Time to get involved: Public Beer Laws Forum this Thursday at Yards

I'm going to be on the panel at another Philly Beer Scene Beer Laws Forum at Yards Brewing again, this Thursday at 7 PM. Hope you can come out; we had about 100 people last time, and I'd love to see more of you this time. Details on the forum can be found here, but I'd like to use this post to get you prepped up for the debate.

The panel's going to be State Senator Chuck McIlhinney, representing the PA Legislature, Bill Covaleski of Victory Brewing, representing the brewers of Pennsylvania, and Mike Gretz Sr. of Gretz Beer Distributors, representing the beer wholesalers, Tom Kehoe of Yards, who is moderating the thing, and me, who's pretty much representing you, the beer drinker...or as I like to call us, the fourth tier.

We wanted to let you know what kind of things are going to come up. These are some questions we've been tossing around.

• First and most important: what can people do that's effective to stand for what they believe in about changing the state's liquor code? How do we effect change through the Legislature?
• We'd like to ask you, our beer-centric audience, how much spirits you buy in PA. Do you buy much wine and spirits at all, and when you do, do you buy them here, or do you cross the border. We'll do a show of hands, but if you want to comment here, that's good too. We'd also like to know if privatization of the state liquor stores interests you...and if it does, where do beer sales fit in that?
• Why is a simple sixpack sale change to the Liquor Code is so hard to make when Pennsylvanians overwhelmingly support it?
• What do you want? Do you want to do away with the case law? Privatize the state stores and make them "all alcohol" stores? Sell beer and wine in every grocery store? Or just increase the number of licenses? 
• And what seems like a very simple, reasonable request from Tom Peters at Monk's Cafe: Can it be arranged that a restaurant licensee could get a "one-time" permit to receive beer from a currently unregistered brewery, pay the applicable taxes, and not have to go through an Importing Distributor?

That's what we're thinking about. We hope you're thinking about coming out Thursday night. Remember: privatization isn't over, the sixpack law change isn't over, they're just on legislative holiday. Next year it all starts up again, and we want something to happen. This is where that starts. 

And yes, the bar at the brewery will be open for business. Debating is thirsty work.

I'm not dead, and neither is privatization

Thanks to the readers who asked where the hell I was the past three weeks... I've been really tied up with Malt Advocate. My duties have expanded there, and I've been getting that settled. I think we're on-track now.

I was also in Kentucky and Ohio for four days, visiting with new A.Smith Bowman distiller Truman Cox (he was just finishing up work at Buffalo Trace; I think he starts in Virginia this week, and best of luck to him!), Heaven Hill icon Parker Beam, and Wild Turkey legend Jimmy Russell...who was hosting a little shindig for Wild Turkey's brand-new distillery, and it's a beaut, as I wrote here. (You'll notice that John hasn't posted much either, lately: it's just a slow time of year, folks!)

I also dropped in on Athens, Ohio on my way home. I'm going to be hosting Ohio Brew Week there, starting this Saturday, so since I've never been there, I thought I'd take a look around. Well, there was a great brewpub -- Jackie O's -- where I had a delish pizza and several guest beers (had to leave before they opened, but I did get a quick tour of their barrel-aging room...good God, it's amazing!), and a bunch of fun bars up and down the block. I also made a quick visit to Salaam, the Mid-East restaurant where I'll be doing a beer dinner Monday night, and wound up in a press conference that resulted in this piece.

After that, well, had a lot of writing to do, a lot of family stuff, my mom's 80th birthday to celebrate, a trip to upstate NY for a graduation party and a gathering of my wife's clan for a graduation party and a 4th of July celebration (that included a sixtel of Walt Wit that we kicked, and thanks to the low session-type ABV, no one got silly). We toured Syracuse University on the way home -- first of Nora's campus visits, and an impressive one -- and lunched at Dinosaur Barbeque: the Big Ass Pork Plate has a hypnotic effect on me.

About that pork...I also got in almost 50 miles on the bike over the weekend, riding the Erie Canalway with Cathy and her brothers. I'm recording my mileage here to benefit bike charities; if anyone wants to sign up, please do so! (I think you can guess which silly username is mine...)

Anyway...I said privatization (as in Pennsylvania wine and liquor retail privatization) isn't dead, and I meant it. Check this out. Since then, I've been in touch with several NGOs about participation in strategy sessions on privatization. I know there are whiskey and even wine drinkers reading this blog, but the lion's share are beer drinkers. Get interested: beer is going to be very much a part of this.

It's my firm belief, borne up by experience in other states, that wine and liquor sales are a key component to beer sale success in a fully-privatized retail system. Ideally: private wholesale operations feeding private retail operations that sell "all-alcohol": beer, wine, and spirits. The supermarket sales genie has already been let out of the bottle, for better or worse, so we're going to have to deal with that.

There will be bills popping up. We need to read them carefully, and make our voices heard. I plan to have a bullet list of what I want to see in a privatization bill and what I really don't want to see in one. Look for that soon. In the meantime, check out the ridiculous amounts of taxes Pennsylvanians pay for wine and spirits, and how that's going to sink privatization...if we let it.

