Category Archives: Montgomery County

early voting, Montgomery County

Early Voting Controversy Continues as GOP Feels the Heat

Board of Elections Shenanigans Documented

The Republican Board of Elections Chair is moving to restore one of the early-voting sites closed in a partisan vote after Republicans on the Board consulted secretly with party leaders and among themselves in closed meetings. Instead of opening a new early voting center in Brookville, he will propose at a special meeting to keep open the Praisner Center, which has a high share of African-American and Latino voters. From the Washington Post:

Bowing to three weeks of pressure from Democrats, the head of Montgomery County’s Board of Elections said Monday that he will propose that the Republican-majority panel retain one of the two heavily used early-voting sites it had voted last month to move. . .

Shalleck has scheduled a special board meeting for 5 p.m. Wednesday at the county elections offices in Gaithersburg to recommend that the Marilyn J. Praisner Community Recreation Center in Burtonsville continue as an early-voting spot.

But he still wants to close the Lawton Center site in order to open one in Potomac in the name of “geographic diversity” so the Democrats aren’t buying. The Lawton Center is in one of the more densely populated areas of the County and also within walking distance of the County’s largest employment center in Bethesda.

Share
Montgomery County

MoCo Voters are Less Liberal Than You Think

Today, I am pleased to present a guest blog by Adam Pagnucco:

Montgomery County is the home of Maryland progressivism. It was the first county in the state to ban smoking in restaurants, enact a living wage law, pass a bag fee, ban private use of pesticides, create a local Earned Income Tax Credit and protect transgender residents from discrimination. It has the biggest county budget of any jurisdiction and has the largest Health and Human Services budget BY FAR. Every single state and county-level elected official is a Democrat and almost all of them are strong progressives. So this must all be supported by an overwhelmingly liberal voting base, right?

Not exactly.

MoCo’s political system is underwritten by three things. First, it has closed primaries that are limited to party members. Unaffiliated voters can only vote for non-partisan offices (like school board seats) in primaries. Second, because the county is so heavily tied to the federal government, the Republican Party is tainted by its association with the tea party, right-wing demagogues, government shutdowns, debt limit crises and the sequester. This is a huge burden on the county’s GOP. Third, turnout in the primaries is low and falling. A grand total of 42,692 Democrats voted in every one of the last three gubernatorial primaries (2006, 2010 and 2014), which determine the election of the County Executive, County Council, State Senators and Delegates. That’s just four percent of the population. These folks get swamped by election-time mail and email and the county leaders owe their election to them.

These three factors have together produced a closed political system that is accessible only to Democrats, and very liberal Democrats at that. But the general electorate is much more diverse. Over the last three gubernatorial cycles, non-Democrats accounted for roughly 40% of the county’s general election turnout. And the Democrats are not necessarily all liberals. Council Member Phil Andrews ran for County Executive last year on an unabashed anti-tax, anti-union platform. In the summer of 2013, he was polling in the mid-teens among Democrats. In the 2014 Democratic primary, he received 22% of the vote. The fact that more than a fifth of primary Democrats embraced an anti-tax, anti-union candidate should give progressives pause.

But the real evidence for the sentiments of the voters comes from how they vote on ballot questions and charter amendments. These questions are decided in the general elections, not the primaries, and voters outside the Democratic four percent get to play. Consider the last three important county-level questions.

The Ficker Amendment, 2008

Former basketball heckler and perennial right-wing candidate Robin Ficker placed a charter amendment on the ballot that required all nine County Council Members to approve any property tax increase that would exceed the rate of inflation. Similar amendments had failed in the past. The County Executive, the entire County Council and a large progressive coalition spearheaded by labor opposed it. But the same general electorate that gave 72% of its vote to Barack Obama for President also approved the Ficker Amendment by a 51-49 margin.

