{"id":12695,"date":"2013-11-21T09:00:48","date_gmt":"2013-11-21T15:00:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.guysdrinkingbeer.com\/?p=12695"},"modified":"2018-02-06T14:17:18","modified_gmt":"2018-02-06T20:17:18","slug":"bill-olson-exit-interview-part-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.guysdrinkingbeer.com\/bill-olson-exit-interview-part-1\/","title":{"rendered":"An Exit Interview with ABDI President Bill Olson: Part 1"},"content":{"rendered":"
Associated Beer Distributors of Illinois President Bill Olson is stepping down<\/a> at the end of the year ending a nearly 30-year run at one of the most powerful lobbies in the state. The man has seen a lot and done a lot and has been at the forefront of some of the most important pieces of legislation impacting the craft brewing industry in Illinois. And we wanted to hear all about it.<\/p>\n So, at the end of the first week of the legislature’s fall session I was granted unfettered access to Olson to talk about his time at the ABDI, the changes he’s seen in the distribution industry and Illinois politics and what really went on behind closed doors when those key bills were negotiated.<\/p>\n In an over hour-long conversation Olson talked quite candidly about the negotiations on SB 754 (self-distribution) and HB 2606 (prohibiting a brewer from owning a distributor). In the first of this two-part, Guys Drinking Beer exclusive, Olson looks back at his time under the statehouse dome, the changes he’s seen in Illinois politics and the distribution industry as well as a sneak-peek into the early negotiations into SB 754. We know this is going to come off a bit wonky and it’s not all about beer — but this does play into the bigger of picture of how beer legislation works in Illinois.<\/p>\n <\/a><\/p>\n Guys Drinking Beer<\/strong>: We\u2019ll start off with something easy: Who is Bill Olson the drinker? Are you a whisky guy, a scotch guy or a beer guy?<\/em><\/p>\n Bill Olson<\/strong>: You know, I\u2019ll imbibe in all three: wine, spirits and beer. It sometimes varies on occasion. A beer is still the best thing to have, for me, in the summertime and when you want to cool off \u2013 refresh yourself. Then there are other times when you are sitting down to dinner and it\u2019s more of a cocktail thing. I don\u2019t have any one particular favorite. I\u2019ll just\u2026drink it all.<\/p>\n GDB<\/strong>: You don\u2019t discriminate. I can appreciate that.<\/em><\/p>\n Let\u2019s talk about your time here at the ABDI. You\u2019ve been here for almost 30 years. Talk to me a little bit about what you\u2019ve seen over that time with the distribution industry. What kinds of changes have you seen?<\/em><\/p>\n Olson<\/strong>: The biggest change has been in the number of distributors. When I started in 1985 we had, if I can recall right, 178 distributors. Just about every town, community \u2013 Peoria, Kankakee, you name it \u2013 had anywhere between one to three distributors in it. That was their main warehouse location. And over the years, what we\u2019ve seen has been consolidated.<\/p>\n And it\u2019s all caused by trying to remain competitive. Because, as your competitor gets bigger, their costs get reduced so if you\u2019re going to compete with them then you\u2019ve got to consolidate with someone else. It\u2019s all economics of scale so they can keep their costs down, remain competitive, and still sell beer to retailers at a price where they can stay in business.<\/p>\n That\u2019s the biggest change because the amount of beer sold in the state hasn\u2019t varied that much. But the number of distributors has gone from 178 to, I think, 62.<\/p>\n GDB<\/strong>: Has that been good for the consumer?<\/em><\/p>\n Olson<\/strong>: I think it has allowed for a lower price to retail by cutting costs. Yes, the consumer has benefited from that. We want to stay in business. We\u2019ve got to be competitive: competitive is the lowest price you can sell to the retailer and the lowest possible price are passed on to the consumer. The whole General Assembly would go to it and they\u2019d interact and they\u2019d talk and they\u2019d get to know each other as people. And I think that type of interaction has just disappeared. You just don\u2019t see legislators interacting with each other on almost any occasion.<\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n GDB<\/strong>: Looking bigger picture politically in Illinois \u2013 beyond just a new governor or a new speaker of the house, not that we\u2019ve had one of those in a while \u2013 what kind of changes have you seen at the statehouse in that political environment?<\/em><\/p>\n Olson<\/strong>: When I first started it was a lot less partisan. People could separate the difference between their political party and just being a legislator and working to pass laws that are going to affect all the people of the state of Illinois. The biggest change I have seen is that the parties don\u2019t interact \u2013 legislators don\u2019t interact like they used to.