There's a rotten apple in every barrel:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mount Vernon director of consumer protection arrested for stealing public funds

The director of the Mount Vernon Office of Consumer Protection and Bureau of Weights and Measures was arrested yesterday for allegedly stealing over $3,000 in city funds and filing false records with the city to cover up those thefts.

Westchester County District Attorney Jeanine Pirro announced the arrest of Eugene Cannata, Jr., 33, of Greenwich, Connecticut, was charged with grand larceny in the third degree and falsifying business records in the first degree.

Cannata, who was appointed to his current position in August 2003, is responsible for the annual inspection of retail shops, merchants and other businesses located throughout the City of Mount Vernon. Among his duties, he is required to inspect such businesses as supermarkets, gasoline stations, delicatessen's, jewelry stores, pawn shops, shipping companies, bakeries, butcher shops, fish markets, and the like. to ensure the meters, scales and other weighing and measuring devices are accurate and properly calibrated in the weighing and measuring of goods and services purchased by the public. These inspections protect the public from suspect and unscrupulous business practices and overcharging by merchants and retail establishments frequented by members of the public.

It is alleged that Cannata failed to conduct numerous inspections required of him during the course of the year. It is also alleged that when he did conduct the required inspections, Cannata often allegedly demanded that the fees and fines be paid in cash. In each of those cases, Cannata allegedly took the cash fee and/or fine paid by the merchant or shop owner and then kept those funds for his own personal use. Cannata failed to turn over these receipts to the City of Mount Vernon as he was required to do.

Cannata also allegedly created and filed false reports which misstated his office's activities and failed to state the true amount of receipts that he collected in the course of his duties in an effort to cover up his crime.

The investigation is continuing.

I'm not sure why this is newsworthy, but if it is, perhaps we should also note that given location, virtually all the scales and meters he would be responsible for are US Customary. Gasoline is invariably sold in gallons (although liters are a legal option). Random weight packages in retail shops are exempt from FPLA dual labeling and sold in pounds and ounces. (I admit I don't know about jewelry.) At the moment random weight packages can only be sold in Customary weight (metric is allowed as supplemental); this seems a violation of the Metric Act of 1866. The proposed FPLA amendment would have allowed either one for random weight.

"It is also alleged that when he did conduct the required inspections, Cannata often allegedly demanded that the fees and fines be paid in cash. In each of those cases, Cannata allegedly took the cash fee and/or fine paid by the merchant or shop owner and then kept those funds for his own personal use."

Some observations: -
1) Imperial USA allows its Weights & Measures Inspectors to levy fines without going to court? That really is draconian!
2) The UK Weights & Measures Act sets out various offences that only an Inspector can commit. If Cannata had been a UK TSO, he would allegedly (it's still under investigation) have committed most of them!
3) I believe that most (if not all) UK TSO's refuse to take cash in hand for verification work - that way they can never "forget" to hand it to their employers.
4) This happened under the system that Tony claims is superior?

There's more detail at the website below

http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050914/NEWS02/509140307/1017

This is obviously a pretty small city office, where the "director" is also the main "worker bee." It sounds like the city should abandon having its own office and use the county w&m activity.

As for the fine, I'm sure it can be appealled to the courts, and if you know you are guilty, it may be easier to just pay up (although cash handling is certainly a problem). On traffic fines, some smaller locations collect "bail" on the spot, equal to the fine. If you don't show up at your court date, you must have been guilty and they keep the "bail" as the fine.

But I'm sure if only they used metric, they would have hired a smarter or more honest inspector. :)

<<
The proposed FPLA amendment would have allowed either one for random weight.
>>
John, are you supporting legislation that would allow traders to sell in either system without indicating the other? If this passes, it would be perfectly legal for a store to label something as XX dollars per pound and another brand YY dollars per kilo, with no supplementary measures. How is this to the benefit of consumers?