Is PLCB Privatization Dead Already?

After getting our best shot at dumping the ridiculous State Stores in years...Pennsylvanians may already be screwed. The Republicans in the state Legislature have lost their guts, and are lining up to give the PLCB bureaucrats everything they've asked for, apparently out of fear of union backlash (despite the fact that union households have consistently expressed support for privatization by margins of 2:1 in polls). Dammit!

Read about it here.

Otto's in sixers

Just heard from my man Sam Komlenic that he was privileged to drink "the first 12 oz. bottle of Red Mo from the first sixer sold at Otto’s, so production of that package is underway and will only be available in-house until they can expand production capacity. Other flavors will follow, but again, will only be sold at the restaurant."

Sam also told me that sales of Charlie's Keewaydin Cider are no longer allowed at outside outlets (like Wegmans); the LCB has apparently ruled that since he's making it in Pennsylvania with a winery license (which they require for cider), it can only be sold at Otto's and at LCB stores. What about all those ciders you see sold at beer distributors? Well, they're made out of state, so it's different rules. Thanks again, to the PLCB and their big brother, The Almighty Liquor Code.

PLCB Hearings, Part II: Enter the Bureaucrats

I was looking at an old blog post this morning -- 2/26/12!! -- when I realized that I had written most of a post about the testimony of Joe "CEO" Conti at the beer registration raid fiasco hearings back in 2010...and never finished it or put it up. I know it's out of date now, but it's still illustrative of how the PLCB is inept, incompetent, and determined to mislead the Legislature into allowing it to continue to exist, despite the clear will of Pennsylvanians. So I put it up. Apologies for not doing so sooner. Feel free to ream me for this, but remember; I could have just left it in limbo!

It was Joe "CEO" Conti's turn, the PLCB CEO. Remember, Conti is very familiar with this venue; he was a legislator himself (until he decided not to run for re-election in the wake of some questionable attitude problems involving -- I kid you not -- a $5,000 water heater after the pay-raise foofaraw in 2005...and Ed Rendell bestowed this $150,000 a year plum on him). Conti was flanked by Jerry Waters (director of the PLCB's office of regulatory affairs, the man responsible for brand registration (and, we assume, all the screw-ups that went with it)) and Rod Diaz, a PLCB lawyer.

Conti opened up (again, these are direct quotes from written testimony, and I'll warn you: it's dense legal stuff. You might want to get a cup of coffee) with his interpretation of what was going on, and it was shady at best; at worst, it was deliberately misleading. First: boilerplate from the feds and The Almighty Liquor Code. "Both state and federal law require that all brands of malt and brewed beverages including beer must be registered prior to being sold in Pennsylvania. Federal law provides that no manufacturer, wholesaler or importer of beer" [...okay, look, I'm going to paraphrase here, because this is lawyer bullshit: you can't sell packaged beer unless it's labeled in conformity with ATTTB regulations, which say labels must include the brand, "class designation," name and address of the bottler/importer, net contents, and alcohol content. I'll go back to full quotes here.] 

"In Pennsylvania, section 445 of the Liquor Code and section 9.108 of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board's Regulations [note: there's the Code, and then there's the Regs] require that all beer be registered with the Board prior to it being offered, sold or delivered. Registering a beer in Pennsylvania consists of filling out the application, paying the appropriate fee, providing a copy of the federal Certificate of Label Approval or COLA (which contains a copy of the label) and providing a copy of all territorial agreements affecting the beer." (Like I said before...it really looks to me that 'brand registration' is really about the state marking wholesalers' territory for them. Can anyone tell me why it's the state's responsibility to enforce exclusivity agreements?)

Conti then proceeded to show the COLA for Monk's Cafe Flemish Sour Red Ale. The COLA has a slot for "Brand Name," which the importer, Win-It-Too of Santa Barbara, CA, has indicated is "MONK'S CAFE." Conti seizes on this to prove that it's not the agency's fault, it's the fault of the feds:

"...there is very little guidance on what constitutes a brand name; nor does there appear to be any strict rules as to the conformity between the actual name registered and the name on the label...you will see the COLA for Win-It-Too Inc., which has registered the brand "Monk's Cafe." However, as you can see from the label, which is located at the bottom of the COLA, the label on the bottle actually reads: Monk's Cafe Flemish Sour Ale...there is no way to be completely confident that the brand name and the label name are referring to the same thing other than by looking at the actual label attached to the COLA. The Board has no independent authority to question whether the brand name listed on the COLA is accurately reflected on the attached label."

