Ethics commission considers higher fine for former OLCC leader involved in bourbon scandal
PORTLAND, Ore. () — Government watchdogs are debating the appropriate penalty for the Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission's previous leader's role in a rare alcohol scandal.
With a 7-1 vote on Friday, the Oregon Government Ethics Commission rejected the $500 penalty proposed for former OLCC Executive Director Steve Marks.
Portland Trail Blazers franchise being sold, Paul Allen estate announces
In 2023, an that Marks and five other agency leaders diverted bottles of exclusive bourbon — like the highly-sought after Pappy Van Winkle 23. While records show the leaders paid for the liquor, OGEC Executive Director Susan Myer noted that the act violates Oregon laws prohibiting public officials from using confidential information for personal gain and requiring them to report potential conflicts of interest.
According to the , Marks purchased one bottle for its listed price of $329.99. Myer noted that the proposed $500 fine stems from the ethics commission's penalty matrix, which suggests a fine between 1% and 20% of the maximum penalty for such a violation.
OGEC's executive director noted that she also considered the similar fines imposed for other agency officials. But other members argued that the penalty should be increased for higher-ranking leaders.
Adam Sandler gives shoutout to Portland park celebration he inspired
'I think another issue is if you're a top official, you should probably pay a top penalty…' Commissioner Daniel Mason said. 'When you refer to the public interest, if it's known that the head of an agency is getting a financial benefit that potential is greater than the value, then I think it hurts the ethics commission by going with a stipulated agreement that is less.'
The agency's records show Pappy Van Winkle bottles cost up to $6,500 on online marketplaces from other states, although Marks paid OLCC's listed price which was just a fraction of that.
His attorney, Bob Steringer, asked commissioners to consider the same fine that was enforced for other public officials. He also noted that diversion of rare liquor began before Marks' tenure, and claimed the executive director was the first to change that practice when he realized it could spur ethics concerns.
Kotek signs bill for anonymous Oregon lottery winners, bans discounting
'Our mission is primarily to educate, not to punish,' Commissioner Richard Burke later added. 'There needs to be a penalty in a case like this. I think the $500 penalty is reasonable. I also think that part of the penalty is the fact that Mr. Marks — you know he's had his name in the press regarding this and it's a political embarrassment. I think he's been duly educated..'
OGEC will continue to negotiate the fine.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business of Fashion
5 hours ago
- Business of Fashion
Explainer: How Retailers Can Fight a New Wave of Cyberattacks
Last week, Victoria's Secret went dark. On May 28, the lingerie giant shut down its website following a 'security incident,' the company said in a statement. (It did not confirm what caused the disruption). While the site was only down for two days, it likely cost Victoria's Secret millions in sales, adding another hurdle to its ongoing turnaround plan under new leader Hillary Super. The company's stock dropped as much as 8 percent the day it closed its site. It was just the latest technological dustup in a wave of cyberattacks on some of fashion's biggest brands and retailers. Bloomberg reported that in January hackers accessed some of Dior's customer data, then in April, UK-based high street retailer Marks & Spencer was forced to stop taking online orders after a security breach and in May, Harrods briefly restricted website access after hackers attempted to break into its systems. For years, the threat of security breaches — where individuals and organisations hack systems to access customer data such as contact information and credit card details — have haunted companies across industries, from Target to MGM Resorts. The frequency of these attacks is only growing: In 2024, the number of individuals and groups targeting companies' systems that cybersecurity consultancy S-RM engaged with across 600 incidents grew 96 percent year over year. These attacks can be extremely detrimental to a company's bottom line: Marks & Spencer still hasn't reopened its e-commerce operations, and doesn't expect to do so until July. The incident will likely end up costing the company as much as £300 million ($404 million) in lost profits. But the impact can be even further-reaching. Many cyber criminals require companies to pay multi-million dollar ransoms to regain access to their networks and even once the attack is over, retailers must work to avoid sustaining lasting reputational damage. The recent uptick in activity puts an extra burden on retailers to tighten existing cybersecurity processes or invest in additional tools that could chip away at profits. 