The Ambulance Fee, 2010

The ambulance fee, which was intended to be paid by insurance companies to supplement the county’s Fire and Rescue budget, was a top priority of the County Executive and the county employee unions and it was passed by the Democratic County Council. It was opposed by the Volunteer Fire Fighters, Council Member Phil Andrews and the Republican Party and was petitioned to the ballot. The reasons for opposition differed; the volunteers worried that the fee would deter people in need from calling ambulances, while others simply opposed a new government fee. The Executive and the unions campaigned hard to pass it. The general electorate rejected the fee by a 54-46 margin.

Police Effects Bargaining, 2012

The politics of this one were a bit murky. The Democratic County Council unanimously passed a bill repealing the right of the police union to bargain over the effects of management decisions and the Executive supported it. Both the Democratic and Republican parties also supported the legislation. But labor vehemently opposed it and responded by picketing county Democratic Party events and eventually taking over part of its Central Committee. This was a big test for labor’s power in the county and the police union and its allies went all out to defeat the legislation. The general electorate upheld it by a 58-42 margin.

In every case, when general election voters were asked to weigh in, they chose what was arguably the less progressive position. And in every case, they went against the position of the county government employee unions.

The county is not a monolith. It’s a big jurisdiction with more than a million people and its various sub-components have different political leanings. For example, Takoma Park is famous for its liberalism, but Damascus leans towards the GOP. I totaled up the precinct results of all three ballot questions for each city and town in the county to determine which ones went for the more progressive positions (no on the Ficker Amendment and the police legislation, yes on the ambulance fee) and which ones did not. Here are the results.

Ballot Voting

Not a single part of the county adopted the more progressive position all three times. Only two areas – Cabin John and Takoma Park – sided with the more progressive position twice (opposing the Ficker Amendment and supporting the ambulance fee). Ten areas – Burtonsville, Darnestown, Derwood, Dickerson, Gaithersburg, Laytonsville, Montgomery Village, North Potomac, Olney and Sandy Spring – voted against the progressive position all three times. The referendum on effects bargaining was influenced by the fact that many police officers live in Upcounty areas like Clarksburg, Damascus, Germantown and Poolesville. Many presumably liberal areas in Downcounty favored reducing the bargaining rights of the police union. Bethesda, Cabin John, Chevy Chase, Leisure World and Potomac went against labor by two-to-one or more. Even Takoma Park voted against labor by 58-42%. Here’s an interesting fact: in these three instances, the only time the general electorate agreed with the Democratic County Executive and a majority of the Democratic County Council was when they wanted to reduce public employee bargaining rights. Is that truly a liberal voter base?

So the politics of county voters are considerably more diverse than their progressive elected leaders. What does that mean? It’s highly unlikely that the Democrats will be removed from power. The county’s Republicans are too weak, too underfunded and in many instances too conservative to pick up more than a seat or two (if that). And there is no other organized political movement to take on the Democrats. The real danger is that the business community, conservatives and single-issue groups will seize the voter tools available to them – charter amendments and ballot questions – and begin overturning progressive legislation and limiting the authority of county government on a strategic basis. Given the past history of the general electorate and depending on the issue, they just might succeed.

Share
Montgomery County

Gloom from Floreen and Leventhal

Though Montgomery County Councilmembers George Leventhal and Nancy Floreen voted for the County’s bus-rapid transit (BRT) plan, both poured lots of cold water on the idea at a transit symposium at White Flint recently. In the process, both made statements that would likely surprise County voters regarding future taxes and spending.

Annual Purple Line Operation Payment?

Councilmember Nancy Floreen mentioned that that Montgomery County might have to make an annual payment toward the operational costs of the Purple Line. This ongoing cost would be in addition to the millions that the County has pledged to the light rail line’s construction. News to me, and suspect others, who expected the State to cover these costs.

Taxes Headed Up

Councilmember George Leventhal said that County Executive Ike Leggett would propose a “massive” tax increase in the forthcoming year just to meet current commitments in the context of explaining why he believes that the BRT system is not affordable.