Pardon my French, but does the Board need "independent authority" to wipe its own butt? The labels provided to the ATTTB say either "Monk's Cafe Flemish Sour Ale" or "Monk's Cafe Flemish Sour Red Ale." They say it very clearly, and I would suggest that only a damned lawyer could care whether it said Flemish Sour Ale or Flemish Sour Red Ale. Brand registration is a hollow-cored piece of garbage anyway; these guys are getting excited over whether it's Monk's Cafe Ale, Monk's Cafe Flemish Sour Ale, or Monk's Cafe Flemish Sour Red Ale on the label? You're got to be kidding me! When you're talking about a database that is so full of errors that even after this spotlight was shone on them, they're STILL getting things wrong (I quote to you from the PLCB's Registered Malt or Brewed Beverages Brands database, dated May 31, 2010: SIERRA NEVADA 30TH ANNIVERSARY SERIES- FITZ & KEN'S ALE. Really? That's the famous "Fitz" Maytag, I guess.), does it really matter whether the brewers get the name right?

(Let me take a little chuckle break, too: if you'll flip back to this post, the one about the letter the BLCE sent to Local 44 about the final disposition of all this? You'll see that they still can't get this right: "YOU, BY YOUR SERVANTS, AGENTS, OR EMPLOYEES, IDENTIFIED MONKS ALE BEER WITH A TAP LABELED MONKS FLEMISH SOUR ALE BEER ON MARCH 4, 2010." And the PLCB's "data"base still calls the beer that the BLCE is quibbling about...MONK'S CAFE ALE. Not "MONKS ALE," which is apparently what the BLCE thinks it should be. Talk about the Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight; even when they're trying to cover their ass, they miss by a mile.)

He then talked about the dangers of unregistered beers. "Unregistered beer present in the Commonwealth is problematic for a number of reasons. First, without confirmation that the beer has a valid COLA issued by the TTB, the Board has no way of knowing whether the contents of the container conform to what is represented on the bottle." Joe, Joe, Joe...I hate to rock your world, but even if there is a valid COLA, you still have no way of knowing if the contents of a bottle conform to what is represented on the bottle. All the valid COLA means is that if the contents DON'T conform, you can fine them. Ooooo...

Then he brings up the use of brand registration to save us from beer gone bad, bringing up the e.coli contamination of produce, and how difficult it was to track the source of the contamination. "This difficulty would not have been encountered if the product recalled had been beer. Brand Registration enables interested parties, including the Board, to determine the source of any beer to its manufacturer in a matter of hours rather than days."

Really. This ignores Dominic Origlio's testimony of how he and other wholesalers pulled Samuel Adams beers off the shelves -- beginning in hours after the first alert -- and without any need for "brand registration." They had their own records. They needed no prodding from the State, and to the best of my knowledge, received none, nor thanks, either. It also ignores the pathetically bad job the PLCB did in maintaining the database that Conti claims would allow them to swing into action in hours. Not likely. Finally..."determine the source of any beer to its manufacturer"? Look above: federal regulations require the name and address of the bottler/importer to be on the label. You don't need a damned database, just pick up a bottle and look at it.

This whole rant was indicative of this really weird thing going on with both the legislators and the bureaucrats. They seemed to have this bizarre concern that there was some massive "homebrew" ring that was slipping unsafe beer into the system. Folks: there is no such problem. First, you're the PLCB; you don't give a damn about whether the beer we buy is in good shape as long as the taxes get paid. Second, as has been said, no human pathogens -- organisms that can kill ya -- can grow in beer. Beer can go stale, it can get sour, but it is not a disease-carrying vector. Finally, there just isn't enough margin in making 'moonshine' beer -- because PA's beer taxes are blessedly low. High taxes on spirits are essentially a subsidy for moonshiners and smugglers: if there isn't a big tax burden, there's no point to evading the system. This is a non-issue.
 
This is vintage Conti: this is the law, we're right, and that's all there is to it. He read the regs to bury the proceedings in bullshit, to obscure the real problem, which is that the Code is inadequate to the situation, and that the PLCB -- specifically Director Waters' division -- has failed significantly in keeping up the registration database that was the whole basis of this hearing. He seemed to be deliberately missing the point: not that some of the beers were indeed unregistered, which no one was really contesting. The points were that

1. The PLCB's "list" of registered beers was so full of errors and omissions as to be useless, something that would be bitterly expanded upon by the BLCE officers;
2. The raids were an absolute overreaction;
3. The raids were obviously motivated by personal issues, not concern for the law, indicating a serious issue with the complaint process and with the delegation of enforcement responsibility to the Pennsylvania State Police;
4. The wrong people/entities were catching the heat: the responsibility for brand registration lies on the brewer or importer, not the wholesaler or retailer.

Jerry Waters was up next. The first words out of his mouth (after salutations) were significant (again, these are direct quotes from written testimony): "It is important to note at the outset that it is the Pennsylvania State Police, BLCE and not the PLCB that enforces the Liquor Code...While the Board is often called upon to provide information to the BLCE to assist in its investigations, the Liquor Code does not authorize the Board to take an active role in enforcement actions." Translation: he was throwing the cops under the bus. They did the raids, not us. (And of course, when it's the cops' turn, they will reach out from under the transit vehicle and grab Waters by his finely tailored suit and yank him in there with them; watch for it.)

There was more of this...but I have to apologize, it's now history. I just thought you'd like to be able to look back and see the kind of butt-covering bullshit that went on. Sorry I didn't get this up earlier. 