'From a business perspective, it's nothing if not unfair [to the companies impacted by it],' said Simeon Siegel, managing director and senior analyst of retail and e-commerce at BMO Capital Markets. In the event of a cyber attack, companies have 'to balance short term fixes, while ensuring they don't have [long-term] implications,' he added. BoF breaks down what leaves fashion businesses vulnerable to cyberattacks and how they can protect themselves. How does this happen? Cyberattacks are typically orchestrated by groups that find and exploit a company's technological shortcomings. The culprit can often be difficult to trace, because even when law enforcement tracks them down, individuals can splinter into other smaller organisations. Criminals can also act individually by finding hacking tools on the dark web, said Christian Beckner, vice president of retail technology and cybersecurity at NRF. The tactics range in their level of sophistication. One of the common ways hackers infiltrate a company's systems is through 'phishing' — the dreaded emails where, posing as a company executive, they encourage employees to click a link that, if opened, can give them access to an organisation's entire data network. They can also use employee voice impersonation tools to target a company's customer service call centres, Beckner said. 'If one employee accidentally clicks a link in an email, it may not matter how protected and up-to-date your technology is,' Siegel said. 'Human error can supersede the most advanced technology.' Cyberattackers will target any industry with high transaction volumes, making fashion an appealing target. Plus, because most retail giants operate their e-commerce storefronts on years-old custom platforms that are likely outdated, they are particularly vulnerable, said Juan Pellerano-Rendón, chief marketing officer at e-commerce software start-up Swap. 'A lot of times these larger conglomerates have IT teams, and they're updating their website regularly, but security might not always be at the top of their list,' Pellerano-Rendón added. Retailers that operate with thin margins have historically been slower to invest in cybersecurity over tools like a website redesign that can immediately drive revenue, said Sam Rubin, senior vice president of consulting and threat intelligence for Unit 42 at cybersecurity firm Palo Alto Networks. 'You could spend several million dollars on cybersecurity and feel safer and be safer, but what's going to show up on your P&L is greater operating expenses without a necessarily highly visible tangible benefit,' Rubin said. 'Sometimes that does get neglected in favor of driving top line growth in business.' How should retailers respond? When a company is hacked, they often have no choice but to shut down services until they can find the culprit and boot them out of their network. Preventing an initial cyberattack can be a near impossible task as cyber criminals' tools become more advanced and accessible. Many retailers have increased cybersecurity measures in recent years, specifically around payment processing, Beckner said. Customers' financial information wasn't compromised in many of the recent attacks, which is the scariest violation for many customers and therefore a natural priority for companies to prevent. To lower the risk of repeat offenses, retailers have to 'assess where there might be existing vulnerabilities in your IT systems and services, and patch and upgrade those where they existed,' Beckner added, including adding multi-step authentications for company log-ins and conducting additional training for employees across the organisation. The latest run of cybersecurity hiccups could also push major retailers to make big personnel changes such as hiring heads of security (if they don't have them already), according to Pellerano-Rendón. They might also consider using more e-commerce services from software giants like Shopify that routinely update their software, making it more difficult to infiltrate, he added. Companies can institute drills where they work with third party firms to simulate an attack to better assess the strength of their existing systems and what additional processes they need to implement, said Steve Ross, director of cybersecurity, Americas at S-RM. In the aftermath of an attack, retailers also must do damage control in order to make sure their customers feel safe buying from them again. Shoppers today are aware that technology violations occur and are outside of a company's control, 'and not necessarily that Victoria's Secret or Marks & Spencer has betrayed their trust in any way,' Pellerano-Rendón said. Still, retailers need to tell customers whose personal information may have been compromised exactly which steps they've taken to protect their data down the line. 'It really comes down to making sure you're communicating … and having that plan in place to quickly bounce back,' Beckner said.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Hundreds of ‘DEI' books are back at the Naval Academy. An alum and a bookshop fought their removal.
