April 1 0, 201 2
Jay Miller and The Wine Academy of Spain: Internal
Investigation
I.
Introduction
The Wine Advocate engaged this Firm to investigate whether The Wine Advocate's standards of independence had been compromised in Spain. In particular, various Internet blogs suggested in the Fall of 2011 that Jay Miller and/or Pancho Campo and The Wine Academy of Spain accepted payment for visiting wineries and tasting wines in Spain for rating by The Wine Advocate. Our investigation focused on answering two main questions:
1. Did Jay Miller receive anything of value to visit any wineries
or taste any wines for rating by The Wine Advocate?
2. Was there confusion between Jay Miller's tastings conducted for rating
by The Wine Advocate and the "private" seminars not conducted under the auspices of The Wine Advocate for which Miller received
payment?
If so, why,
and who was responsible for creating the confusion?
To help answer those questions, we engaged Kroll Associates to conduct numerous
interviews on the ground in Spain
with wineries, trade associations, government officials, and representatives of The Wine Academy of Spain.
Our joint investigation included the review of substantial
amounts of documents, including contracts,
electronic mail communications, blog posts, invoices, financial statements, written statements by principals and wineries and trade organizations, travel records, and business records of The Wine Advocate. We even solicited input from many of the bloggers who first reported
the story. 1 In addition, we conducted interviews of current
and former representatives of The Wine Advocate in both the United States and in the U.K.
The joint
investigation, which was conducted over a four-month period, resulted
in an
extraordinarily detailed report containing
more than 2,000 pages of exhibits.
In summary, the investigation did not
reveal any evidence that Jay Miller received anything of value to visit
wineries or taste wines on behalf of The Wine Advocate. Nonetheless, the investigation revealed
that arrangements in Spain -whereby tastings
for The Wine Advocate
were allowed to occur in close proximity
to paid, private
events-created an appearance of impropriety that fell short of the high
standards that The Wine Advocate set for itself.
In light of these findings, we recommended that The Wine
Advocate implement several measures to prevent even an appearance of impropriety from taking hold again.
II.
Jay Miller's
Assignment in Spain
In 2009, after working
with Pancho Campo ("Campo")
and The Wine Academy of Spain ("TWAS") at a Wine Future event, Robert Parker asked Campo to assist Jay Miller with the logistics and translations for Miller's trips to Spain for The Wine Advocate. Miller did not speak Spanish, and Parker wanted
to increase The Wine Advocate's coverage of Spanish wines. Campo
agreed to help, at no charge, and thereafter
assisted Miller with the organization of the logistics for his trips and guided him through various wine-producing regions of Spain. Campo was advised that all of Miller's expenses would be paid by The Wine Advocate.
Over the course of five trips to Spain, Campo and TWAS assisted
Miller in arranging
two species of events: (1) tastings for potential
rating in The Wine Advocate, and (2) private tasting
events organized and promoted by TWAS
for which Miller/Campo received payment. The tastings for rating in The Wine Advocate
consisted of tastings at the D.O. of a certain region,
as well as additional tastings
at approximately three to four
wineries per day. According to Jay Miller, he typically
provided a list of wineries to Campo that would fill approximately
75% of
his schedule; this left a portion
of his schedule (approximately 25%,
by Miller's estimation; much lower
by Campo's estimation) to be completed
with recommendations from Campo. [The
investigation confirmed that no one else at The Wine Advocate
was aware of Campo's significant
role in proposing
wineries to visit.]
In addition to the tastings for The Wine Advocate, Miller participated in four private
tasting events in 2011 organized by Campo and his staff at TWAS.
These events -hosted by D.O.'s, trade groups, and wine consortiums -consisted of
meetings with wine makers, press conferences,
interviews, photo opportunities, and public
seminars and wine tastings. The wines tasted during
a private event
were previously tasted and/or
highly rated for The Wine Advocate.
In part because of the language barrier,
Campo and TWAS handled all contacts and negotiations for these events without Jay Miller's
involvement or knowledge; Campo sought Miller's
approval for an event only in the final stages
of negotiations. For his participation in each event, Miller received
approximately $8,000 - $10,000
directly from TWAS.
III.
No Evidence of Actual Impropriety
The investigation
did not reveal any evidence of actual impropriety. First, the investigation
did not uncover evidence that Jay Miller received anything of value
for visits he made
to any D.O.'s or to any wineries in Spain
to conduct tastings for rating in The
Wine Advocate. Numerous D.O.'s, trade associations, and wineries signed certifications
stating they did not pay Miller
to visit wineries to conduct tastings
for The Wine Advocate. Moreover, our interviews
of representatives of Spanish wineries -as well as representatives
of D.O.'s, trade associations, and TWAS -did not reveal
or suggest the existence of any such payments.