Beer Raid Resolution!

Got this from Leigh Maida (Memphis Taproom, Local 44...hey, you know who I'm talking about!). This is the final upshot of the whole thing, the whining, grumbling, "we knew you were breaking the law, and here's your punishment" backhand from the BLCE:

YOU! You bad licensee, you! Can you imagine? It would be like selling Lehigh Valley 1% Lo-Fat Milk from a dispenser marked "1% Milk." The scandal! And this is, after all, from "An Internationally Accredited Law Enforcement Agency." What a pathetic whining.

Good news is, they're going to get the kegs back, and Leigh says when they do, they're going to blow it all out at $1 a glass! That's by way of saying thanks to everyone who stood by them through this ridiculous crapola. If you're not on the Local 44 e-mail list, get on it: that's where they'll be making the announcement.

All's well that ends...stupidly, I guess. Except I don't really want this to end. I want to grab this and beat the agency to death with it. Don't forget this, folks. We'll come back to it.

The PLCB hearings...at last

A mere three weeks after they happened, I'm finally commenting on what went down at the PLCB hearings on the Memphis44Resurrection beer registration raids.* I went to the hearings, I sat through the whole thing, and here's what I have to tell you.

I was one of the first people in the room. I wanted to see who came, in what order, and I wanted to get a seat. It didn't fill up, but it was close. The Harrisburg types -- the lobbyists, the bureaucrats, the legislators, the State Police officers -- were pretty cool, looking like all this was old hat, just another hearing. Well, except for Joe "CEO" Conti, who came in about 15 minutes before the hearings started and walked around in an apparent spate of nervous energy. Twice I heard him say, "Okay, let's go," a good ten minutes before scheduled time. Sorry, Joe, but the Legislature tells you what to do now.

The hearings opened and Representative John Taylor, minority chairman of the House Liquor Control Committee, said right up front that this incident was bad publicity for the PLCB and the state, and that changes can be made. That would set the tone for most of what followed, as most of the legislators seemed avid for change.

The first person to testify was Leigh Maida, co-owner of Memphis Taproom, Local 44, and Resurrection Alehouse, the three bars that were raided. Speaking quickly (I'm familiar with the kind of nerves testifying at one of these hearings can bring on if you're not experienced!), she laid out what happened. She noted that all the beers were acquired through "reputable wholesalers," that she had receipts for all of them: nothing off the books or from out of state. She said that they had tried reasoning with the agents, but that they were clearly not there to make decisions, just to carry out their orders. She took pains to describe the Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement (BLCE) agents as "friendly and professional."

(I'm doing the quotes the best I can; they are not exact; if anyone involved has issues with what I have here, let me know and I'll be happy to go through my recording and get the exact wording. While I'm apologizing...the pix suck, I know. Blame Steve Jobs. ) 

We heard how nine out of 16 seized brands were returned as actually registered (the BLCE officials would recount just how incompetently the PLCB handled that end of it, and it was clear that they were pained and embarrassed about that part). Leigh admitted that some of the beers were indeed not registered. "We're waiting to find out how much trouble we are in," she said. "Which we are, despite how [the unregistered beers] got there."

She went on to make some general comments. Beer sales have changed, she said. There used to be huge sales of a few brands of beer. Now there are huge numbers of brands (over 2,800, by the PLCB's count). Brand registration discourages craft beer. The availability of rare craft releases in Philly and Pennsylvania drives tourism, good press, and jobs, she said, rightly. The system needs an overhaul. She was clearly upset that an "anonymous complaint" could "manipulate a state agency;" she suggested that it would be smarter to prioritize what is investigated. "Nuisance bars and underage drinking? Sure," she said. "That should be a priority of those whose living this is, too."

Then she got into more controversial stuff. There should be a common understanding of the Code. Interpretation is an issue when it's the agent on the scene making decisions. "I'm not contacting the LCB anymore," she said, citing agency policy that all answers to queries from licensees are copied to the BLCE, which, she said, implies that the agency expects that if you're asking, you're doing, and should be investigated. "I'd like to know when there are changes in the laws," she said, and noted that it would be nice to have all the stuff licensees have to know in one place.

(There kind of is such a document here, but you'll note the disclaimer at the top: "This list does not reflect all possible violations. It is not intended nor may it be used as an official document or to supplant the law. Since the law is subject to periodic amendment and legal rulings, users of this information are advised to remain alert to any such changes." You take your chances, and they own the rulebook.)

She summed up: "We are heavily taxed and under a heavy set of confusing laws."

The legislators asked questions. State Rep. Robert Donatucci, the majority chairman of the committee, noted that it takes more money to enforce brand registration than the $75 fee brings in (I'm guessing that's based on the money the BLCE spent on the raids).