Leventhal Makes Anti-Purple Line Arguments

Weirdly, George then went on to make a string of arguments frequently used against the Purple Line . . . but against bus-rapid transit. The concern about cost was particularly bizarre as BRT is far cheaper than light rail.

George also explained that we could not be sure that the hoped for development would come if we built BRT. Though the Purple Line entails much greater financial risk, George has brushed aside concerns regarding his favored project.

Perhaps most oddly, George argued the incompetence surrounding the Silver Spring Transit Center meant that people would not trust the County to build and operate BRT. Additionally, he explained that all of the trees that would be torn down and construction associated with the Purple Line would further turn people against transit.

Not exactly a vote of confidence in the County’s government and strange since BRT entails much less risk for more gain than the Purple Line. Why did George or Nancy vote for the plan that they now are now publicly undermining in the first place?

Share
Montgomery County

From the Department of Liquor Control (DLC) Commissioned Report on the DLC

The Department of Liquor Control commissioned an outside report on their business. Here is some of what they found:

People are Shopping Elsewhere

In polite language, the report explains that sales in Montgomery County are below those expected for a wealthy, educated area with a tolerant attitude toward alcohol (pp. 14-16):

Overall, liquor sales in Maryland are below the benchmarked average. . . . Besides tourists and other travelers who purchase in Washington DC, for reasons of convenience or price, Montgomery County liquor customers may also purchase their alcohol in the District of Columbia rather than the County. It is hoped that this may offer an opportunity to the DLC to recapture some business without increasing consumption.

“Recapture some business” is a nice way to say people are buying alcohol in DC or Virginia rather than Montgomery. No wonder when prices are so much lower there. How the DLC plans to recapture business without price reductions so they are competitive remains a mystery to me. It also illustrates the tension–to put it mildly–between the DLC’s desire to make a profit and “control” the use of alcohol.

High Costs, Low Profit

Comparatively, the DLC has high operating expenses among benchmarked control jurisdictions. . . . Relative to other control states, the DLC has low gross profit margins.

Why is Montgomery County in this business?

 

Share
alcohol, MCGEO, Montgomery County

Adam Replies to Gino on Liquor Control, Part III

Guest Blogger Adam Pagnucco replies to MCGEO’s Gino Renne

My reply to MCGEO President Gino Renne’s response to my post on the county’s Department of Liquor Control (DLC) concludes.

  1. The union says that if DLC were eliminated, union jobs would be replaced by non-union jobs.

MCGEO: “Mr. Pagnucco claims that privatization would not result in the loss of high paying union jobs. This is his most egregious of claims, especially for a former union employee. Where’s the evidence that ‘many private wholesalers’ are represented by IBT? Or even evidence that union membership will not suffer a net loss? Mr. Pagnucco needs to explain himself on this one.”

I’m happy to do so. As MCGEO states, I am a former union employee. I spent sixteen years working as a strategic researcher on organizing campaigns in the building trades. When President Renne writes, “It’s extremely difficult to organize a union in your workplace these days,” he’s absolutely correct. I have seen the extreme tactics that some employers use to keep their workers from unionizing. If I thought that the only alternative to DLC was a group of exclusively non-union employers, I would have misgivings about that.

Fortunately, that is not the case here. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters has been organizing beverage manufacturers and distributors for more than a century and has a Brewery and Soft Drink Conference to represent their workers. The union is also active in our local area. Washington Wholesale LLC, a distributor in D.C., is organized by Teamsters Local 639. Republic National Distributing Company, the second-largest distributor in the nation, is organized in Maryland by Teamsters Local 355. Reliable Churchill LLLP, the largest distributor in Maryland, is organized by Teamsters Local 570. If DLC loses market share to the private sector, it’s likely that unionized firms like these will pick up at least part of it.

This is deeply troubling to President Renne because non-union workers and Teamsters members have one thing in common: neither group pays dues to MCGEO. And that’s the real issue here.