Second,
the investigation did not reveal any evidence of payment from wineries to fund any private event from which Jay Miller
received payment from TWAS.
All fees for the private events
were paid to TWAS by either the D.O. of the particular region where the event was conducted or private
trade groups and consortiums.
The investigation did not find evidence
that wineries whose wines were featured at these private events contributed
money to pay for the events.
Specifically, with regard to the ASEVIN
event in Murcia in November
2011, despite the inability
to obtain sufficient information or records
from ASEVIN, this investigation did not reveal any actual evidence
that wineries made payments to sponsor this event.
There was plainly an early attempt by ASEVIN to solicit such contributions,
which was improper, but the bloggers'
reports and the reactions to them
in Fall 2011 caused
ASEVIN quickly to retract those earlier communications and apparently reverse course. The
investigation uncovered no evidence
that TWAS, Miller, or any representative of The Wine Advocate knew
of or was involved in any of
ASEVIN's communications to its constituent wineries.
IV.
Appearance of Impropriety
Although the investigation
found no evidence of actual
impropriety, it did reveal
that the actions (or inaction) of Jay Miller,
Pancho Campo, and TWAS compromised the integrity of The Wine
Advocate by creating an appearance of impropriety. Regardless whether
this appearance was created unintentionally or not, the effect
on The Wine Advocate
is the same. Robert Parker and the staff at The Wine Advocate
placed Campo -a man with myriad,
legitimate commercial relationships with wineries
across Spain -in a position that provided him with an opportunity to exert some control
over Miller's itinerary in Spain without
adequately briefing him about
The Wine Advocate's strict
standards safeguarding its independence.2 Furthermore, Jay Miller
did not speak
Spanish, and, as a result,
was dependent on Campo to
make all arrangements with minimal oversight from The Wine Advocate. This difficulty was exacerbated by Miller's lack of knowledge and interest regarding the details of Campo's negotiations.
As a result, an appearance of impropriety was created in two ways. First, by Miller
permitting Campo to play a significant
role in selecting wineries for Miller to visit to conduct tastings for The Wine Advocate
coupled with Miller's inability to monitor TWAS's negotiations to facilitate those visits, a perception (well-founded or not) could take root that Campo had some role
in facilitating ratings for wines in The Wine Advocate. Second, the investigation concluded that, whether
intentionally or not, Campo blurred the lines between tastings for rating
in The Wine Advocate and TWAS-sponsored private events. For example, the
contracts for private events negotiated
by Campo and TWAS, for which the sponsor paid approximately €30,000, usually included
at least one day of visits to local wineries
as part of the program.3 Even though the
contracts expressly stated that these visits were not related to the paid event, the close
proximity of the private events to these local tastings
had the potential to create an inappropriate ambiguity between
the two in the public
eye. Furthermore, Jay Miller was unaware
of any terms of these
contracts, and it was his understanding that any visit to a winery was part of an unpaid tasting for rating in The Wine Advocate. Thus, it is likely that, at some point
after May 2011, Jay Miller tasted wines for The
Wine Advocate (i.e., unpaid)
on a visit to a winery that -unbeknownst to Miller
-could have been perceived as part of a paid event.
Thus, while this investigation revealed no evidence
of actual impropriety, we believe that the dynamic of Miller and Campo's
collaboration in Spain -even if undertaken with the best of intentions -created an appearance
of impropriety.
V.
Jay Miller's
Resignation
The investigation concluded that Jay Miller's resignation
from The Wine Advocate was not
related to the controversy
in Spain. In January 2011, Jay Miller and Robert Parker jointly agreed that 2011 would be Miller's
last year with The Wine Advocate.
Soon thereafter, Parker informed both David Schildknecht and Neal Martin of Miller's impending resignation and asked whether they would be interested in taking over his assigned
regions. These January 2011 communications are
corroborated by emails exchanged among
the trio, and emails in which Messrs. Schildknecht and Martin each accepted
the new assignments well in advance
of Fall 2011. On November
4, 2011, Parker again emailed
Schildknecht and Martin to inform them that Parker would be making the official
announcement about Miller’s resignation in December 2011. The announcement was
posted on the eRobertParker.com website on December 4, 2011, and Miller’s
resignation became effective on January 1, 2012.
Thus, there is no merit to the suggestion that Miller's resignation
was related to the allegations concerning his activities in Spain.
VI.
Recommendations
Based
on our investigation, we recommended that The Wine Advocate implement the following measures:
1. Sever relations with Pancho Campo and The Wine Academy of Spain. This step would be advisable regardless whether Campo's actions intentionally or unintentionally created an
appearance of impropriety. In any event, Campo has announced publicly
that he will "move on"
from wine business and The Wine Academy of Spain following its recent merger
with another company.