When the U.S. Naval Academy stripped 381 books tied to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) from its library, retired Commander William Marks saw more than censorship — he saw a threat to the Navy's future. But last week, after immense public outcry, most of those books returned to Nimitz Library shelves. 'Do you believe it?' asked Marks, a 1996 alum who spearheaded a campaign to maintain student access to the books. 'What great news. We're thrilled.' All the books the academy removed in early April had one thing in common: Officials flagged them for DEI themes. They include Maya Angelou's 'I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings,' Harper Lee's 'To Kill a Mockingbird' and Elizabeth Reis' 'Bodies in Doubt: An American History of Intersex.' The purge followed directives from Trump-appointed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who has called DEI initiatives 'divisive.' Determined to ensure that students could still read the works, Marks began crowdfunding to replace them on April 5. 'The motto of the Naval Academy is 'from knowledge, seapower,'' said Marks, who served as a Navy commander for 22 years. 'What we mean is without knowledge, education and intellectual growth, we will never become a strong Navy. So this contradiction really struck me, that instead of encouraging knowledge and encouraging discussion, the Pentagon was actually suppressing knowledge and limiting discussion.' About 4,400 students, members of the Brigade of Midshipmen, attend the Naval Academy while on active duty in the U.S. Navy. After graduation, they are required to serve in the Navy or Marine Corps for at least five years. Women represent more than a quarter of the student body, while men make up over 70 percent of midshipmen. Initially, Marks hoped to fundraise $3,810, which he figured would be enough to cover the cost of the books pulled from Nimitz Library. Since Marks lives in Arlington, Texas, he tapped Old Fox Books & Coffeehouse in Annapolis, Maryland, home to the academy, to be his local partner. Donations have far exceeded his goal, topping $70,000. Jinny Amundson, an owner of Old Fox Books, said by the time she got the call from Marks, she had already heard about the books removed and had started compiling a list of them to purchase for the store's inventory. 'For a bookseller, the idea of censoring any kind of books just gives us heart palpitations,' Amundson said. 'And it's our community. The [midshipmen] think of our shop as a place that they love and one of their sort of unofficial bookstores. We have the mids, the faculty, the administration that come in and think of our space as their own.' Amundson said she understood that the removal of books was an order, which has to be followed within the military. But she found the loophole: Her bookshop could store the titles targeted. It is conveniently located about a block away from the Naval Academy gates. The day before the institution's May 23 graduation, Amundson learned that most of the pulled books were back on the library's shelves. She went to see for herself, took pictures of the books and sent them to many of the authors, who had personally contacted her when the restrictions on the works took effect. Now, just 20 books are being sequestered pending a formal compliance review, according to the Department of Defense. A Navy spokesperson did not provide details to The 19th about those titles. Ultimately, a narrowing of the search terms used to flag books for review resulted in the return of hundreds of books to the Nimitz Library, as the Department of Defense first issued broad guidance about book removals to the military services. 'What struck me was the very arbitrary and even cruel nature of the books that got removed,' Marks said. 'These books were a cross-section of American culture. They were important to the discussion of American history.' In an updated May 9 memo, the Pentagon instructed the military services to use 20 search terms to pinpoint books in their academic libraries that might need to be set aside because of how they engage race or gender. Among those terms were affirmative action; critical race theory; gender-affirming care; transgender people; and diversity, equity and inclusion. People across the political spectrum expressed alarm about the book restrictions, which have been widely opposed, according to Marks. 'We really shouldn't be banning any books,' he said. That includes those with unpopular, or even offensive, ideas like Adolf Hitler's 'Mein Kampf,' which managed to evade the Naval Academy's book purge, he noted. He calls his effort to maintain the midshipmen's access to all books in the Nimitz Library Operation Caged Bird, after the 1969 Angelou memoir that was likely targeted because it describes racial segregation and child abuse. The name Operation Caged Bird also alludes to the feeling of being restrained by censorship. 'I almost felt like I could feel the bars closing in on me in terms of what I can read and can't read,' Marks said. 'That didn't sit right.' Marks' GoFundMe campaign has raised enough money to supply 1,000 books in 2025 and fund a three-year initiative at Old Fox, ensuring midshipmen can access any contested title for free. 