So here’s a question for President Renne: what would happen if private distributors were allowed to compete with DLC? Restaurants and retailers who are happy with DLC could stay with them. Those who are unhappy could buy from the private sector. If DLC has lower prices as MCGEO claims and if their customer service is improving, they should hold on to most of their market share. If not, why should they be protected by a state-mandated monopoly? What do you say, President Renne? Can your members compete with the Teamsters?

  1. The union defends the County Council’s proposed “do-nothing fee” for DLC.

MCGEO: “The ‘fee’ Mr. Pagnucco complains about is paid by the distributor to allow for its participation in the Montgomery County market. Its structure has not yet been determined, just that there will be a fee.”

A quick briefer on the do-nothing fee. DLC has many commonly consumed beverages in its regular stock, but it often has trouble filling orders for specialty items it does not usually carry. These are known as special orders. Here’s a typical complaint:

Mike Hill, general manager of Adega Wine Cellars & Café in Silver Spring, said they have problems getting specialty wines and craft beer.

“If we like a beer or wine and we want to bring that into our store, the turnaround time can be eight days if we’re lucky or two to three months to not at all in some cases,” Hill said.

The County Council has recommended that restaurants and retailers be allowed to go directly to private distributors for special orders, but there are two big caveats. First, DLC determines what is in its regular stock and what is a special order. Second, the council wants to allow DLC to collect a fee on any direct sale by a distributor to “replace DLC estimated revenue lost by allowing the sale of special order beer and wines by private wholesalers.”

DLC loves this because it will get paid without having to do any work. Distributors aren’t so crazy about it. They would have to incur the costs of direct delivery to customers (of shipments that in some cases would be very small) and pay the extra fee on top to DLC because… well, the county just wants the money. Multiple distributors predicted in a hearing before the council that the economics would prevent them from participating in such a “reform.”

But the attitude behind the do-nothing fee is itself even worse. Whoever came up with this idea must believe that our county is soooooo much better than all of our neighbors that we can get away with imposing ridiculous impediments to doing business that no one else in our area would dare to do. Well guess what, folks? Residents and businesses have options. MoCo is a great place to live, shop and work, but so are the District, Frederick, Howard, Northern Virginia and most places near here. If you put enough measures in place to punish employers and consumers, they can and will go elsewhere. That’s the problem with the do-nothing fee and, indeed, DLC itself.

Comptroller Peter Franchot, the state’s top enforcer of alcohol laws and a MoCo resident, says of DLC, “Montgomery County is the last bastion of a medieval state system where the county, if you can believe it, sells all the spirits, alcohol, and we’re not just talking retail, we’re talking wholesale… This is a system that is incredibly slanted against the consumer and the ordinary citizen.”

He’s right. Why are we putting up with this? No one else in the Washington metro area has to deal with anything like this. We are the only ones.

It’s time for a revolt. It’s time to End the Monopoly.

Share
alcohol, MCGEO, Montgomery County

Adam Replies to Gino on Liquor Control, Part II

Guest Blogger Adam Pagnucco replies to MCGEO’s Gino Renne

My reply to MCGEO President Gino Renne’s response to my post on the county’s Department of Liquor Control (DLC) continues.

  1. The union claims that state monopolies on alcohol sales enhance public safety.

MCGEO: “Dr. Roland Zullo, a research scientist at the University of Michigan, examined the impact of state ownership of retail alcohol distribution on 23 different crimes grouped in six categories. Dr. Zullo finds that state control of retail alcohol distribution is associated with statistically significant reductions in crimes that have been linked to alcohol consumption, including domestic abuse, assault, and fraud. Control states also had lower rates for vehicle theft and vandalism (using a slightly lower threshold for statistical significance, the 10% rather than the 5% level).”

