You Were Right; The Pappy Lottery Was Rigged

Reported on PennLive.com: Five PLCB executives were investigated by the State Ethics Commission for, let's not mince words, cheating on the PLCB's Pappy Van Winkle "lottery." 

Let's do a perp walk. 

• Board member Michael Negra
• Cliff McFarland, director of supply chain 
• Tom Bowman, director of product selection
• Bryan Kelleher, director of the bureau of business development for wholesale operations
• Carl Jolly, a retail operations manager

All five of them were found to have participated in a scheme to snap up 'unclaimed' Pappy Van Winkle 12 Year Old bourbon (the "Lot B" bottling prized by the pros) and other allocated whiskeys. See, the PLCB would hold a lottery (which often led to website crashes, and was widely believed to be rigged, though no evidence of that has surfaced...yet) for PA residents to take a chance at buying one of the state's allocated bottles of various whiskey releases. After the results were announced, the winners would then be able to buy the bottles at the PLCB list price, which was, admittedly, often hundreds of dollars less than at private stores in other states. 

'Shopping' at the PLCB Executive Store

But amazingly, not every bottle would be claimed. For instance, the lottery cited in the PennLive article, the January 2020 lottery for the Lot B bottling, had over 17,000 entrants for 999 bottles, and 24 went unclaimed. The rules of the lottery said that those bottles would then be released for a "second-chance" lottery...but the PLCB decided not to do that, and instead the vultures at the top feasted on the remnants. 

Want more? The lottery allowed winning entrants to purchase a single bottle. Ha! Jolly, for instance, despite not having even entered the lottery (why would he? That's for us suckers), "bought three bottles of Pappy Van Winkle bourbon for $410 and separately a bottle of Weller 12-year Reserve Bourbon for $40." That was in one lottery. We're not told how many bottles in total 0were bought by these PLCB parasites. 

There is an aspect to this that is particularly hard to swallow. Their participation is not contested; they all did it, some of them multiple times. They didn't steal the bottles; they bought them, at list price, with their own money. There is apparently no credible evidence that they flipped the bottles to make money; Lot B, for example, is currently going for well over $1,000 in the so-called "secondary market." 

But because there was "insufficient clear and convincing evidence of a pecuniary benefit", the State Ethics Commission found that there was "no violation" of the state ethics code. That's bullshit. The whiskey wasn't theirs to buy, and even if they didn't sell it, they had that potential. That's like saying you're not guilty of theft because you stole a Van Gogh...and then just kept it. I mean, you didn't make any money on it, right? No harm, no foul, baby!

Despite that "innocence," the Ethics Commission's report says that they were each "ordered to fulfill his agreement to not purchase any items offered by the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board outside of the process by which a Commonwealth resident may purchase such items." Don't the words "fulfill his agreement" sound like a deal was made? 

Of course a deal was made. And once again, the PLCB gets away with this crap. And what do we do? Nothing. That's what we do. Because the miserable PA Legislature has other things to do. Like making it harder to vote, and easier to frack.

Do you remember when the PLCB was the ONLY retail operation to shut down voluntarily in March of 2020? Absolutely closed for six weeks, and not only that, they boarded up the windows because they were afraid of us, that we rampaging drunks would loot their stores. 

Actual PLCB store, Wilkes-Barre, March 2020

Why are these guys still around? Will no one rid us of this troublesome agency?! 

Apparently not, because neither Shapiro's or Mastriano's campaign responded to me when I asked them about their positions on PLCB privatization. I'd remind you that I'm a nationally known whiskey writer, I've testified about these issues before the legislature; I'm not just a blogger howling in the night...but they didn't respond. 

Which leads me to believe that we're screwed. Shapiro is just another Democrat who will veto any privatization bill -- for reasons unclear -- and Mastriano apparently is either beholden to the religiously anti-booze or will be too busy fighting for freedom, whatever he thinks that means. 

But don't worry. These guys promised not to buy booze outside the normal channels again. Pinky swear. 

Looks like it's gonna be a long eight years. 

Great New Profit-maker for the PLCB!

Great news! As reported here on Philly.com, and in more detail here from the Justice Department's own website, four companies have been ordered to pay a total of $9 million in fines for their role in the unethical practices of three PLCB officials: P.J. "PJ" Stapleton, Joe "Da CEO" Conti, and James "Fall Guy" Short. It took over four years, but they're paying, and even when you're selling booze to a monopoly that doesn't care about its customers, that ain't chump change.