Bud,
I am assuming a store would only use one (or one per department) for random weight packages depending on what typ of scale they had.

I would not tolerate that specific abuse and perhaps the law needs a specific clause forbidding it. (actually, I think existing unit pricing law would cover it) NIST has only drafted a law. Congress can still modify it in their debate. I also would not tolerate an indefinite period without required metric weight on random-weight packages.

The original 1966 FPLA only required Customary, supplemental SI was allowed. The 1994 law required SI to be added on prepackaged goods, but did not require it on random weight (still allowed). I would prefer to see the law require dual for random weight for a few years, then permit SI-only; that would allow a phase-in period similar to what we have had since 1994. However, I would also prefer to see the law eventually disallow Customary on consumer goods other than service parts for products designed before a deadline.

I guess I should also point out that even if something is legal, it may not be a good idea for the retailer. In the Half-gallon gasoline thread, it became obvious from info on the web, that most (maybe all?) states allow the sale of gasoline in either gallons or liters, retailer's choice.

No one actually seems to sell in liters. But to look at the strawman you raised, I believe it would be legal for a station to sell one grade in gallons (regular?), and the other grade (premium?) in liters. No one does this. If it is too obvious you are confusing customers, and someone else doesn't, they simply avoid you.

So I think the dread of them mixing pounds and kilograms in the produce aisle is highly overrated.

Bud said

"are you supporting legislation that would allow traders to sell in either system without indicating the other? If this passes, it would be perfectly legal for a store to label something as XX dollars per pound and another brand YY dollars per kilo, with no supplementary measures. How is this to the benefit of consumers?"

But isn't this what the "pro-choice" posters argue should happen with all goods in the UK?

It already happens in UK pubs - Suppose you visit Scotland and I offer to buy you a Tennents Lager (a rather crap, but surprisingly popular Scottish lager). They sell bottles at 330ml, cans at 440ml, cans at 500ml, and (UK)1/2 pints & (UK)pints on draught (draft).

Now add in the factor that the pint delivered under UK law will only measure around 19 UK fluid ounces & the half pint around 9.5 UK fluid ounces.

I (of course) am a stereotypical mean Scot and want to get value for money! Will you buy me a 35ml dram while we think about it?

<<
I am assuming a store would only use one (or one per department) for random weight packages depending on what typ of scale they had.
>>

But shouldn't consumers be able to do store-to-store price comparisons also?

<<
But shouldn't consumers be able to do store-to-store price comparisons also?
>>

Exactly, which is why the UK law only permits one system of units. Since store-to-store comparisons also includes pre-packed goods as against loose goods and since some pre-packed goods are sold on both side of the Channel, it makes sense to have one system on units of measure for the entire EU.

For example, sausages could be sold loose in a butchers shop or they cuold be sold in a package at the supermarket. THe same package caould also be sold in a French supermarket.

"straitjacket" springs to mind.

Hey - Berenger - Don't forget the pint cans too!

BTW - According to one chap on the USMA site (from australia) we (in the UK) all sell pints by the 500ml (whatever whatever fl oz). The rest is all froth.

Personally I realise where the real froth is as it gets repeated and repeated again and again until someone somewhere says "I agree with you" to him (from outside the UK).

God, I love these arguments sometimes!

<<<<
I am assuming a store would only use one (or one per department) for random weight packages depending on what type of scale they had.
>>

But shouldn't consumers be able to do store-to-store price comparisons also?
>>

Careful what you wish for. Remember that I have no problem with requiring metric on everything. I am pretty neutral between allowing Customary as supplemental and forbidding it entirely. I do think we should end "requiring" it, and I think the requirement violates the Metric Act of 1866.

I do not really approve of continuing to allow random weight packages to be in Customary-only, although that is the NIST proposal.

Problem solved.

Another solution: The unit pricing law could require the unit price to always be stated in SI on the shelf edge, ads, etc.