Guess what? This “research” was financed in part by DLC. That’s right, the study MCGEO is citing is an unpublished, non-peer-reviewed working paper paid for by the National Alcohol Beverage Control Association (NABCA), a trade group of government alcohol merchants. George Griffin, DLC’s Executive Director, is a former President of NABCA and a current member of its board. The organization’s budget is partially financed by dues payments from its members, one of whom is DLC. NABCA is fighting efforts to end government alcohol monopolies and was greatly dismayed when Washington state voters got rid of their state monopoly in 2011. So NABCA paid for the working paper cited by MCGEO and it was completed a year and a half later.

For what it’s worth, the study found no statistically significant relationship between state control of alcohol sales and crime for 20 of the 23 measures it examined. Maybe NABCA needs to pay for a better study!

  1. The union opposes blogging(!)

Maybe this is beside the point, but it is too hilarious for me to resist.

MCGEO: “This [County Council DLC] resolution came after months of hearings, testimony and input from stakeholders. If you don’t like the way the process was playing out, Mr. Pagnucco, why didn’t you participate in it? Why are you using your friend’s blog to post your opinion without allowing for public input or participating in the public forum?”

So MCGEO regards blogging as an illegitimate way to participate in public discussions. Who knew? I have a long history of writing in favor of MCGEO’s positions and they have never before uttered a peep of protest. To the contrary; they republished two of my blogs on their website and used another on a handout. Their former Executive Director once asked me to write a piece supporting legislation the union wanted that would have allowed library workers to unionize, and since I favored the bill, I did. But in the one instance when I have publicly disagreed with them, I am told to cease my annoying prattling!

Do you think that MCGEO will resume its recognition of the value of blogging once I start agreeing with them again?

I will finish up tomorrow.

Share
MCGEO, Montgomery County

Adam’s Reply to Gino on Liquor Control, Part I

Guest Blogger Adam Pagnucco replies to MCGEO’s Gino Renne

Last week, MCGEO President Gino Renne, leader of the local union that represents most Montgomery County employees, responded to my post on the county’s Department of Liquor Control (DLC). President Renne has led MCGEO for more than twenty years and is an aggressive advocate for his members. I appreciate his taking the time to talk about DLC on Seventh State.

A few of his statements deserve examination. Let’s start with the one that is arguably most important to county consumers.

  1. The union claims DLC, an extra middle-man with an extra mark-up, actually has lower prices than our neighbors.

MCGEO: “Across all categories except special order beer, costs are 2-10 percent cheaper than neighboring jurisdictions.”

David Lublin put this argument to shame through his price comparison of DLC and Total Wine, which refuses to open a store in MoCo. Now let’s be fair: Total Wine not only blows away DLC, they beat almost everyone on price. How do they do it? The company explains:

We are committed to having the best wine selection with an emphasis on fine wines. This differentiates us from many retailers in the United States who specialize in one geographic area or price category. Our typical store carries more than 8,000 different wines from every wine-producing region in the world.

In addition to a world-class selection of fine wines, the typical Total Wine & More also carries more than 2,500 beers, from America‘s most popular beers to hard-to-find microbrews and imports, and more than 3,000 different spirits from every price range and category.

Total Wine & More is committed to having the lowest prices on wine, spirits and beer every day. Our tremendous buying power and special relationships with producers, importers, and wholesalers offers us considerable savings, which we pass on to our customers.

This business model is very difficult to implement with an extra middle-man interfering with the supply chain, especially one like DLC that is notorious for botching orders of specialty beer and wine. And so Total Wine will not open a store here even though its headquarters is in MoCo and its founders live here. MoCo customers are forced to drive long distances to access the company’s selection and low prices, and they do. Total Wine estimates that MoCo residents account for more than 20% of sales at its McLean, Virginia store and almost 25% of sales at its Laurel store.

But let’s set aside Total Wine for a moment and examine MCGEO’s assertion further. If DLC offers lower prices as they contend, that would be great news. Non-residents would be flocking into MoCo to get deals. We might even expect a proliferation of MoCo stores close to the county’s borders ready to lure non-residents in.

