount to be paid to Simple for advertising was capped at $1.5 million per year. PLCB also warned Simple that it would not accept delivery of additional kiosks (only two were in operation at the time) unless the various problems previously identified by the board were remedied.
• October 15, 2010 – LCB announces roll-out of more kiosks throughout the state. According to LCB press release: “We’ve been testing the Pronto Wine Kiosks at two supermarkets in the Harrisburg area for the past three months,” said Board Chairman Patrick J. “PJ” Stapleton. “The kiosks have proven to be safe and reliable and we are looking forward to giving consumers across Pennsylvania the opportunity to do one-stop shopping.”
• December 21, 2010 – PLCB takes all 29 wine kiosks out of service due to systemic problems. (Note the date: right in the midst of the busiest booze sales of the year.)  LCB Press release: “While customer satisfaction with the six-month old kiosk program remains high, recent problems -- such as product not dispensing -- require us to take immediate action while we wait for the manufacturer to correct all of the identified issues,” said Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board Chairman Patrick J. “PJ” Stapleton. “We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause our customers and supermarket partners, but felt this temporary closure was critical to the future success of the program.”
• December 22, 2010 – Board notifies Simple that the Kiosks were taken out of service because Simple failed to remedy the various problems with the Kiosks. According to the Board: “While most of the several hundred specific instances were eventually resolved, the recurring nature of the problems confirms that the problems are systemic, rather than isolated.” Simple was advised to deliver fully functioning wine kiosks, and a certification that the systemic problems had been rectified by March 14, 2011
• December 30, 2010 – PA Auditor General notifies the board of its Wine Kiosk performance audit and advises LCB to preserve and maintain any and all documents and materials (including e-mails) relating to the kiosk project. 
• February 22, 2011 – Simple hopes to expand to smaller kiosks at convenience stores like Wawa and Sheetz – per letter to the Board.
• June 2010 – Wegman’s notifies LCB it will terminate its “kiosk” relationship.
• June 25, 2011 – Right-To-Know-Law request submitted to LCB by House Majority Leader Turzai requesting a copy of the TTB advisory required by the RFP; all costs associated with Kiosk program and all invoices to, and payments from, Simple pursuant to the contract
• June 30, 2011 – End of FY 10-11, Profit and Loss statement. Kiosk program showed a net loss of $843,369 for FY-10-11; Additional losses (not accounted for on prior FY P&L statement) of $24,877. Total net loss for project: $1,123,323.
• August 4, 2011 – Response from LCB indicates Simple failed to obtain TTB advice and that no billing had been done up to that point, but LCB was in the process of sending the Profit and Loss statement to Simple for payment.
• August 5, 2011 – Board demands payment from Simple.
• August 15, 2011 – Walmart advises PLCB it will not participate in the Kiosk program (23 machines were planned for Walmart stores).
• August 17, 2011 – PLCB chief Joe Conti indicates the agency will continue the wine kiosks once its litigation is resolved. "This was not a faulty fiscal decision," Conti said.
• September 1, 2011 – PA Auditor General issues audit detailing the failed program.
• September 16, 2011 – PA Independent reporter Eric Boehm reports, contrary to public comments and direct testimony, PLCB failed to conduct any market research in relation to the kiosk program.
• September 20, 2011 – PLCB announces the end of the failed kiosk program; it pulls the plug on remaining machines in several supermarkets. 
• January 25, 2015 – PLCB legal costs for the "free" kiosks have exceeded $300,000 pushing total losses to $1.5 million, not counting PLCB resources and personnel costs, which have never been accounted for.

So here it is, five years later, and the PLCB insiders and their supporters have made sure that NOBODY has been held responsible, even though there are absolute violations of the PLCB Code of Conduct in that: "No member or employee of the Board shall: use for personal gain or for the gain of others any information obtained as a result of service or employment with the Board, and not available to the public at large."

Having reports destroyed does not make things available to the public at large. Plain and simple.

While the Board may have changed, the entire Directorship are people who were brought up in this system, ingrained with this way of doing things and tacitly approved the entire fiasco by not doing or saying anything. These are the people who are going to "modernize" the PLCB. Do we really need them to do that? Do we need them at all?

Privatize.

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

$73,102 a year for taking a shower!

No the PLCB isn't coming clean that would take far more space to write then what is allowed here.

Imagine if the government paid you $73K a year to do something you know how to do.  Pretty good deal right?  Actually you would be underpaid by PLCB standards.  The 2 board members make that every year (the Chairman makes even more) for meeting 21 times in total (2013) with no, I mean NONE at all*, experience in the liquor or retail industry or any business the size of the PLCB and they meet for less time then you spend in the shower every year. Pretty sweet gig and a prime example of why the PLCB needs to be privatized. (* Board Member Bob Marcus did sell cars but that really isn’t the same thing)

Imagine if the mayor of Pittsburgh decided to come in only 21 days a year for a couple of hours. A fair analogy since the Board and the Mayor both have almost exactly the same amount of full time employees working for them. How much and how well would things get done?  One only has to look at the ineptness of the PLCB to answer that question. The difference being that the mayor pretty much only affects Pittsburgh while the PLCB affects all 12 million citizens.

Let business people make business decisions, they at least have experience and aren’t political hacks who need a job.  Also, you can count on them to be on the job most if not all days too working tirelessly to expand the business.  See my post about “40 years of nothing” to see how effective the board is on that business principle.

Privatization IS Modernization.  Accept nothing less.