John, I am confused. Are you supporting the FPLA amendment or are you opposing it? If you are supporting it, is it because of a "something is better than nothing" attitude?


<<
Since store-to-store comparisons also includes pre-packed goods as against loose goods and since some pre-packed goods are sold on both side of the Channel, it makes sense to have one system on units of measure for the entire EU.
>>
Martin, how often do people from Britain go to France to buy groceries?

Bud,

I support it exactly as written for pre-packaged goods.

For "random-weight" or "packed from bulk in the store," I could live with the three options, but I would prefer to see SI required, with Customary supplemental permitted, same as prepackaged. Since that adds a new requirement, I could be flexible about the schedule for that requirement to phase in. Perhaps immediate SI-only, dual, or Customary-only for three years, then only the first two choices.

<<
Since that adds a new requirement, I could be flexible about the schedule for that requirement to phase in. Perhaps immediate SI-only, dual, or Customary-only for three years, then only the first two choices.
>>

John, I have 2 questions for you.
1. So you would no problem with allowing some stores to display customary only and others to display SI only for three years?
2. If the FPLA amendment gets through, what are the odds of them changing it again in three years?

<<1. So you would no problem with allowing some stores to display customary only and others to display SI only for three years?
>>

Random weight never should have been exempted in 1994. They should have been forced to use dual, same as pre-packaged.

Now we have a problem. Permissive-metric-only should be passed immediately, so producers have time to gradually phase in metric-only packages as they redesign packages. Neither producers nor consumers would want it to take 100% effect in 2 months. We should use the time between now and 2010 for a more gradual approach.

Now we have a problem between random weight for which Customary is compulsary, but dual allowed, and prepackaged where SI would be required and Customary optional. However, to change random-weight, people have to buy new scales. The current FPLA was amended in 1992 to take effect in 1994 giving producers time to change. If we allow two years before any change is required to random-weight, pre-packaged will (probably) have gone substantially metric.

How much of one's total grocery bill is random-weight (meat and produce mostly)? It is a minority of mine.

The only other possible idea I have is to make stores show dual unit pricing during changeover. They can weigh in either unit but shelf label must show BOTH price per pound and kilogram, same in ads (on random weight).
On pre-packaged, unit pricing should be forced to SI, as all packages would have SI, only some would have Customary. This reduces the problem to calculating a converted unit price once for label and ad, not for every package.

The law could all be passed at once, with different clauses having different effective dates. That's very common.

John, all your suggestions are fine, but I am asking about the FPLA amendment as it currently stands.

I could live with it, but it isn't ideal.

Since Congress hasn't even begun to debate it (maybe has never heard of it yet) there is absolutely no reason to believe it will remain unchanged. FMI will certainly be out to change it in one way, and others will have other ideas. That's why Congress debates.

If most pre-packaged foods shifted to metric only, I think random weight would too, so the fact the law allowed choices might not be that bad. Once people got used to SI on pre-packed, they'd expect it on random weight too, and shop at stores that met those expectations. In the beginning, a store might gain an advantage by clinging to Customary weight; it my opinion, the advantage wouldn't last.

Yes John, I agree it might change, but that is not what I am asking. I want to know if you support it in its current form, without adding anything else.

If it came down to "as is" or "nothing," I prefer it as written to the present system and I would vote for it.

If there was an opportunity for change, I would argue for change in the direction outlined, and I have tried to offer some flexibility in those arguments, to see which acceptable solution others might come to support. But the legislative process is that it is not frozen until voted. Even if one house passes a bad version, you can try to change it in the other house and resolve in joint conference. So I don't understand the emphasis on "as is."

I don't mean to emphasize "as is", it was a hypothetical question. But given that there is an organization, and a powerful one at that, that is against switching to metric, and no organized support except the relatively ineffective USMA, I think the text of the law can only get weaker, not stronger. In any case, I am surprised that you would support a law that does not require all sellers to label their products in at least one common system.