Project RAD header
Volume 27: June 14, 2010
Walgreens Pushes Aside Community Concerns to Sell Alcohol
ATCThe general purposes of the Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission's work, as defined by law, are:
  • To protect the economic welfare, health, peace, and morals of the people of this state
  • To regulate and limit the manufacture, sale, possession, and use of alcohol and alcoholic beverages
  • To regulate the sale, possession, and distribution of tobacco products
  • To provide for the raising of revenue
On Monday, June 7, the Marion County Alcoholic Beverage Board succeeded in one of its promises defined by the law: "to provide for the raising of revenue." The benefactor: Illinois-based drugstore corporation Walgreens.
 
New alcohol permits for 18 Marion County Walgreens stores were granted by the board despite numerous concerns presented by the Marion County Alliance of Neighborhood Associations (MCANA) and Drug Free Marion County.
 
Nancy Beals, project coordinator for Drug Free Marion County, raised several objections including alcohol density, existing crime, location in proximity to schools, residences, and churches, and lack of available permits based on the state's current quota system. MCANA's Mary Walker cited similar issues for specific neighborhoods.
 
None appeared to be seriously considered by the board.
 
Project RAD has also learned through its public records requests that Bose McKinney, the law firm hired by Walgreens to secure alcohol permits across Indiana, also does FREE work for the state commission that approves all permits. At the same time, it is preparing alcohol permits for review in what appears to be one of the largest group filings for new permits filed by an out-of-state corporation.
 
The latest poll on our blog will ask if you believe that this is a conflict of interest.
 
All things considered, the review and public process for alcohol permits appears to be fatally flawed when it comes to citizen input. Here are some reasons why:
 
1. Citizens have no way of finding out when permits are rescheduled for action by the board.
 
The scheduling process of the hearing makes it nearly impossible for a citizen to be heard. The Marion County hearings were continued several times since March. Members of the community had no way of discovering the new dates unless an interested party contacted the assigned excise officer directly. In some instances, the excise officer referred callers to the Walgreens attorney for an updated list. In several instances, local media asked Project RAD for current lists, telling us that the commission's own public information officer could not provide the list.
 
2. The lengthy hearing process is not conducive to citizen involvement.
 
Citizens who showed up at the 9:30 a.m. meeting start time had to wait more than three hours before discussion of the 18 Walgreens permits began. Citizens have to take time off work to attend and engage in the process while corporate attorneys at an average hourly Indianapolis rate of $350 per hour are able to bill a corporate client with deep pockets. Citizens do not appear at local hearings with attorneys in most cases. This appears to put those remonstrators at a distinct disadvantage when they cannot afford legal representation. 
 
3. Documents submitted to the local board by those seeking permits receive preferential treatment.
 
The materials provided by the attorneys for Walgreens were not questioned by the board, but nearly every document submitted by remonstrators was scrutinized and dismissed. A written letter from the Cumberland Town Council President stating his opposition to the application of the 11025 East Washington permit was summarily rejected by Excise Officer Sandy Ray. Why? Because the letter did not indicate an official vote taken by the town council. Walgreens petitions were summarily accepted and not subject to questions or review.
 
So combative were some of the exchanges at Monday's hearing in Marion County that even the excise officer assigned to the board refuted a neighborhood advocate's measure of distance from a school and a church. In the end, he simply accepted his own measurements and dismissed hers, ending the discussion.
 
An attorney representing Walgreens also challenged comments from remonstrators. He derided the number of citizens at a meeting he previously attended for the corporation and sneered at the notion that it was representative of the community in any way.
 
Attorneys representing Walgreens were also allowed to interrogate and cross-examine remonstrators, an opportunity that was not afforded citizen remonstrators.
 
In all, we found this a heavy-handed meeting with a one-sided outcome.
 
In all, we found those who took their time to attend and raise issues of community concern were treated disrespectfully and dismissed by those appointed to a local government office to represent all sides and all interests.
 
It is doubtful that an elected council person representing these neighborhoods or a state legislator representing constituents would have been treated similarly. But none attended.

Walgreens is moving swiftly and decidedly to guarantee its Illinois-based corporation will be able to stock beer, wine, and potentially hard liquor on the shelves of more than 180 stores throughout the state, primarily in a move to remain competitive with CVS (already selling alcohol).
 
Walgreens attorneys also said Monday they are appealing a number of permit applications that were denied in Lake County. 
 
Click here to view the Alcoholic Beverage Board hearing on the city's website. The Walgreens portion of the hearing begins at 2:35:25.
Project RAD
www.ProjectRAD.com