We were glad to see this, since we fully support telling the truth and stating facts, even if they don't necessarily make the PLCB look bad. That's not our main mission: our main mission is proving that the current system is outdated, not good for customers, and yes, naturally prone to corruption and abuses like this. We were also glad to see that our friend (no, he doesn't know it, but he is, just like Joe "Da CEO" Conti was) James "Fall Guy" Short still hasn't been sentenced almost two years after his conviction on fraud charges. Hmmmm...wonder why that is? Bet a lot of current and former PLCB employees are wondering too.

Dat's a right: Malocchio!

Anyway, the Philly.com comments gang — usually a heap of steaming crap; angry steaming crap — managed to come up with a great idea related to this! Check this out from a genius calling themselves Malocchio: "Maybe this can be a new revenue generator for them... entrap their vendors into giving gifts, then assess confiscatory fines against them... instant profit!"

Brilliant. In fact, too smart for the PLCB. It would all fall apart shortly after the gifts were received...and the employees spent them and asked for more. Hey guys! Remember the "entrapment" part? The trap's gotta spring! Guys? Guys?

End the corruption. Privatize now. Not after more "studies," not after more "hearings," not with all the states where privatization works to look at. 

PRIVATIZE NOW. In fact, right now would be a GREAT time: swap the Democrats a fracking tax for full and immediate privatization. Get what we want, balance the budget, and chances are good no one would really even notice the frack tax. Let's do this, PA Legislature, the citizens are waiting.

Why is it that....

The PLCB advertises even though they have no competition. There is no such thing as shopping for the best price; there's only the PLCB price. And of course...forget about shopping for selection. If they don't have it, you don't need it. Or want it. You may think you do...but they think better.

The PLCB limits how many bars and restaurants can serve alcohol, and while very few places are under their quota, there isn't a quota for State Stores. We are nowhere near what a normal state would have for liquor stores (and normal for wine retailers is so far away we can't even see it from here). In fact, the number of State Stores has been steadily decreasing for the past 45 years from over 750 to the current 605, and has only held steady the past two years.

The PLCB has no paper trail that lists who came up with in-house brands, who made the decision to feature them on endcaps, who decided to push them in advertising, and who said to feature them as alternatives when doing searches on the website? Do they know what they are doing at all? (Does any of it have to do with the continuing trail of ethics violations?)

The PLCB never lists any proof for the sales increases "modernization" supposedly will bring. Tell us exactly how opening another 140 stores on Sunday will generate $22 million more in operating income, or how just opening stores quicker will add $25 million more? Tell us what states will join in the booze-buying consortium being proposed? Have they even been approached about it? (Wanna bet there's no paper trail?) Tell us how the PLCB will make $75 million more if allowed to set pricing? Who will decide what the pricing will be, what will the change be based on, who will have oversight, who will look out for the consumer's interest (it never has been the folks in Harrisburg so don't expect them to suddenly start now),

The PLCB hasn't said whether a six-bottle container of 750ml bottles of Belgian Trappist brew will be a "case" too under their new "interpretation." It is over 144 ounces after all.  What about 6 bottles of beer that are only available in 700 ml bottles? Will there be a special "interpretation" for those if somebody decides to sue and the PLCB is too lazy to support their 80 years of apparently wrong "interpretation" like what happened in the latest "interpretation" that allowed 12 packs? And why can't the Legislature get off its butt and just do away with the case law entirely?

The PLCB ranks 15th worst out of 17 control states for binge drinking rates and is in the bottom half of all states, tied for 31st place. Why? Because "control states" like PA don't really control anything. The total alcohol use for control states averages higher (2.46 gallons per capita consumption in gallons, based on population age 14 and older) than the U.S. average of 2.33.

The PLCB's plans to increase sales are "good," but if the system were normalized, and a retailer wanted to increase alcohol sales...that would then be "bad?" Is private alcohol chemically different from PLCB alcohol? It's the same tax rate.

The PLCB and its pitiful handful of supporters somehow manage to overcome all of these issues, and continue to monopolize liquor and wine sales in the commonwealth. Kinda makes you wonder what keeps the Legislature from cleaning this up.