In fact, the opposite is true. There at least seven D.C. liquor stores within four blocks of the MoCo border. See the map below. The one DLC store near the border is in Friendship Heights and it is the only DLC store that is losing money. How is it possible for DLC to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars a year by selling alcohol to rich people? Perhaps one reason is that the District’s Paul’s Wine and Spirits is just three blocks away.

DC liquor stores

Alcohol sales data collected by the Maryland Comptroller’s office suggests substantial flight of customers away from MoCo. Both the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Gallup find positive correlations between alcohol consumption and education level, while Gallup finds an additional correlation with high incomes. Since MoCo is one of the highest-income and most-educated counties in the state, it should be a mecca for alcohol sales. But that is far from the truth. In terms of per capita sales deliveries to retail licensees inside each county, MoCo ranks 13th of 24 jurisdictions in wine, tied for 23rd in spirits and dead last (by far) in beer. Among the counties out-ranking MoCo in per capita wine sales are Calvert, Carroll, Cecil, Garrett, Harford and Kent, all mostly rural jurisdictions with far less disposable income than MoCo. Comptroller Peter Franchot, the principal enforcer of state alcohol laws and himself a MoCo resident, says of DLC, “Most people in Montgomery County go to Prince George’s, the District or Virginia to buy their alcohol because it’s such a disgrace.”

I will have more tomorrow.

 

Share
Department of Liquor Control, Montgomery County

Franchot: DLC is “a Mecca of Anti-Consumerism”

Comptroller Peter Franchot on Montgomery County’s monopoly over retail and wholesale sales of alcohol in the Country:

Montgomery County is the last bastion of a medieval state system.

This is a system that is incredibly slanted against the consumer and the ordinary citizen.

Most people in Montgomery County go to Prince George’s County, or the District or to Virginia to buy their alcohol because it’s such a disgrace.

And these are some of the nicer things he has to say.

Share
Montgomery County

MCGEO’s Ridiculous Claim that the Department of Liquor Control Saves Consumers Money

Yesterday, I published a reply by MCGEO’s Gino Renne to Adam Pagnucco’s guest blog on Montgomery’s Liquor Control Regime. In his reply, Renne attacks Pagnucco’s claim that the Department of Liquor Control (DLC) raises prices:

In his first false claim, Mr. Pagnucco claims that DLC’s operations increase costs for the consumer. Across all categories except special order beer, costs are 2-10 percent cheaper than neighboring jurisdictions.

This claim struck me as incredible, so I decided to do a sampling of wine prices at a Montgomery County Liquor Store and Total Wine in McLean, Virginia. I focused on comparatively affordable wines and picked out some first at the DLC store and others from Total Wine, and did not know the price of the wine at the other store when I selected it (i.e. no cherry picking).

The results are presented in the following table:

wine

Among the 26 wines, DLC doesn’t carry seven–I checked with the cashier who searched the computer. Only one wine was cheaper at the DLC store and another at the same price, and these two bottles were on sale.

Looking only at the 12 wines currently offered at a discount at Montgomery DLC stores revealed that even their sales tend to be lousy deals. The discounted prices on these wines were an average of 21.9% higher than at Total Wine. When this same set of wines is not on sale, the difference rises to 44.0%.

Examining the larger basket of 19 wines available at both stores shows that regular prices in DLC stores average 36.4% higher that at Total Wine across the river. Put another way, it would cost you an extra $89.04 (plus tax) to buy them in Maryland.

If Gino Renne begins his argument for maintaining the status quo with an obvious, easily disproved falsehood, why should anyone believe anything else he or MCGEO has to say on the subject?

Here is the real capper: Total Wine has its headquarters in Montgomery County but it cannot open one of its (nicer than DLC) stores and offer the same prices here. If you want to know why, look no further than MCGEO and the County Council.

