The LCB scandal: Charge 'em!
A state Ethics Commission report on three former top Liquor Control Board officials improperly accepting alcohol vendors' gifts bolsters arguments for getting Pennsylvania out of the wine and spirits business — and falls far short of true accountability.
The report found that by failing to disclose golf trips, dinners and high-end bottles accepted from alcohol vendors — clear conflicts of interest — former Marketing Director James H. Short Jr., former Chairman Patrick “P.J.” Stapleton III and former CEO Joe Conti violated Pennsylvania's ethics rules and Liquor Code. The commission ordered them to repay more than $23,000 combined and correct financial disclosure forms. But it didn't recommend criminal charges.
The commission agreed with this trio's lawyers to keep silent on that point — a decision that mocks its responsibility to refer such cases to prosecutors. Accountability demands that decision be investigated.
Accountability also demands that the three face criminal charges, which Dauphin County District Attorney Ed Marsico now must ensure. Facing her own conflict — her husband's firm holds a $12.4 million LCB contract — Attorney General Kathleen Kane turned the case over to him.
But ultimately, Pennsylvania must implement the real solution for such cluster-cluck cases. As the Commonwealth Foundation's Matthew Brouillette says, “The only way to end corruption and conflicts of interest at the PLCB is to get government completely out of the liquor business.”
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com 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.
- A manger’s light
- The regulatory state: EPA picks a fight
- Holiday Gift Club: The spirit of the season
- Ford City’s solution: Good side to cop cuts
- The Kane chronicles: Meaningless moves
- Picking winners & losers: Stop the idiocy
- Pension reform should not be linked to a natural gas extraction tax