Ethics questions still percolating at the PLCB

No matter how many pieces of paper the PLCB has to sign, it hasn't changed anything as of yet.

As I reported a year ago today, Jerry Waters, the Executive Director of Regulatory Affairs still has an ongoing ethics investigation and may also be part of the Federal investigation into graft at the PLCB.  If you remember, it took almost two years for the Ethics committee to reach a slap-on-the-wrist decisions for ex-CEO Joe "Water Heater" Conti, ex-Chairman P.J. Stapleton, ex-Director of Marketing James Short, and ex-Director of  Product Selection Matthew Schwenk, all of whom are now being investigated by the FBI.

Nice to know the more things stay the same, the more you can count on the PLCB to do their part to continue be the second-most corrupt agency in PA. Rotten at the top, rotten at the core as the saying goes.

My question is, how long will it be before the next round makes an appearance? If we privatize, there won't be a next round.

I guess I'm on the official Enemies list

Look who I found poking around one of my accounts.

Glad to know they care enough to send the top dog.

An update: 
Ms Diehl has figured out how to poke around anonymously and now that same "Who's viewed your profile" looks like this:

News Flash! More ethics problems at the PLCB

In the "Hardly Shocking" Department...

On February 21st, an ethics complaint was filed against PLCB Director of Regulatory Affairs Jerry Waters. It is not the position of this blog to say if he is guilty or not but to report that the violation has been filed. The complaint is listed below (without the numerous pages of supporting documents).

This is yet another ethics complaint filed over the past few years on senior PLCB members, like former CEO Joe Conti, Director of Marketing Jim Short, former Board Chairman PJ Stapleton, and others.  We, the public, have been waiting for the Attorney General to release her decision for some time. Requests are met with the standard "We cannot discuss ongoing investigations" statement. There is some backroom chatter that the the violations have been referred to federal authorities; now wouldn't that be sweet?

Tell your Senator everything the PLCB's doing!

I copied this from a Facebook post; I don't think the original poster will mind. The idea is that while the Senators fiddle and diddle and talk about "modernizing" the PLCB instead of privatizing it -- privatization that the majority of Pennsylvanians continue to support -- we should remind the Senate what a great job the PLCB is doing. So...get on the phone, send an email, and let your Senator know that the PLCB deserves credit for all the things they're doing!

• Tell them that you really thought the wine kiosks were innovative 
• that you thought the date-rape ads were on target 
• that your mother liked the vodka 
• that you didn't mind that your wine sat in an non-air conditioned trailer in the summer 
• that you think the PLCB didn't have anything better to spend the now $35 million+ in computer cost overruns on 
• that bringing back the CEO under investigation for graft is a great idea 
• that TableLeaf is the best thing since the PLCB spent over $4 million to rename Wine and Spirits to Fine Wine and Good Spirits
• that you're impressed with the string of record annual sales figures (and the bookkeeping skills needed to explain why the net assets of the PLCB are negative)
• that thy have an amazing jobs program going that has more employees now with 601 stores then there were with 692 stores in 2000
• that it's great that the PLCB spend more on advertising than on education
• that they're saving money as the 3rd largest purchaser of wine in the world by not bothering to have a trained sommelier on staff?
• that smile training should be mandatory for all state workers (especially when you can keep it "all in the family")
• that you really appreciate having 90 stores less than there were in 2000 so there wouldn't be a liquor store on every corner. 

Pretty amazing when you add it all up, isn't it? Remember: call your senator today...and then call them again next week. And the following week. And so on, till you get a good reason why they'd rather vote against what the citizens want than for it.

Joe Conti's Greatest Hits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How many wine kiosks did you want?

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

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

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



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

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


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

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

Is Privatization Dead? Not at all!

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

We're screwed, it appears.

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

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More on Contigate

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

Putting in an order for more Phillies tix

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

Apparently they haven't.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another Ethics Investigation at the PLCB: this time at the top

The Philadelphia Inquirer reporter who's been covering the PLCB, Angela Couloumbis, dropped a bomb in this morning's edition. The headline:

Top LCB officials said to take gifts, favors from vendors 

That got my attention. The article (citing a leaked report from the Inspector General that was supposed to have been delivered to Governor Corbett in late March) detailed how Joe "Da CEO" Conti, PJ "I Used to Matter" Stapleton, and PLCB marketing director James Short have been found to have "accepted gifts and favors from vendors and other businesses with an interest in liquor," according the Inspector General's office. The IG, Kenya Mann Faulkner

wrote that her agency's watchdog role was limited because the liquor board is an independent agency [a situation I've pointed out before, and one that leads to the agency's incredible arrogance] and its officials could not be compelled to cooperate. As a result, she wrote, investigators did not interview LCB employees or vendors. But they did review e-mails sent on state computers and concluded that the Ethics Act had been breached.