Share
Montgomery County

MCGEO Responds to Pagnucco on Montgomery’s Liquor Control Regime

Gino Renne, President of UFCW Local 1994 MCGEO, Responds to Seventh State’s Guest Blogger Adam Pagnucco on Privatization of Montgomery County’s Department of Liquor Control:

Mr. Pagnucco opens his blog by stating that, “Few issues in county government have received more attention over the past two years than the operations of its Department of Liquor Control (DLC).” What a distraction! There are a lot of issues in Montgomery County’s Government that have received attention over the past two years, only one of which, the privatization of the DLC, seems to be receiving a lot of attention from the privileged elite in the County. Most of the County’s residents see far more pressing issues – the funding of the Purple Line, improving other parts of the County’s transportation infrastructure, increasing affordability of housing, and generally serving the needs of our county’s less-than-privileged with better wages, better economic opportunities and better public services. But since Mr. Pagnucco seems to think that we need to privatize DLC and claims that there are a bunch of “myths” surrounding DLC privatization, and he is using a one-sided platform to promote privatization rather than attend the Ad Hoc committees numerous public hearings and meetings, we’ll bite.

In his first false claim, Mr. Pagnucco claims that DLC’s operations increase costs for the consumer. Across all categories except special order beer, costs are 2-10 percent cheaper than neighboring jurisdictions. Many of the smaller retailers are against privatization primarily for the reason that DLC levels the playing field and keeps costs even.

Myth 1: Mr. Pagnucco claims that the County does not need DLC’s net income to function.

Actually, it does. Montgomery County, MD will owe $165,534,675 from 2015-2034 in debt service of revenue bonds that are currently paid through the revenues generated by the Montgomery County DLC. Additionally, the OLO report states that DLC has generated an average of $25.7 mill per year over past decade. That figure is nearly the entire Recreation Department or Library budget. Not chump change. The OLO report acknowledges potential lost revenue that will need to be made up through various fees, auctioning of licenses or a dedicated sales tax. However, the OLO report factors in no additional costs that would occur under a transition from county control to private enterprise. There would be leases to be paid, buyouts for early retirement, increased costs for enforcement and public health issues, etc.

While it’s easy to agree that the County will find a way to adjust, why should it? It has a guaranteed source of revenue that you propose the County throw away to make it easier for consumers to buy when there’s also no guarantee that consumption would increase. In Washington State, after privatization, sales only increased by 6% in its first year, while the next year data shows no increase. In addition, with increased prices, many consumers near the Oregon border are visiting liquor stores there to bypass the price increases. If privatization here were to follow the trends in Washington State, we’d definitely lose revenue to our neighboring jurisdictions.

Pennsylvania’s public liquor stores, which just beat back efforts to privatize, have reported a record boost in sales that are said to be due to improvements and modernization. A liquor board member said that people living in a border area are returning to shop in Pennsylvania stores because of the improvements.

A better solution is to keep the current public model in place with its fair prices and guaranteed revenue while expanding DLC stores. The resolution passed by the Council last week allows for this solution.

In Myth 2, Mr. Pagnucco claims that DLC monopoly isn’t needed for public safety, quoting decreased DUI and drunk driving arrests in newly privatized Washington State as evidence.

An official with an ALEC-connected think tank in Washington notes that this claim doesn’t really hold water. “Privatization didn’t improve the numbers necessarily but it didn’t make it any worse either.” A Washington state police spokesman adds, “I don’t think you can draw a correlation that because of private sales now we have fewer alcohol related arrests. The number of arrests is much more directly connected to the number of police officers out there actually patrolling.” The state police official notes that there are 80 fewer state troopers than previously, which has led to the decline in arrests. Couple that with legalization of marijuana in that same time period, one can draw the conclusion that arrests could have just as easily declined due to substitution of one drug of choice for another.

Tori Cooke, president of the Montgomery County FOP, testified that privatization would create public health and safety issues that are not easily addressed. And he and his fellow officers are against any efforts to privatize.