<\/p>\n I\u2019ll tell you a story or two here that are funny, that people wouldn\u2019t believe today. When I first started there were at least three dinners, one was like the Soul Food Soir\u00e9e, one was an Italian dinner and another one was a dinner put on the by the Polish and the Irish. The point was that the legislators, whether they were Polish or Italian, would get together \u2013 both sides of the aisle both houses \u2013 and say we\u2019re all Italian legislators, Italian heritage legislators, let\u2019s throw a dinner\u2026evening\u2026banquet\u2026dance\u2026whatever \u2013 Just celebrating being Italian and our Italian heritage.<\/p>\n They organized it. Nobody else organized it. The legislators organized it and did all the work for it. The legislators sold the tickets but it was not a fundraiser. The price of the ticket was basically the cost of putting on the event. But what they did is it brought everybody together.<\/p>\n The whole General Assembly would go to it and they\u2019d interact and they\u2019d talk and they\u2019d get to know each other as people. And I think that type of interaction has just disappeared. You just don\u2019t see legislators interacting with each other on almost any occasion.<\/p>\n I\u2019m talking about the entire General Assembly being together. Maybe not everybody showed up, but at that time you had 177 members of the House and you might have 100-some show up at this thing. And you still had 59 in the Senate and you might have 40-some show up. But they had occasion to talk to some people that they normally don\u2019t talk to \u2013 somebody from the other party maybe a downstate something talks to a Chicago somebody \u2013 and actually find something in common that they could talk about.<\/p>\n And it built a camaraderie and a rapport that is absolutely missing today.<\/p>\n GDB<\/strong>: Is there anything that you can point to or look back on over the stretch of your career \u2013 a turning point where things changed? Whether it was personalities, or mirroring things in [Washington] D.C., or just a change in mentality for politicians in general that has led to this partisanship?<\/em><\/p>\n Olson<\/strong>: It\u2019s interesting that you talk about mirroring D.C. because that is something that pretty much has happened here, and legislators today don\u2019t even know it has happened.<\/p>\n The idea in Washington is that you have a rules committee and leadership controls all the process and which bills get to the floor. There was a time [in Springfield], if a legislator was told \u201cyour bill\u2019s not going to get to the floor,\u201d they would throw a fit and say \u201cI\u2019m elected to represent the people of my district. I\u2019ve got constituents who care about this bill. Get my bill to the floor.\u201d<\/p>\n Leadership wouldn\u2019t really even take exception to that. That was the way at the time. But when you put in rules committees and all the other steps in the process that have created these hurdles, the individual legislator having control over their legislation has been lost.<\/p>\n GDB<\/strong>: You talking about that reminds of stories my former bureau chief used to tell me, in the 70\u2019s and 80\u2019s, where it would be the end of session and lawmakers would be heavily debating a bill \u2013 it would fall short \u2013 and they [some of the lawmakers] would kind break in to an informal conference committee in the back of the chamber and huddle up and they\u2019d come back \u2013 and whatever they talked about \u2013 was enough to get it done [pass the bill].<\/em><\/p>\n It sounds like today, with the rules committee and such a tight control over bills, that lawmakers don\u2019t have the opportunity to negotiate with others to get things done because their bill may not see the floor.<\/em><\/p>\n Olson<\/strong>: I don\u2019t know if it was done as informally as you\u2019re referring to, but a common occurrence was conference committees to resolve the differences between the houses. That would require, if one house had amended a bill, and the initiating house refused to agree to that amendment and the house that put the amendment on refused to take it off.<\/p>\n So they would call a conference committee because each body had voted on the same bill number but a little different content. There would usually be ten people, five senators, five reps, three from the majority party in each house and two from the minority party.<\/p>\n And they would actually meet and discuss and resolve differences and they would have somebody \u2013 a staff person \u2013 write a conference committee report. The conference committee report would then become the bill and it went back to floors of both houses to be acted upon.<\/p>\n Now, sometimes it failed and they would even appoint a second conference committee to resolve what the problem was with the first conference committee. But they had a method where it was the main interested parties, those being the legislators most directly affected by the legislation or having an interest in the legislation or being knowledgeable in the legislation, who would be talking about how to fix the problem.<\/p>\n We haven\u2019t had conference committees around here in a long, long time. And part of that is because it can\u2019t be controlled. Once the conference committee meets and comes up with a bill, it doesn\u2019t have to go through rules committee.<\/p>\n
\n<\/a><\/p>\n