What are the unethical actions that the IG's investigation turned up?

Joe Conti allegedly accepted Phillies and Union tickets from companies doing business with the LCB and "lobbied a vendor and pressed others inside and outside the agency - including Philadelphia restaurateur Stephen Starr - for jobs for his brother and daughter."

PJ Stapleton? "...one LCB vendor secured a round of golf with a pro for Stapleton during a tournament at Aronimink - and sent two employees to serve as Stapleton's caddies." Stapleton also

accepted several gifts from an LCB vendor, North Wales-based Capital Wine & Spirits. The gifts included about $1,700 worth of alcohol for an event at the Hotel Hershey last year that Stapleton and his ex-wife organized - the annual Keystone Weekend, billed as a forum for business, civic, sports, and entertainment leaders to exchange ideas on current issues. Stapleton solicited the alcohol and the LCB vendor donated 60 bottles, the report said. It quoted an e-mail sent to him last Sept. 12 by a Capital executive: "The wine and spirits for Keystone weekend is taken care of."

And James Short? I almost feel sorry for the poor bastard: all he did was take Conti's freebie Union tickets one night when Conti couldn't be bothered to accept one more gift.

According to the article, the report has also been forwarded to the state Ethics Commission. What did the accused have to say for themselves? 

Conti, Stapleton, and Short declined through LCB spokeswoman Stacey Witalec to be interviewed for this article. Witalec said, "The board has never been presented with the report, or notified of any formal investigation. We will be prepared to discuss any details when formally notified."

You know, when I saw that headline, the first thing that flashed through my mind, even before "Ah-HA!", was this. Three years ago, there was a scandal in North Carolina about one of their county ABC Boards (their control is even more byzantine than ours) accepting a sumptuous meal from Diageo reps, a Del Frisco's steakhouse meal for 28 ABC officials and their spouses. This was part of a string of scandals involving the ABC, which included gross nepotism and $20,000 of missing inventory at one store. Now, I'm not saying that the PLCB is the NCABC, it's not like there's been a string of scandals at the PLCB...

No, wait a minute. There is a whole list of truly questionable decisions that have been made by the PLCB: you can find it here. There's the wine kiosk single-bidder fiasco (which triggered a special audit by the Auditor General's office), the questionably-awarded 'courtesy contract' misstep (another audit...), the inventory software screwup (wow, another audit?!), and, of course, the still unexplained incident involving "widespread financial irregularities at the PLCB's Philadelphia warehouse where over 20 employees were suspended.

And before anyone accuses me of dredging up the past, re-hashing old issues...there was this little beauty just two days ago: another Angela Couloumbis article on the lax work habits of the PLCB's stable of private judges. This paragraph pretty much sums it up:

Investigators found that LCB judges rarely stuck to normal workdays, often arriving hours late, leaving the office for hours at a time without taking appropriate leave, and going home early, according to the report. Sometimes, the report said, they didn't show up at all.

Guess we know why it's so hard to get a nuisance bar closed.

These stories are like Christmas morning for me. This is exactly the kind of malfeasance that government monopoly retail breeds, and I was pretty sure it was there...and thanks to Angela Couloumbis, now we know it is. It's very satisfying to see how her stories have changed from slightly pro-PLCB to a more adversarial relationship. After all, as Mencken put it, the only way a journalist should look at a politician is down.

Does this mean anything for privatization? You bet it does; it makes it a LOT harder for the PLCB to claim the moral high ground. Time to press the advantage. Tell your legislator you don't want want a monopoly in the hands of arrogant people with questionable ethics who are clearly out of touch with what Pennsylvanians expect. Break the monopoly; privatize. We have a bill on the floor...fix it, pass it, and let it happen.

Conti Speaks!

