PLCB members make case for state stores |

PLCB members make case for state stores

The Associated Press

HARRISBURG — The two members of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board on Monday made their case for preserving the more than 600 state stores that sell wine and liquor in Pennsylvania, even though one said he personally supports privatizing the sale of alcoholic beverages.

Appearing before the Senate Appropriations Committee, board Chairman Joseph “Skip” Brion and Robert Marcus described recent efforts to enhance customer convenience and expressed frustration over the Legislature’s reluctance to further expand sales.

More than 100 people, many wearing the familiar yellow T-shirts of the main state-store employee union, packed the hearing room in a show of support for the board and opposition to Gov. Tom Corbett’s privatization proposal.

With the number of supermarkets licensed to sell beer at nearly 160 and climbing because of court decisions allowing the practice under certain conditions, the agency is relocating state stores as their leases expire so drinkers don’t have to make separate trips to buy groceries, beer, wine and liquor, the board members said.

“We are trying to move as close to grocery stores and supermarkets as possible,” Brion said. “It’s a win-win for everyone.”

The men bemoaned the rejection in recent years of legislation to allow more stores to open on Sundays and stay open longer, and to permit Pennsylvanians to have wine shipped directly to their homes. They said the Sunday sales changes alone would boost the agency’s strong profits by $10 million to $15 million a year.

“It’s deja vu. Three years ago, we were here talking about most of those initiatives,” Marcus said. “As much as we make now, we could double that.”

The PLCB generates about $2 billion a year, most of which is plowed back into the operation for products, payroll, store leases and other overhead, Brion said. The rest is transferred to the state treasury in the form of taxes and profits, he said.

Brion, a West Chester lawyer appointed by Corbett, told the committee he supports the privatization push but understands that he is paid to run the PLCB system as long the law remains on the books.

“Philosophically, I don’t believe that government should be in a private business,” he told reporters after the hearing. “That doesn’t mean I don’t do my job as chairman to earn as much money as we possibly can for the citizens of the commonwealth and run very efficient stores.”

Marcus is a lawyer from Indiana County who was appointed by Democratic former Gov. Ed Rendell in 2007. Both Brion and Marcus are Republicans. The other seat on the board is vacant.

Marcus declined to take a public stand on privatization but said the issue has created problems for the thousands of agency employees.

“We have a morale issue, then you have people in this Legislature and in the governor’s office continually talking about getting rid of the jobs,” he told the committee.

Committee members appeared divided over the privatization issue.

Sen. Charles McIlhinney, who has said he is sponsoring a bill to keep the state stores open while allowing beer retailers to buy special licenses to sell wine and liquor, said the growing number of supermarkets selling beer shows the market is working properly.

“The private sector is finding a way” to sell beer, the Bucks County Republican said. The system “is evolving and it’s a successful system.”

But Sen. Jake Corman, the committee chairman, questioned the strategy of moving liquor stores closer to beer-selling supermarkets if it results in driving another beer seller out of business.

While it makes sense from the standpoint of consumer convenience, “you’re also using the power of government to run the little guy out of business,” said Corman, R-Centre.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.