Senator Sean Logan bored in on Leigh (apparently tone-deaf to her clear image as the wronged party here; he was obsessed with proving that she and Brendan had broken the law and therefore clearly deserved bad things); "I'm troubled by your confusion about the Code. Did you ever ask the PLCB for clarification?" Leigh: "I wouldn't feel comfortable contacting their Legal Department." Logan wanted to know why she didn't just call them; Leigh responded that she was told to check the website first. Then Logan unveiled his big question: "Did you know you had unregistered beers?" Leigh: "No." (Let me just say: if Logan is not confused by the Code, he's either a genius, an ignoramus, a liar, or he hasn't read enough of it and tried to apply it. To be fair, my money's on the last one.)

Senator Pippy mentioned that the Pennsylvania Tavern Association did educational work on the Code; did Leigh belong? "No." Given that the current top legislative priority of the Association is legalizing "small games of chance," I'm not surprised. At this point, Brendan, who'd been sitting quietly by Leigh's side, grabbed the mike: "I work an 80 hour week to make these businesses run, I want to run a legal bar, a non-nuisance bar. The actions the PLCB took with beer registration don't lead me to want to check with them on whether I'm legal or not." There was some discussion about how much latitude the BLCE agents had on the spot.

Then it was Representative Mike O'Brien's turn. He said that Memphis Taproom was not in his district; however, he said, if you stepped onto their front steps and spit, it would land in his district (which endeared him to me; very folksy for a city guy), and he lives within 500 feet of the taproom. He began a pattern of questioning that would reach hilarious heights when he talked to Dominic Origlio later.

"Are you a licensed tavern?" Leigh: "Yes."
"You ordered these beers from a licensed wholesaler?" Leigh: "Yes."
"Did you have any reason to believe it was not legal?" Leigh: "No."
"Was it delivered by a God-fearing member of Teamsters Local 107?" Leigh: "Yes."
"Please give me a feel for the bar. Is it true that if I went there on a Sunday morning, I would find the Sisters of St. Joseph from St. Anne's Parish there for brunch?" Leigh: "Yes." And Brendan leaned in and added: "They're there on Saturdays, too." Which brought down the house.

After we'd recovered our composure, O'Brien concluded: "To say what has happened to you was unfortunate would be an understatement. As a resident, I'll thank you; as a legislator, I'll apologize. You have set us on a path to correct this."

Next up was Dominic Origlio, the owner of Origlio Beverage in northeast Philly (full disclosure: I write for Origlio Beverage's company newsletters). They were raided as the wholesaler who had supplied many of the unregistered beers. Dominic's opening statement included (and these are direct quotes, from a printed copy supplied to attendees): "...while my company now checks the Liquor Control website daily to be certain that all the brands we represent are properly registered with the State, brand registration has never been the responsibility of the importing distributor." He continued: "Last year we remitted approximately $11 million in tax revenue to the Commonwealth." And added: "Through meticulous record keeping, we can easily access complete lists of our customers who retail a particular beer." He brought up this last to segue into his company's role in the Samuel Adams glass recall in 2008, a successful exercise in consumer safety...no thanks to brand registration, which had nothing to do with it (please remember this; I'll refer back to it during Conti's testimony).

Then he took umbrage. "To the best of my knowledge, Origlio Beverage and the LCB have always worked together in a spirit of mutual respect and cooperation. For this and other reasons, I was extremely perplexed by the actions taken by the State Police. That being said, you can imagine our shock and dismay when armed agents of the Pennsylvania State Police raided three Philadelphia bars based on an anonymous tip stating that beer, which had not been properly registered with the State, was being sold. I can only speculate that this tip came from the bars' competitor who was not allocated these limited production beers. Let's be clear about this; armed officers were deployed to check on registration papers."

It wasn't just money and time that was lost in the raids, Dominic reminded the legislators. "I was personally embarrassed and my employees, whose dedication cannot be called into question, were demoralized... The entire organization was reeling. Many of them asked, "What have we or the company done to deserve this kind of treatment?" Still others were concerned that they would lose their jobs."

Then we got to the nut: "Many of my customers want to know who would file such a complaint against a retailer. Was it just a matter of sour grapes from the anonymous caller who did not receive these limited production beers? What would have happened if a bar's patron was running from the police while they were investigating such a minor offense in such a vigorous and intimidating fashion? ... A lot of things could have gone wrong, and I submit that the entire matter could have been handled with a few simple phone calls."

He brought up alternatives. "I believe there is a huge disconnect between the LCB and the State Police, which are responsible for enforcement, resulting from the elimination of the Malt Beverage Compliance Unit which reported directly to the LCB's Board Secretary." He went on to explain that the MBCU was the recommended agency to handle these problems, and that they dealt in written notices of non-compliance...but the MBCU was eliminated. "The personnel who had worked so closely with our industry on these matters were dispersed, which resulted in the immediate and complete loss of experience in dealing with such matters. Enforcement was delegated to the State Police, and so we sit here today discussing what went wrong in March. If the MBCU allowed 24 to 72 hours to correct registration errors, why wouldn't the State Police do the same thing?

And there was an interesting thing, the closest we got all morning to anyone stating out in the open why we even have brand registration:  "Now the Bureau of Licensing accepts brand registration applications and territorial franchise agreements (my emphasis) that the Liquor Code requires to be filed." I do believe that brand registration exists so that the State can enforce business agreements made between wholesalers and manufacturers/importers. I don't like that. Let them enforce it themselves in civil court.

