Liquor Regulators Are Seeking Revenge on Bars That Broke Pandemic Rules
"The people who violated the governor's mandates and orders should face some consequences," a Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board member said in 2022.

During the height of the pandemic summer of 2020, the proprietors of the Burning Bridge Tavern worked with local officials in Wrightsville, Pennsylvania, to host a series of outdoor gatherings for the community.
For their trouble, the bar's owners got slapped with a series of citations by the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (PLCB), the government agency that oversees and manages the sale of alcohol in the state. The citations were ticky-tack offenses, according to Burning Bridge's chief financial officer, Mike Butler. Twice, the bar was cited for noise violations because they'd allowed a band playing at the gathering to plug into the tavern's electricity supply. Another offense occurred when the owners and some family members were drinking inside the tavern, which was closed to the public, during a period when indoor dining was prohibited.
A frustrating situation, but not the end of the world. Burning Bridge's owners paid the fines associated with the citations and assumed that was that. But then the bar had to renew its liquor license.
"They denied it. They said, 'Oh, you're the guys that got all those citations,'" Butler says. "It was a real gut punch."
Turns out, over the past two years the PLCB has pushed dozens of Pennsylvania establishments that racked up pandemic-related citations to sign "conditional licensing agreements" to renew their liquor permits. In some cases, those agreements have forced the sale of licenses—but in most cases, as with Burning Bridge, they've added additional conditions to the license that could prevent a future renewal from being approved.
While the PLCB cannot revoke existing licenses, the board is empowered to object to the renewal of a license or to demand the license can only be renewed conditionally. "In extreme cases," PLCB Press Secretary Shawn Kelly says, the PLCB can force the sale of a liquor license, though the board only pursues that option when "there is an operational and citation history that calls for such an agreement."
Even though Burning Bridge's owners weren't forced to sell their license, Butler says signing the conditional licensing agreement has come with real costs: The bar's insurance premium tripled as a result of being viewed as a greater risk.
Typically, those agreements have been used to curb nuisance bars or force establishments with a history of legal problems, like serving underage patrons, to clean up their acts. Recently, however, the PLCB has taken a hardline stance against establishments that violated pandemic-era rules.
"The people who violated the governor's mandates and orders should face some consequences," argued Mary Isenhour, one of the PLCB's three board members, at a January 2022 meeting where the first several of the COVID-related conditional licensing agreements were approved.
Isenhour was responding to an objection raised by a fellow board member, Michael Negra, who argued that the PLCB should take the view that businesses had "paid their dues" during the pandemic and should not face additional sanction now. Negra left the PLCB in June 2022 and now works for a Pittsburgh-based lobbying firm. He did not return requests for comment.
After Negra's departure, the PLCB has unanimously approved dozens of conditional licensing agreements for COVID-related violations, including at least 10 that have required the sale of a license, based on a review of PLCB meeting minutes.
Kelly, the PLCB spokesman, maintains that licensees are "under no obligation" to sign conditional licensing agreements.
But any licensee that refuses would face a set of unattractive alternatives: not having the license renewed, or being drawn into a legal battle against the PLCB in state court.
"Do you risk your entire business, your license, the loans, all of that to fight" in a real court, asks Butler. "Or do you just kind of hold your nose and take your medicine? Tactically, for us, we weren't in a position to say, 'Yeah, we'll run that risk.'"
Chuck Moran, executive director of the Pennsylvania Licensed Beverage and Tavern Association, acknowledges that pandemic-era public health orders left many establishments with a difficult choice between following the law and surviving financially. Fairly or unfairly, "those who broke the rules went the wrong way and now they're paying the price," he says.
The whole matter raises some complicated questions about how our political institutions ought to handle, with the benefit of hindsight, the unprecedented circumstances created by the pandemic and policy makers' response to it.
"The feeling was that our government really isn't working to try and help us," says Butler. "At this point, it feels like they're coming after us."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Wait, I thought we were supposed to have an amnesty for people who said wrong things or advocated incorrect stuff during the pandemic.
Seems like someone’s breaking the cease fire on this one.
Let me check the fine print...
Ahh here it is. "Amnesty only applies in cases where the wrong is the right king of wrong thereby being right. If you were wrong by being right (the wrong kind of wrong) you are still wrong and should rightly continue to be punished for your wrongs accordingly."
“Amnesty only applies in cases where the wrong is the right king of wrong thereby being right.
Freudian slip, but appropriate.
Excuse me for noticing, but this looks like action(s) of an offended petty bureaucrat. I'd be willing to place a small wager that Mary Isenhour is one of those angry liberal democrat white women (who can usually be easily identified by a certain tightness around their mouth, with their lips perpetually downturned (in almost a grimace) and tightly pressed together. (You've seen'em on TV). I also wager she was appointed by a Democrat executive.
While the most dangerous adversary one can face is a fully enraged male who perceives he has nothing left to lose, an offended petty bureaucrat (male or female) is a close second in the willingness to cause injury to the citizen who has committed "contempt of regulator".
All that is not specifically permitted, citizen, is forbidden and you have crossed the line! Perhaps they can hire Letitia James to litigate a ruinous fine for the bar owner, or confiscation/denial of renewal of the liquor license (with no appeal, of course).
