The Safety and Licensing Committee met 03/07/2023 and, during that meeting, held their second demerit point violation appearance, this time involving the Durty Leprechaun.
The city enacted an ordinance change that went into effect 07/01/2022 which requires alcohol license holders to come before the committee when they accrue between 25 and 149 demerit points on their license and discuss with the committee what steps they are taking to prevent getting similar demerit points in the future.
The first such appearance happened just a week previously on 03/01/2023 when the owner of Chadwick’s Bar came before the committee and explained the steps he was taking to identify fake IDs and avoid inadvertently serving underaged patrons.
[While I can’t say definitively, I would suspect that the Chadwick’s Bar appearance was a textbook case of the sort of thing the Safety and Licensing Committee wants to see from bar owners with violations—a diagnosis of what went wrong and a clear game plan to prevent that issue from coming up again in the future. Based on my observation of the meeting, I would say that didn’t seem to happen with the Durty Leprechaun appearance.]
Unfortunately, the microphone that Jonathan, the owner of the Durty Leprechaun, was using was not working and his words were, for the most part, not picked up by the microphone. As a result, I have no transcript of the discussion to share, and I can’t guarantee that I’m fairly representing Jonathan’s position because my impressions are based on snippets of words that were picked up by the microphone and the committee member’s responses to him.
The event that resulted in a license violation and 50 demerit points occurred on 01/22/2023. Per an incident overview provided by the Police Department, around 10 people were observed by police gathered in the bar after hours. Even though it was over 30 minutes after bar close, the police officer observed an open can of beer in front of one of the people as well as several plastic cups filled with liquid that looked like bomb shots. These were quickly disposed of when the police entered.
When questioned by a police officer, the bar manager said that everyone in the bar was either an employee of the bar or worked and the neighboring bars and they were helping her with closing duties and that no one was drinking from the open containers of alcohol. The officer “pointed out that no one was cleaning/closing, there was open alcohol on the bar, and for all appearances the bar still appeared to be open,” and issued a citation for Open After Hours/Failure To Vacate.
Although the citation came before the court and resulted in a conviction on 02/22/2023, it sounded to me like Jonathan, the bar owner, had the impression that the Safety and Licensing Committee could change it to warning. Alderperson Chris Croatt (District 14) told him a couple times that the committee was not taking up the citation and that the purpose of this appearance at the committee meeting was to work with the bar owner and see how they can prevent a similar violation from happening going forward.
It sounded like Jonathan gave and explanation as to why there were people in there after hours. Not being able to hear his words, I can’t speak definitively as to what he said, but it seemed like the committee was told that some of the bar workers were uncomfortable being alone after hours and that it was also freezing outside on that particular evening. It also sounded like it was possible an employee’s young adult child was present. It sounded like Jonathan also indicated that there were only 5 people in the bar not 10 as police had indicated.
Alderperson Croatt said, “I appreciate you coming here and explaining that, but I’m gonna be honest—it’s gonna sound bad—but those sound like more like excuses than fixes.” He went on to say, “This body just wants to understand how you’re going to address it going forward.”
The committee members tried to get an indication as to whether or not he had made changes in response to the violation.
Alderperson Sheri Hartzheim (District 13) asked if he had taken steps to have a bouncer or someone at the bar after closing since some workers were uncomfortable being alone after. She also asked if he had informed his employees that this couldn’t happen again. She noted that it was going to be freezing more than just one time in Wisconsin in the winter, with the implication being that the cold temperature was not a sufficient reason to let people in the bar after hours.
Alderperson Nate Wolff (District 12) suggested that it might be a good practice to clear the bar off right away at bar close so that if people were in the bar after hours, it would not appear that anyone was drinking.
Alderperson Alex Schultz (District 9) agreed with that. “We just want to hear that you want to make all of your employees aware that this isn’t acceptable after hours, and once you close, there’s no consumption. And it’s fair to say you need to clear any alcohol that might be out. Certainly, a little bit of a grace period. Obviously, these officers took a little bit of time to see what was happening. They didn’t knock the doors down right away and come in. So, you know, you just have to–we want to hear that you appreciate what is and isn’t allowed, and that you’re going to communicate this to the employees and not have the situation occur again.”
Alderperson Croatt finished the discussion by saying, “Okay, I think you understand the impact of the points and how that all works. And we appreciate you coming to this. So thank you for coming and thank you for providing some comments on the operations at your establishment.”
[I’m disappointed Jonathan’s words weren’t picked up by the microphone, but even without that, I think the first two demerit point violation appearances illustrate the two ends of the spectrum of what one might see in future such appearances. The Chadwick’s Bar owner seemed to take the demerit points seriously and viewed the appearance before the committee as an opportunity to demonstrate the well ordered plan he had to tackle the problem, and he left that meeting with a lot of good will and committee members who sounded like they were willing to work with him should he receive more demerit points from incidents that happened before he implemented changes. The Durty Leprechaun owner, on the other hand, didn’t seem to take the demerit points as seriously, did not have any sort of well-laid out plan to prevent similar situations from arising in the future, and, wrongly, seemed to view this appearance as an opportunity to get the violation knocked down to a warning. I did not get the impression that he made a positive impression on the committee.]
View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1063457&GUID=78DB6DE9-20F5-4780-9B8B-F60691A6AF0D
Be the first to reply