Liquor Board Lies …
… and the Daily Times prints them all.
Greg Latshaw should be ashamed. Unlike his cohort Laura D’Alessandro, he isn’t new. He’s a guy, so he shouldn’t cry either. Why then did he write an article in Sunday’s Daily Times that appears to parrot the lies told by WCLCB chair Stewart Haemel? More importantly, why doesn’t he do a little more research?
Haemel fesses up to “pamphlets, mailers and … a web site”. What about full page ads in the Daily Times and Metropolitan magazine? I’d even give Latshaw a free pass on the Daily Times ads. We know that they can use the revenue.
Latshaw quotes Haemel:
“We’re equally concerned that the public knows exactly where we are at and what we’re doing,” he said.
No Greg, Haemel is concerned about feeding the public propaganda about the WCLCB. The Haemel / Alessi branch of Goebbels, Inc. keeps telling us that the county will lose over $400,000 per year. Not only is this not true, the WCLCB has not delivered $400,000+ to the Wicomico taxpayer since 2003.
Referring to printing pamphlets -
Haemel said his printing company, Papco in Salisbury, did not make the pamphlets.
Well what exactly did he print? Since Latshaw has the same list of expenditures that I do, he knows that Papco has been paid for something.
He defended his liquor board’s right to combat misinformation that has been circulating about its operations. For one, the liquor control board has made efforts to comply with information the council requests, he said.
What misinformation Stewart? All of the misinformation is coming from the WCLCB. Those of us who oppose the government competing against private enterprise (or in this case, supplanting it) don’t need to spin our story. Almost daily you and your dirty little guild supply us with ample evidence that the WCLCB is a corrupt dinosaur that needs to be euthanized.
A favorite - Haemel’s assertion that the WCLCB has made efforts to comply with the County Council’s request for information. Unless you consider wasting taxpayer money by getting the WCLCB’s lawyer to fight those requests I think Stew told another whopper.
This is where Latshaw really reaches ebb. To the best of my knowledge he has copies of the same documents that I do. I also believe that he even wrote a previous piece on the fact that WCLCB attorney Vic Laws was stonewalling the council. County Attorney Ed Baker had to threaten these guys with court action! THAT’s COOPERATION - the Haemel / Alessi way!
Of course, Latshaw could have redeemed himself if he had just expounded on the last line. Referring to $13,000 in legal expenses, Haemel states:
“It’s coming out of the taxpayer’s pocket.”
That’s right Stew! Therefore, when you spend money on non-operating expenses such as handing out donations to social clubs, buying political ads, or printing propaganda “it’s coming out of the taxpayers’ pocket.”
Gee Stewart, does that qualify you and your gang as liars, thieves … OR BOTH?
Sphere: Related ContentIf you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Which dispensary do you work at? I happen to know that she did buy the beer at the dispensary because I’ve seen the receipts. Or do you think Stevie bought a cash register and had it programmed three separate times to print fake receipts from THREE SEPARATE dispensaries?
That said, what lies are you CLAIMING the council is telling? If I thought they were lying about something I would most probably point it out.
What is most disturbing is your belief that it’s OK for Haemel, Alessi, etc. to lie because you claim that Stevie Prettyman isn’t telling the truth.
three separate dispensaries? At the council meeting, she said she bought all the beer at one store. I know that store didn’t sell beer she claimed to buy. Now she has 3 receipts from three stores. So her story changed.
And the council is putting out misinformation about their role and jurisdiction in the process.
And no I don’t think it’s ok for any of them to lie. Sorry I wasn’t clear enough - she didn’t buy that beer at the dispensary she claimed at the council meeting.
Funny how I said all this months ago, and it took this long for the receipts to come out. Again plural, receipts.
There is just too much crap flowing around there - and I’m not talking about the sewer situation.
Let’s forgo the receipts for a moment and start with jurisdiction. When did the County Council ever claim jurisdiction over the WCLCB? They never did. Mrs. Prettyman claimed that the WCLCB violated an agreement they had with the county. They did. They questioned portions of the dispensary’s audit. That is their right and responsibility (why else would the law require that the dispensary present their audit to council).
Prettyman wants to put a referendum on the ballot. That’s not exercising jurisdiction, that’s introducing legislation. What do you think her job is?
As for how many stores the beer was purchased at, read the newspaper. You claim that Prettyman said that she bought the beer at only one store. The newspaper reports that she said that she bought the beer from all three stores.
PLEASE - make a real argument. Bring some evidence. Just call me names. Don’t do this again because it makes you look unbelievably foolish.
I went back and read the articles and I was wrong. she did buy beer at all three stores. I was told the day after that meeting that one of those stores didn’t sell one of those brands. So I asked to see a receipt. Months later, apparently you have. I still say she was grandstanding.
This is the only thing this council can jump on and “fix” that they haven’t had their hands in. They just had their pants pulled down over the half a mil in fuel stolen from the landfill, so this is what their gonna go over with a fine toothed comb. So be it.
As for the agreement between the council and the WCLCB, it was a previous council, a previous WCLCB, and in relation to / in favor of one convenience store owner, who stopped operating years ago. The state charter specifically calls for the WCLCB to establish a monopoly on the sales of liquor, wine, and warm and cold beer. If she doesn’t like this, she needs to go to the state legislature and have them change the law.
And I don’t think the state or the county should be in the liquor business, or any other business, for that matter. I just disagree with how it’s being handled. Too much grandstanding, and innuendo. Could the council’s own budget handle this scrutiny?
considering that all this started with stevie prettyman’s lie ( she didn’t buy that beer at a dispensary) i guess its just tit for tat. The council has been lying from the start and the people like you who agree with them won’t call them on it. If you were being fair from the very beginning, stevie would have been called a liar too. Guess it’s only a lie when it’s someone you disagree with huh…