He concluded with a point that should be made every day by beervolk in the Commonwealth. "I would be remiss without mentioning what I believe is the underlying cause of these regulatory and enforcement problems. Pennsylvania's beer industry is regulated by its competitor -- the Liquor Control Board, a state run corporation which sells wine and liquor. The board consists of three members appointed by the governor. To my knowledge, not one of the sitting members has any experience with the intricacies of selling beer in the Commonwealth. I ask you all to please consider the wisdom of requiring that one of the members be a representative of the state's beer industry or at the very least someone who is [a part of] or has a working knowledge of the beer industry."

And then there were questions (we're into approximate quotes again). Representative Taylor (who was looking progressively more stormy as the hearings went on): "How does a beer become unregistered?" Dominic: "Not my responsibility. I'm pretty up to date on the Code. This completely escaped me."

Representative O'Brien was short and sweet.
"If you don't mind, Mister Origlio, could you share with us the gross sales of your business last year?" Dominic: "$230 million, sir."
"And how long has your family company been in business?" Dominic: "Since Repeal, sir."
"And in all that time...have you ever been raided like this before?" Dominic: "No, sir."
"Thank you. I have no further questions." I loved that.

Senator Larry Farnese (who had said he would try to turn these hearings into a forum on why it takes the BLCE so long to shut down nuisance bars) asked if with all the different brands -- "it's a nightmare" -- was it easier to register them or not? Dominic: "I believe they should be registered." Farnese concurred that there is a disconnect between the PLCB and BLCE...and then did his nuisance bar thing. "You have to deal with this, but nuisance bars stay open. Can you explain that?" (which really wasn't fair, but Dominic rose to it quite readily) Dominic: "The State Police will investigate any tip; every tip is investigated. But the headline in the papers is "Philadelphia Wholesaler Raided." It's embarrassing, and we shouldn't have to deal with it."

Senator Pippy suggested -- to general head-nodding -- "Why not take a picture of the label and put it in some kind of database? It sounds like an easy fix." Well, yeah...only doing away with it entirely would be even easier.

Anyway...that was half the morning. After this, it would be the turn of the PLCB, the BLCE, and a surprisingly relevant Artie Tafoya of Appalachian Brewing. Stay tuned: more blow-by-blow, and then analysis.

*It hasn't been easy: I left the next day for Sierra Nevada (which is next on the list!), took Thomas to last visits at Vassar and Penn State (he finally decided he'd go to Boston University last night), and, of course, had plenty of wonderful paying work I had to do in there as well. Not making excuses, but you deserve to know why this took so long.

Good news from Pittsburgh about the PLCB problem

I was just at the Church Brew Works this afternoon (I'm out here with my daughter's school robotics team at the FIRST regional competition), sampling a Burly Friar Barleywine (seen at right, talked about here, and it was good: not bourbony, but drier wood spice and a little vanilla, and certainly not a flabby beer at all; I had Brant's Czech Pils, too, and it was very nice, body was about perfect). I'm talking with Brant (ran into him on the steps out front, it was a gorgeous day here), when Church owner Sean Casey walks up. We chat, he says he can't talk long, there's a state senator coming for a tour. We talked a little beer raid smack, and in walks the Senator.

And Sean introduces me. Next thing I know, I'm talking about the beer raids with Senator John Pippy (R-37), who is the chairman of the Senate Law and Justice Committee, the folks who oversee the PLCB in the Senate. Good guy to know! That's when he told me that his committee and the House Liquor Control Committee will be holding joint hearings on the beer raids on April 13. There will be representatives from the PLCB, the State Police BLCE, Monk's Cafe (I assume as the owner of one of the seized brands), and Origlio Beverage. Not mentioned, you'll notice, is Brendan Hartranft and Leigh Maida, the owners of the bars that were raided first. There's more on this at Don Russell's Joe Sixpack site, and Don also has an excellent piece on just how worthless the brand registration list is; go read that now, because it will really piss you off.

A couple titbits to add. First, I asked him just what purpose brand registration serves. He told me that it was for consumer protection, to tell you where the beer came from. But all that's right on the label, I said. Well, there's not that much on a beer label, he began...and I decided to let it go. More on that at the other blog later. Second, and of more interest to Philadelphians, we talked about the source of the original complaint. It seemed odd that an anonymous complaint would be taken so seriously, I said. Did the BLCE really do that on the basis of an anonymous tip, or are they just keeping the identity confidential? They know, he said; they said they had a "complaint." That means they know who made the complaint. Interesting.

"This is a Raid!"

If you've been wondering when I was going to say something about the ludicrously over-the-top PLCB raids on Memphis Taproom, Local 44, and Resurrection Ale House...wonder no more. It seemed more appropriate to write it at the other blog.