'If you're a midshipman and you're writing an essay paper and there's a book you can't find, maybe it's been removed or banned, you can call them, and they'll order it for you, and then you just pick it up free of charge,' Marks said. He's also coordinating with other service academies, anticipating similar battles. At the Navy's three other educational institutions, fewer than 20 books have been flagged as potentially incompatible with the military's mission, as have a few dozen at the Air Force Academy and other Air Force academic institutions. The Army has also been ordered to assess library books at its educational institutions, but a spokesperson from West Point told The 19th that no books have been pulled at this time, as its compliance review is still underway. The return of nearly 400 books to the Naval Academy library coincides with a pending lawsuit accusing Department of Defense-run schools of violating K-12 students' constitutional rights for limiting books and subject matter related to gender, race and sexuality. The American Civil Liberties Union filed E.K. v. Department of Defense Education Activity in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of 12 students. A hearing will take place June 3. The ACLU seeks a preliminary injunction to give the youth access to materials it argues have been restricted to align with President Donald Trump's executive orders and political agenda. Amundson said she was pleasantly surprised that it took just weeks for the books to be returned to the Naval Academy. 'I believe that what happened and the response that was given in Annapolis — I think that made the administration be much more careful this time around as they're going for these other libraries, the other Department of Defense libraries around the world,' she said. Amundson said using the funds raised from the GoFundMe campaign, the bookstore was able to give away nearly 500 books in the days leading up to the Naval Academy graduation. For weeks, letters of support piled up and people stopped by the bookstore with gratitude, some even driving from hours away to show their support in person. In addition to Operation Caged Bird, Amundson said there were 'powerful arms at work.' There was pushback on the book removals from members of Congress, the Naval Academy's Board of Visitors and the superintendent — who wrote an open letter signed by hundreds of alumni. 'For right now, this was a huge win for us,' Amundson said. The post Hundreds of 'DEI' books are back at the Naval Academy. An alum and a bookshop fought their removal. appeared first on The 19th. News that represents you, in your inbox every weekday. Subscribe to our free, daily newsletter.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
OLCC removes labor agreement rule for cannabis businesses after Measure 119 ruling
PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) – The Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission is no longer requiring cannabis businesses to enter labor peace agreements in order to obtain or renew a cannabis license, the agency announced Thursday. The decision comes after a federal judge ruled Oregon Ballot Measure 119 unconstitutional earlier in May. 'Earlier this month, a federal judge issued a ruling barring the enforcement of Ballot Measure 119. Given this ruling and in consultation with the Oregon Department of Justice, the OLCC will no longer require labor peace agreements as part of cannabis license applications and license renewals,' the OLCC said in a press release Thursday. Portland has the worst housing crisis outlook, LendingTree finds Measure 119, also known as the United for Cannabis Workers Act, was passed by Oregon voters in November 2024 and took effect in December of that year. The measure required cannabis retailers and processors to remain neutral in their communications to employees from labor organizations about bargaining rights. After Measure 119 passed, the OLCC adopted the labor peace agreement requirement in order to comply with the ballot measure, which required cannabis processors, retailers, and labs to provide labor peace agreements with a bona fide labor organization in order to obtain or renew cannabis licenses. The measure was challenged in a lawsuit filed in February by two Portland cannabis businesses, arguing the measure violates the First Amendment and will harm cannabis companies. Close Thanks for signing up! Watch for us in your inbox. Subscribe Now United States District Judge Michael H. Simon in Portland agreed with the cannabis companies, ruling Measure 119 is 'preempted by the (National Labor Relations Act)' and violates the First Amendment. 'Measure 119 is not limited to restricting only threatening, coercive, false, or misleading speech, but instead prohibits all speech by employers that is not 'neutral' toward unionization. Therefore, Measure 119 violates Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights to free speech,' Judge Simon wrote, in part. In response to Judge Simon's ruling, the plaintiff's attorneys with Fisher Phillips LLP told KOIN 6, 'We are pleased with Judge Simon's ruling. Judge Simon reached the right conclusion on this important case of first impression regarding National Labor Relations Act preemption and Constitutional First Amendment speech protections as related to laws requiring businesses to enter into labor peace agreements.' Armed man who threatened Papa Murphy's employees was pepper-sprayed multiple times, police say The plaintiffs' attorneys continued, 'This case is poised to have far-reaching impacts, as many states are considering imposing similar requirements not only on cannabis licensees, but also in other sectors, and this decision helps maintain the proper balance between labor and management and allows cannabis employees to decide for themselves whether to organize without undue influence.' Governor Kotek's office added that the governor — who was named among defendants in the lawsuit — 'respects the court's ruling.' Meanwhile, a spokesperson for UFCW 555, a labor organization that has been a strong proponent of Measure 119, told KOIN 6 News 'We now have conflicting federal rulings, with a judge in Oregon putting Measure 119 on hold while a California judge has upheld a similar law. One of these rulings is destined to be overturned on appeal. Our strong suspicion is that Judge Simon's opinion, which flaunts Supreme Court precedent, will be the one reversed.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