I just got paid 7268 Dollars Working off my Laptop this month. And if you think that’s cool, My Divorced friend has twin toddlers and made 0ver $ 13892 her first m0nth. It feels so good making so much money when other people have to work for so much less.
This is what I do………> http://Www.Bizwork1.com
You win.
There should be no amnesty.
But the ones, who should face a reckoning are the ones, who got their totalitarian hard-on and closed down businesses, punished people for going out, forced masks on everyone, made kids miss more than a year of learning...I could go on.
If anything these bastards, wanting to punish those, who stood up for freedom, should shut their faces and cower in shame.
You are the ones deserving of retribution.
"The people who violated the governor's mandates and orders should face some consequences"
Isn't that what the citations were for? It sounds like you're just holding a petty grudge now.
Petty grudges are the entire raison d'etre of the petty bureaucrat. Exercising power simply because they can, not for the benefit of their constituents, not to be right.
"Do what I say or I will ruin you" and being wrong actually makes them MORE zealous, because in modern politics admitting you were wrong is considered weakness. So punish anyone who might defy you, and punish harder anyone who might be able to say you were wrong. Shuts 'em up right away.
Because fuck you, that's why.
That is exactly correct, sarcsmic.
Mark Twine (above) pretty much got it. It is contempt of petty regulator.
What? People are misusing the power of government to go after those who didn’t toe a political line? This is just shocking to me.
It's not even political. It's just punishment for failure to obey. Fail to obey the cops and they assault you. Fail to obey code enforcement and they withhold permits. Fail to obey the liquor board and they withhold licenses. What's the point in having power if you can't punish those who don't jump at your every whim?
I'm an officer of a small Social Club in Pennsylvania. We went through some of this when we had to renew our Club license. This isn't anything new. It's been going on for years. I had LCB cite us for not following their guidelines on our finances. When we went before the Master (they have their own Court system) and I was asked why I wasn't following the guidelines I handed him a copy of the guidelines and said that they haven't taken effect yet. It was May and the new rules took effect June 1st. Still got a $500 fine. Mark Twine is exactly right, they are ALL Democrats. We have a few elderly members who come in every day to play cards. That gives us a chance to make sure that they get a good meal in them and we have a few members who are nurses. They check on them while they are there. We've had more than one taken to the hospital because things were wrong. During COVID we shut down, but, a group would come in and use the kitchen to make care packages and we'd take them to them. Somebody called LCB on us for that. We were informed that we should get them registered with the Agency for Aging and they'd take care of them. I looked at the guy and said "Meals on Wheels?" He said yes and I told him that they shut down a month ago. Then I told him that the bar area is closed and locked up and I'd show him that we had NO alcohol on the premises. Then I told him to get lost. That's what led to the hassle on our renewal.
"The people who violated the governor's mandates and orders should face some consequences,"
Petty tyrants gotta petty tyrant.
Funny, I feel the same way about people who want to enforce fascist mandates and orders.
There should be consequences. Including having their heads shaved and being marched naked down the streets as collaborators. I’d start with the late night talk show hosts. Down to the grocery store customers who freaked out on you because you weren’t following the direction arrows on the floor…,
Interesting position. I'm thinking public hanging of "people who want to enforce fascist mandates and orders" ... at least those in government, would be a more effective deterrent.
At a minimum, THEY won't do it again. Anything less just gives them the chance to up the ante with more government force.
Tar and feathers were often used as a disincentive during Colonial and Revolutionary times.
"The feeling was that our government really isn't working to try and help us"
Was ya too drunk to notice before?
I hate these people.
Wonder what threats were aimed at the member who questioned the petty vengefulness of the board? He still works in the tourism/hospitality industry and is keeping a real low profile.
Prohibition is still with us. All this shit is remnants of a literally century old prohibition on alcohol.
Both (BOAF!) Democrats and Republicans are in favor of regulating alcohol distribution and sales. In fact, it's more likely that Republican run states will still have "dry" counties, but also more likely that Democrat run states will have "state" stores. It's all bullshit.
THERE SHOULD BE NO LAW AGAINST THE DISTRIBUTION AND/OR SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES! PERIOD!
You seem to have missed the point here. They were only cited because of the pandemic lockdowns. The alcohol regulations were only the TOOL for government retribution in this case, which is the purpose of ALL regulatory agencies in the first place.
It goes back further than that. The first tax levied by the United States Congress was on distilled alcohol to pay for Revolutionary War debt. Google "Whiskey Rebellion." Like most temporary government actions, it is still with us today. It’s also why home distilling is still illegal at the federal level. Nobody legally distills a drop without paying the feds.
I cannot think of anything that would be more likely to shock Pennsylvanians back to their senses than banning their favorite watering holes. Nothing else seems to have penetrated the massively dense regions north of their cervical vertebral support systems – politically speaking – concerning their selection of governmental policies and their choice of officials to guvernate their Commonwealth. The revenooers win again …
Dear Proprietors of the Burning Bridge Tavern: move out of Pennsylvania.
"At this point, it feels like they're coming after us."
consequences of [Na]tional So[zi]alist mentality.