Not to forget Wine in grocery stores: Garces Trading Company

Okay, first a confession: I really, really want to go to Jose Garces's new place, Garces Trading Company. The foodstuffs sound delicious, hell, even the coffee sounds good. And that wine, stuff you can't even get anywhere else --

Oh. Wait. That's the problem. Garces Trading Company includes a small area that is technically a Pennsylvania "Wine and Spirits Shoppe," even though it doesn't sell any spirits; so let's just call it what it is: a State Store, staffed by PLCB personnel. So it's not wine being sold by Garces (since that would, of course, be illegal), it's just a store inside his ... grocery store.

Why is this rotten? Well, I laid it all out here about a year ago, but let's run it real briefly: this deal (and it is a deal: the PLCB claims it put out an ad in the paper and Garces answered it) allows Jose Garces to take part of a small part of the state's monopoly on wine sales. Not only can he sell wine inside his store, something no one else in Pennsylvania can do, but the PLCB is also slipping him exclusive wines. In the words of Liquor Control Board wine buyer Cindy Carnieki (quoted on the WHYY site) "These wines are not in restaurants, not in PLCB stores. We're picking very exclusive wines for this. They are seeing wines they've never seen before." And Garces is getting all this...without even having to buy a license. He's a BYOB where you can Buy Your Own Bottle -- your exclusive bottle! -- right inside the restaurant.*

So what. I can hear people saying it: so what?! This is great, we can get wines we can't get anywhere else, hurray, Pennsylvania's not so bad!

How is it fair for Garces and Garces alone to get this deal? If this is the pilot program the PLCB claims it is, how will it be fair unless every restaurant that wants one, from Philly to Erie, gets one, and each one gets 'very exclusive wines' for their own customers' pleasure? Why, it won't be, because that would be impossible. Why not have cognac shops inside cigar shops, or rum selections in Caribbean bodegas?

I said that the PLCB was arrogant in the post linked above. I may be wrong. They're a mad, blood-blinded Cape buffalo, crashing through booze retail in Pennsylvania on a destructive, random path: yes to this beer sale, but not to that one; no wine sales in grocery stores (unless it's by machine), yes to beer sales in grocery stores; exercise monopoly muscle but put on a happy face and spend almost $3 million on a name change and facelift...that doesn't matter a plugged nickel because Pennsylvanians aren't allowed to buy our booze anywhere else.

Someone suggested that we should hold a mass civil booze disobedience march: a thousand citizens march across the Burlington-Bristol Bridge, get a bottle of booze at the new Roger Wilco, and march back. Are they going to arrest us? And if they do...could we finally take them to court and put a freakin' stake through the heart of a 76-year-old piece of code that should have been shitcanned decades ago? I'm about ready to start seriously thinking about it.



*Again, as I've said before, I hold no animus against Garces for this. It was brilliant, the place looks as cool as an October morning, and he'd have been plumb crazy not to take the PLCB up on it. Love the food, love Village Whiskey. Hate the PLCB for doing this. 

Philadelphia Weekly gets on the PLCB Abolishment bus

The cover feature of the new issue of Philadelphia Weekly is "PA's Disgraceful Liquor Laws," a nicely-done exposition on what's wrong with the Almighty Liquor Code and the Board That Time Forgot. My PLCB blog gets some exposure, and I get my usual turn with the loonies in the comments (Ted Winters? Who the hell is Ted Winters?), but the important thing is that more people get a full dose of just what's wrong about the PLCB: everything.

If You're Looking for a Christmas Present...

...there's five bottles of George T. Stagg on the shelf at the PLCB State Store in Newtown, PA.

I'm just sayin'...

And as of 12:32 PM on Monday...there are only two (and one bottle of Eagle Rare 17, too, but no other Antique Collection whiskeys). Doubt not the power of the blog, or the depth of desire for Stagg!

5 more Giant Eagles cleared for licensed beer sales in western PA

The beat goes on. Looks like the supermarket beer sale genie is loose, and no one is going to be able to put it back in. Whether Sheetz will be able to overcome the irrational prejudice against selling beer at a gas station or not remains to be seen (what is the issue: you drive to bars, distributors, State Stores...is it something about gasoline fumes that makes you helpless against the insane urge to drink while driving?!!!). Meanwhile, PA consumers are getting a tiny little taste...of normalcy. I challenge anyone to give me a good reason that supermarket beer sales are bad for consumers.

Booze Politics News and Thoughts

I've got a bunch of booze politics things that came in this week; rather than put up a bunch of posts, I'll just address all of it here. It kind of hangs together.

First, the Commonwealth Foundation study about how Pennsylvania's liquor "control" system does nothing to make the state safer from alcohol abuse, drunk driving, or underage drinking (like I didn't know that already?!) has been all over the state newspapers. I got my comments here, on the PLCB blog, go read. Meanwhile, Virginia's governor-elect, Bob McDonnell, made privatizing Virginia's ABC stores (the state sells liquor; wine and beer are in private stores) part of his campaign platform, stressing the windfall. Maybe he should have talked more about how stupid and backwards it makes the state look, and what a pain in the butt it is? And North Carolina's legislature is considering an internal report that found the state's ABC store system is outdated and needs to change. I tell you: it's time to push, and push hard.


