First, Costco, the giant wholesaler, has pushed Initiative 1183 to the Nov. 8, general election ballot which would privatize the sale and distribution of spirits, stripping the Liquor Control Board of its monopoly.
Now, before that issue is even decided, two bidders have stepped forward with proposals to take over the state’s system for warehousing and distributing spirts.
We have previously editorialized against I-1183 on the grounds that it’s bad for public safety and, through a giant loophole in the initiative, could lead to the sale of hard liquor through minimarts and convenience stores which have a horrible record of selling beer and wine to minors.
In the wake of last year’s defeat of two liquor privatization initiatives, including one by Costco, state lawmakers were asked to take a first bite of the apple – privatizing just the distribution portion of the state monopoly.
The goal was to make an immediate profit at a time when state lawmakers were struggling to balance the two-year operating budget.
Quite frankly, we were surprised that a bill passed the Legislature and was signed into law by Gov. Chris Gregoire. We saw it as a desperate attempt by cash-starved lawmakers to infuse several hundred million dollars into state coffers so they could save education and social service programs.
But at what cost? How much future revenue was the state willing to give up for the immediate, short-term gain? We urged lawmakers to proceed slowly.
They did.
The legislation asked bidders to step forward with proposals by Sept. 30 to lease the state’s liquor warehouse. It’s up to the governor’s budget office to determine which, if either bid, to accept.
Budget Director Marty Brown and his staff should put off any decision until after the Nov. 8, general election because their work would be moot if the poorly crafted Initiative 1183 is approved by voters.
One of the bidders is known as the Washington Beverage Co. Led by Tacoma business consultant Tom Luce and also involving New England liquor distributors and a New York private equity firm, the group successfully lobbied state lawmakers to put the distribution system out to bid.
The other calls itself Washington State Beverage Logistics LLC, but it’s not clear who is behind the proposal. Limited liability companies must register with the Secretary of State’s Office, which said it has no record of such a company.
What we don’t like is the fact that bidding documents aren’t available for public inspection. Budget director Brown promised bidders their applications would not be made public until a contract is signed. By then, the horse would be out of the barn.
Instead of letting the public see the competing bids, a committee made up of four lawmakers and State Treasurer Jim McIntire will review them. They, and their staff members, must sign confidentiality agreements to keep their work secret.
We have great disdain for the public’s work being done in private.
“We don’t want to do anything that would affect that initiative,” said Rep. Cary Condotta, an East Wenatchee Republican. He worries that even announcing a recommended winning bidder Nov. 2, six days before the election, could confuse voters. That’s the schedule, unless the budget office decides no one meets the qualifications.
We suspect the announcement of the winning bidder prior to the election would baffle voters. There would be insufficient time for voters to weigh the pros and cons of the partial privatization effort (the distribution system) versus the full takeover of the liquor sale and distribution system as ordered in Initiative 1183.
The whole scenario is quite confusing. The initiative goes in one direction. The legislation points the state in a different direction and the decision on the winning bidder has the added concern of having the bids clouded in secrecy.
No one can blame voters for being befuddled.