Interesting interview with Joe "CEO" Conti on the new Grub Street Philadelphia site. Kirsten Henri asked him about the "wine boutique" concept, and gets some answers that just leave you slack-jawed. For instance, the boutiques are "picked" by putting ads in local newspapers, and waiting for replies, a charmingly innocent way of making sure you get the response you want while remaining "courtesy contract legal." And a great exchange here:

Conti: ...we weren't looking to partner with restaurants, we were looking to partner with high-end gourmet food stores.

Henri: Maybe it's confusing because your first partner, Jose Garces, is known for being a restaurateur, not a grocer. [Score!]

Conti: Jose basically was doing this market in the Western Union building. When he heard we were placing boutiques, he called us.

Clearly Garces reads the real estate ads in the local papers; what, in the "Monopoly Opportunities for Advantage Available" section?

But this is my favorite:

Henri: Are you surprised some restaurateurs are bent out of shape?

Conti: How can I be diplomatic here? [I assume this means, "How can I insult your intelligence and get away with it?"] I'm from a restaurant family. I like to tease I'm a bartender by birth. My father was president of the National Restaurant Association. [This, BTW, is essentially Conti's self-stated qualification for his current position: heredity.] Yes, I was surprised. It's a very old-fashioned, parochial view of the restaurant market. Decades ago we realized the hospitality industry survives best when there are a number of options for the consumer.

Didja see that last line? "...the hospitality industry survives best when there are a number of options for the consumer." Guess that doesn't apply to retail wine and spirits sales!

These ridiculous ideas only point up how ill-suited state-owned monopoly booze sales are to modern commerce. These "boutiques" are clearly an unfair advantage to stores that are selected on the basis of personal choice by unelected, unregulated bureaucrats. The wine kiosks are a bumbling circumvention of supermarket sales.

Stop making it so hard! Privatization would fix all of this, increase jobs, continue the collection of taxes, and put an end to the embarrassing parade of corrup -- er, "the appearance of a possible conflict of interest." The Legislature needs to put an end to this farce, and now would be a great time.

Thank you, Beaver County Times

It's sad that the only media outlet that pointed out the real problem with the "ethics" of the recently-awarded PLCB 'courtesy contract' was the Beaver County Times. Take a look: they nailed it. In a nutshell? The Auditor General had no choice but to say that the contract was "legal." And there's no doubt that the contract presented -- at least -- the appearance of a conflict of interest; it was awarded to a company run by the husband of one of three PLCB Regional Directors. As the editorialist says, "While legal, the contract speaks volumes about a political environment that parses what’s legal and what’s right with great care."

What's really sad is, given how obviously wrong it was, how arrogantly the PLCB strutted their innocence after the Auditor General's reluctant statement of legality. Chairman PJ Stapleton had this to say in a letter to Wagner (that he also released to the press, he was so damned proud of it): "We are gratified by your conclusion that we affirmatively and properly dealt with potential conflicts of interest when they arose. "

I don't really remember Wagner saying that. And the only way the PLCB "dealt" with the potential conflicts of interest was by requesting an audit -- which they knew would pass on legality, clearly the only thing they cared about -- after there was a hue and cry about that potential conflict of interest in the press and the governor questioned the contract. That's "affirmative and proper"...in Pennsylvania.

He goes on about how smart they were to award the contract even after realizing there was a potential conflict of interest:

"The rejection of such a qualified proposal for a service deemed to be necessary and without substantial legal justification would expose the PLCB to litigation. Further, when a properly conducted RFP process produces a qualified bidder at substantially lower cost to the Commonwealth (and I'd still like to know more about why the winning bid was so much lower than the other bids), we are duty bound to regard that as a positive development to be availed, rather than cause for scrapping the process and starting over... Thus, while our two agencies agree as to the goal sought, it appears we have differing perspectives on this particular matter, differences we feel obliged to respectfully note."

Yeah, they have "differing perspectives," all right. The Auditor General clearly said that while what the PLCB did stayed within the letter of the law, it presented grave problems of potential conflict of interest. The PLCB clearly said...they didn't give a damn, it was all about the money.

I just wish that the PLCB would act this arrogant and "I'm a monopoly, I'll do what I want to" when it comes to doing a bunch of pointless "make nice" stuff like changing the names of the stores and "creating a brand." That would save us some serious coin. And I'm sure it would be "legal."

But then, it appears we have differing perspectives on this particular matter.