Dr. Roland Zullo, a research scientist at the University of Michigan, examined the impact of state ownership of retail alcohol distribution on 23 different crimes grouped in six categories. Dr. Zullo finds that state control of retail alcohol distribution is associated with statistically significant reductions in crimes that have been linked to alcohol consumption, including domestic abuse, assault, and fraud. Control states also had lower rates for vehicle theft and vandalism (using a slightly lower threshold for statistical significance, the 10% rather than the 5% level).

In Myth 3, Mr. Pagnucco claims that privatization would not result in the loss of high paying union jobs.

This is his most egregious of claims, especially for a former union employee. Where’s the evidence that “many private wholesalers” are represented by IBT? Or even evidence that union membership will not suffer a net loss? Mr. Pagnucco needs to explain himself on this one. I don’t know how he sees that transition occurring.

These are our members; it’s our job to protect them and to protect unions in general. It’s a public policy issue. There are societal costs. How much is it going to cost to put these people on the streets? Where are the high paying jobs that are family supporting and middle class sustaining going to come from for these 400 employees? I doubt we’ll see them at the mom and pop shops that could pop up if privatization were to occur. It’s extremely difficult to organize a union in your workplace these days. Although the NLRB is trying to speed up the process, the length of time from a certification election to a first contract can still take years. Union busters find many successful ways to stop a union campaign, as Mr. Pagnucco well knows.

DLC is able to provide good jobs with benefits while generating tens of millions to county coffers. Meanwhile, privatization will create minimum wage liquor clerk, warehouse and delivery jobs with little-to-no benefits that will exacerbate our economic inequality in this county. Sure, privatization could create union organizing opportunities, but no way it would create net gains in union membership.

In Myth 4, Mr. Pagnucco claims that the DLC is not getting better.

First and foremost, the fraud, waste and abuse in the private liquor industry is as rampant as it is in the public sector, if not more. But, because it’s private industry, it isn’t enforced or prosecuted very often or as publicly. In 2006, eight wholesalers in New York were ordered to pay $1.6 million in fines and costs for a “pay to play” scheme that favored larger retailers and provided discounts and inducements to those willing to pay. Meanwhile, smaller licensees were forced to cope. Under DLC’s structure, small licensees are given the same treatment as larger purchasers. With oversight, the DLC is forced to answer for its practices and it does. Private industry will not be given the same oversight.

Secondly, the DLC was hamstrung by technology purchases that were inappropriate for its needs and a hiring freeze, forcing customer service to suffer. Both of these were county mandates, not DLC-specific. It’s now been given the go ahead to hire and has made significant strides on that front. The ordering system is getting its revamp as well.

Yes, we agree that the system needs to be more nimble – it shouldn’t be forced to follow county-imposed hiring freezes and should be allowed to buy technology that specifically fits its needs, especially since it is a self-funded department.

In Myth 5, Mr. Pagnucco claims that the resolution to allow private wholesalers to fulfill sales of special order items is not “historic reform.”

We agree, it’s not “historic.” That’s hyperbole used for political purposes but it is a significant change for the department. Part of the change should make the DLC more nimble and part of the change should allow for expansion of the DLC’s store base. The “fee” Mr. Pagnucco complains about is paid by the distributor to allow for its participation in the Montgomery County market. Its structure has not yet been determined, just that there will be a fee.

Comparing the County DLC to the USSR’s failed perestroika? Really? I hope all readers realized that this is an absolutely absurd comparison. This resolution came after months of hearings, testimony and input from stakeholders. If you don’t like the way the process was playing out, Mr. Pagnucco, why didn’t you participate in it? Why are you using your friend’s blog to post your opinion without allowing for public input or participating in the public forum?

Again, I will emphasize there are much larger issues facing Montgomery County residents than from whom they can buy their liquor or wine. You need to respect the process and move on from this DLC issue and tackle our real problems.

Share