2. Adopt
a new rule regarding private
events by contractors. Presently,
there is no requirement that private events
be approved in advance by The Wine Advocate.
In the future,
contractors should be required to provide The Wine Advocate details
in advance about,
among other things,
(a) the amount
of any fees charged by the contractor and any business partners, (b)
the source of any fees, (c) the full schedule of the program,
and (d) the list of wines to be tasted at the program (and confirmation that the wines have been previously rated in The Wine Advocate).
3. Make
revisions to The
Wine Advocate's Writer Standards. The Writer Standards have not been amended
since 2009. In light of recent events, we recommend certain procedural and substantive changes,
including:
a. Broader Applicability. In its current form, the specific terms of the Writer
Standards apply only to Robert
Parker. Contractors, on the other
hand are “held to high but less stringent and demanding standards” that
require them, without specific guidance, to “maintain rigid standards of independence and integrity." An
amended version of the Writer
Standards should make it clear -both to the public and contractors -that anyone rating
wines for The Wine Advocate must
conduct themselves in accordance with certain specific rules and should
seek clarification of those rules,
if in doubt, directly from Robert Parker.
b.
Annual Certifications. Contractors should
be required to sign and submit annual
certifications to The
Wine Advocate in which they pledge to conduct themselves in accordance with the amended Writer's Standards. These certifications should
include a pledge to seek approval
of The Wine Advocate
before accepting benefits
for private events, publications, or business
ventures.
4. Amend Independent Contractor
Agreements. Each contractor's agreement with The Wine Advocate should
include provisions in which the contractor, upon penalty of termination of
the parties' relationship, agrees
to (a) conduct himself/herself in accordance with the Writer's Standards, and (b) seek approval
of The Wine Advocate before accepting benefits for private events/publications.
5. Decline to Publish Jay Miller's Ratings
of Spanish Wine Submitted after June 30,2011.
The
Wine Advocate has not published reviews
of Spanish wine by Jay
Miller since June 30, 2011, with one minor exception
described below.4 Three of the four paid events in
which Miller participated occurred
after this date. The safest course to uphold the independence and integrity of The
Wine Advocate is
to decline to publish any additional reviews by Miller, even if he acted only in good faith throughout his trips in Spain.
6. Continue the Practice of Actively Supervising
Contactors' Reviews. For many
years, Robert Parker has periodically tasted
for himself wines reviewed by sampling of the wines, in general, but always tasted
all of the highly rated wines. Parker never took issue with reviews
of Spanish wines submitted
by Jay Miller. This practice
provides an additional protection that reviews
in The Wine Advocate
will not be influenced by any potential
conflict of interest
by a contractor.
7. Require Greater Detail for Reimbursement
of Expenses. TWAS submitted
its expenses to The Wine Advocate on a single
invoice with no supporting documentation-i.e., no actual receipts of its or Jay Miller's expenses in Spain. In
the future, timely submissions of detailed
invoices with appropriate substantiation should be
a condition of payment to ensure that expenses
can be properly tracked against
activities conducted by contractors and others
engaged by The Wine Advocate.
8. Refuse to Allow Contractors to Conduct Private Events While Traveling for The Wine Advocate. This policy is designed
to eliminate appearances of impropriety
like those created by the apparent intersection
of paid and unpaid events conducted
by Jay Miller and The Wine Academy
of Spain.
9. Cooperate with the Parallel
Investigation of These Matters
Being Conducted by the International Masters
of Wine. The Wine Advocate conducted this investigation with
seriousness of purpose and integrity.
In that same spirit, it should offer to cooperate with the parallel
inquiry into these matters by the International
Masters of Wine.
Footnotes:
1.
For example, Jim Budd and Associated Press reporter Harold Heckle ultimately
accepted our invitation to cooperate with the investigation.
2.
Although
Miller always retained "veto" power over wines and wineries suggested
by Campo -
and thereby ultimate control over his itinerary -Miller admitted that he never had reason to exercise this power with any
of Campo's recommendations.
3.
For instance, the contract for the Navarra
paid event, which occurred on July 4, 20 II, provided an option for
visits to wineries by Miller and Campo as part of the €35,000 fee. Likewise, even after the present
controversy was publicized
by bloggers, ASEVIN publicly
announced that its paid event
with Jay Miller in November 2011
would include "visits to wineries."
4.
On February
29, 2012, The Wine Advocate
published Miller's reviews of wines tasted at Hotel Wellington
in Madrid on or about December I, 2011 - many weeks after the present "scandal" exploded on the Internet. It is
undisputed, however, that no one (Miller,
Campo, or TWAS) received any compensation
for that tasting, and that the Madrid
D.O. did not pay for any private
event organized by TWAS.