Second, the real problem with the PLCB is The Almighty Liquor Code, which needs a total re-write. That's exactly what Frank Cagle is calling for in Tennessee in his latest "Frank Talk" column in the Knoxville weekly Metro Pulse. Tennessee's liquor code, says Cagle, is too broke to fix. "Sometimes a thing has been patched so many times it’s better to throw it out and start over." One look at The Almighty Liquor Code will convince you that it's time to throw it out. The twisted, tangled lawyerese that it is written in damns it to constant tinkering. The PA Liquor Code should be scrapped, and rewritten, in simple language, with consumer oversight, as a model of simple common sense in alcohol policy. First thing to go? All such Repeal-era language as this, the opening justification for the Code:

for the protection of the public welfare, health, peace and morals of the people of the Commonwealth and to prohibit forever the open saloon, and all of the provisions of this act shall be liberally construed for the accomplishment of this purpose.

Are you kidding me? In the trash with it, and we need never soil our minds with it again. An alcohol code should establish taxes -- of a reasonable level, based on pure alcohol content, not whether its wine, beer, or spirits -- a licensing facility for producers, importers, wholesalers, and retailers that benefits the state, not lawyers or speculators; provide rules for operation that are not based on moral or religious grounds, punishments for breaking those rules, and an enforcement procedure for dealing with this in a prompt manner; and puts the Commonwealth out of the booze business completely. Sheesh. How hard can it be?


In the New Dry section, there's this revamped informational site. It shows just the kind of inertial, pie-in-the-sky policy-driven stuff drinkers are up against; specifically, the continuing march of keg registration laws, after even the New Drys have admitted that they don't actually work. I'll say it again, for Google: Keg registration laws don't work, and PIRE confirms it. Why do 31 states have them? The same reason we got national Prohibition: someone thought it was a good idea, and would work, if only we had the whole county/state/country under control. Sorry. Turns out this one's wrong, too.


Finally, when 0.08 BAC laws were slammed through during the Clinton Administration, we were told that MADD -- the major supporter of the laws -- didn't want to go further than that, that they were not a prohibitionist group. True colors, folks: MADD Canada is recommending 0.05 BAC in Quebec. When do they stop?

So. Good, bad, interesting. That's the booze policy news this week.

Hurray for the PLCB!

Well, for the State Police's Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement, actually. Check it out: the BLCE nailed Oscar's in Center City Philly for serving cheap whiskey from a Maker's Mark bottle (after a tip-off from a PhillyMag reporter). That's what I want from my state booze bureaucracy: protection from rip-off bad booze!

Slap the PLCB today

I just posted in my PLCB blog about a poll running in today's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. I'd like to encourage you to go vote NO on the poll, saying you oppose the PLCB's automated wine kiosk and "boutique" wine store schemes. The reasons are here. This agency is out of its mind, and must be stopped. FREE THE BOOZE!

Update: YES! Results came in at 73% NO, 22% yes. I don't know -- or care -- how many "No" votes came from anti-alcohol types; we won this one. Wine kiosks and mini-wine boutiques...as if.

Vote in PLCB poll, Sunday only!

Just saw a poll in the Lehigh Valley Express-Times:

Should Pennsylvania sell the state liquor control system to balance the budget?

Can I get a big Hell Yeah!

Go register your opinion right now!

Can't find the results today...but late last night "Sell it!" was running over 80%. Like to see a real statewide poll done by an impartial agent.

One Year of Rage Against the PLCB

I started my other blog, "Why the PLCB Should Be Abolished" a year ago today. I took a look back over that year (three-month hiatus and all...), and found that we actually accomplished quite a bit. Have a look at that, and on what I hope to do in the second year. The struggle continues...

PLCB's 'CEO' Conti and Chairman Stapleton on PCN Call-In tonight

I'm double-posting this from my PLCB Abolishment blog, just because it's short notice. Apologies to non-Pennsylvanian readers.

Got questions about the PLCB? Want to know why your favorite wine (or bourbon, Sam) has disappeared? Curious about SLO? Jealous of the towns that have beer sales at their Wegmans or Sheetz? Want to know why the PLCB is training their clerks to be polite? Can't figure out why we have the case law, or why beer is sold in private stores but not wine and liquor? Want to ask Joe 'CEO' Conti just what it is he does? Would you like to hear them defend their very existence?

Itch for knowledge no longer. Both 'CEO' Conti and PLCB Chairman PJ Stapleton will be on PCN-TV tonight on the Call-In show for an hour, at 7 PM. I'd urge you to watch this. If you do call in a question, please be civil. I'd hate to have Chuck Ardo think you were criticizing them for curing cancer.

This should be fun.

Lipstick on the Pig

Things have blown up on the PLCB's "charm campaign," and I've been blogging a lot on it. If you're from Pennsylvania -- or if you just like watching bureaucratic train wrecks -- take a look. This could become the leverage needed for serious discussion of booze sale privatization in the Commonwealth.