The Safety and Licensing Committee met 12/11/2024. The item that took up the largest amount of time during the meeting was the liquor license revocation hearing for the Speakeasy Ultra Lounge. The committee ended up voting 3 to 2 to hold the item until the 01/08/2025 committee meeting in order to give the owner more time to sell the bar and surrender his license willingly rather than having it revoked.
I’ve prepared a transcript of the discussion for download:
In May of this year the bar was assessed 145 demerit points for a violent interaction that took place between a bar bouncer and a patron in which the bouncer dragged the patron out of the bar and kicked him in the face while he was lying face down on the ground, did not pose any threat, and was not fighting.
These demerit points come on top of the 150 demerit points the establishment was assessed back in 2023 after an incident in which two semi-nude dancers performed for money in the bar during an event.
As a result, the Speakeasy has accumulated at least 295 points over the course of 2023 and 2024. Appleton’s Municipal Code requires the revocation of the alcohol license for any establishment that accumulates 200 or more demerit points within a 36-month period.
Theodore Suess, the owner of the bar, attended the meeting and spoke with the committee. Prior to the meeting he had indicated to Assistant City Attorney Darrin Glad that he intended to surrender his license.
He had initially given a date of 12/16/2024 for the date he intended to surrender it but then changed his plans and told Attorney Glad that, while he still intended to surrender it, he was not necessarily going to do it on 12/16. Additionally, Mr. Suess told Attorney Glad that he wanted the committee to hold off on voting on the license revocation so that he could have more time to get his affairs in order and sell the business before the revocation occurred.
Mr. Suess did not deny the details of the complaint. He did, however, state, “What we are a little upset about is the fact that we didn’t know that this had even happened. If you read the statement or the summons that I got, apparently the officer had tried to get in touch with the bar manager at the time, and then was apparently unsuccessful, and then that ended it. Nothing ever made it to me as far as, ‘Hey, I’m having trouble with your bar manager.’ So that’s very frustrating.”
In the interest of accuracy, I will note that the report provided by the police indicates that a week after the incident, the responding officer “attempted to contact Dontonio Wells [the bar manager] via telephone and voicemail without success. He then attempted to make contact with him in person at Speakeasy later that evening. After making contact with employees at the bar, he asked to speak with Dontonio. An employee walked to the rear of the bar, returning several minutes later. The employee relayed that Dontonio was using the restroom but would be out shortly. Off. Jakobsen asked the employee to have him come outside so they could speak by the front entrance of the establishment. After waiting outside for an extended period of time, Off. Jakobsen came to understand that Dontonio was declining to speak with him.”
Mr. Suess noted that Speakeasy Ultra Lounge had been in operation for 15 years and had had no issues other than the one from October of 2022 involving two semi-nude dancers performing for money that resulted in 150 demerit points. He said that they had settled that last year with the city and, “We thought that by settling that with the attorney that’s present, we figured that, you know, that would put us back in good graces.”
He said that he and his partner had let the bar manager go back in October “after another incident happened.” Since that time, he and his partner had managed the bar.
He said that after the Christmas Eve 2023 shooting of Elijah Dodson that happened near their bar, he and his partner had decided to try to sell the Speakeasy. They finally found somebody in October of 2024 and were in the process of working through an agreement when they received the summons for the alcohol license revocation.
Mr. Suess said, “The sad thing is Tuesday, we had come to an agreement in the morning on both the business and the building, and then three hours later, I get a summons that I had no idea was coming, because I had no idea that this issue had even happened. And then, you know, what really, really bothers us is, geez, it’s an employee that many times, and other employees, many times—if I went to go back and look through my group messaging, they all know they are not supposed to go past neutral. This employee, obviously, is, you know, got his day in court, and he lost and he and he’s paid his fine. What’s frustrating is he has a job on the same block, doing security at another bar. So, his life continues. Ours, for something we didn’t do directly, potentially ends. That’s very frustrating.”
He asked the committee to hold the revocation hearing for a meeting or two to allow them to complete the sale of the business. He said that the land contract was drawn up and they were just waiting for the seller to get financing through the bank.
If the license was revoked before the business was sold, the new owners would need to wait 6 months before being eligible to apply for an alcohol license. If, however, the current license was surrendered before the Common Council revoked it, there would be no license to be revoked and the new owners would be eligible to apply for a license right away instead of having to wait 6 months.
[While I understood why a license revocation would harm Mr. Suess’ ability to sell the business, it was not clear to me why he had to hold on to the license until the sale was completed. My understanding was the new owner was going to have to apply for a new license anyway, so it was not clear to me why Mr. Suess could not surrender his license at any time prior to the sale being completed.]
The committee ended up voting 3 to 2 to hold the vote on the revocation until the 01/08/2025 committee meeting. Alderpersons William Siebers (District 1), Denise Fenton (District 6), and Alex Schultz (District 8) were in favor of providing the business owner more time. Alderpersons Chris Croatt (District 14) and Chad Doran (District 15) were in favor of voting on the revocation right away and sending it on to the Common Council where it could either be approved, held, or referred back to the committee, or it would potentially become moot if Mr. Suess ended up surrendering the license prior to the Common Council meeting.
Alderperson Doran expressed concern that the business had accrued 295 demerit points which was well above the threshold for revocation. “The point about giving the business owner extra time to sell the business, we don’t know how long that’s going to take. In the meantime, then, the business could continue operating without having its license revoked. And I think that sends the wrong message to other businesses in the city. We have some pretty clear information. Business owner’s not contesting the violations that have caused this revocation hearing to come forward. I think our job is to purely just look at the circumstances in front of us as it relates to these violations and make a determination based off of that, which, to me, seems pretty clear that revocation is the correct next step.”
Alderperson Sheri Hartzheim (District 13) was not a committee member, but she was present at the meeting and expressed concern that if the business was allowed to continue to operate it could potentially have another issue. She thought that sent the wrong message to other license holders in the city that they could come and beg to the committee and receive a free pass.
Alderperson Siebers disagreed, saying, “They’re not getting a free pass in my opinion. They’re losing their business. It’s just a matter in terms of, are we giving them a little leeway in terms of selling the business? I don’t think they’re getting a free pass.”
Mr. Suess got into a little bit of a back and forth with Alderperson Croatt.
Mr. Suess: So again, we’re trying to do things that are right by the city. That’s why we agreed to the thing that we agreed to last summer. Bar with the same issue never got suspended, never got any issues from what I from what I can see. Never, never paid any consequences for the stuff that we agreed to. The bar—the security person in the statement there that we fired is working at another bar on the exact same block that I’m on. So, if we got rid of the person that was the issue in that particular situation, and they’re able to go to another bar and get the exact same job, how is there ever going to be an issue at my bar? I got rid of the person that was the issue. I am now the bar manager for last […]. I don’t, I don’t follow—I don’t follow that line of thinking.
Alderperson Croatt: Okay. I appreciate the actions you’ve taken, but that doesn’t guarantee that nothing’s going to happen.
Mr. Suess: But it might happen at the other bar because he’s working there.
Alderperson Croatt: Possible, but I don’t want to get into comparing two establishments or the former—your former employees.
Mr. Suess: I understand that, but what you’re trying to tell me is you’re saying that somebody else’s actions we are basically at fault for, even though we didn’t directly do those actions. That’s like if I smash a car and I blame someone else.
Alderperson Doran disagreed with Mr. Suess’ position, stating, “[T]he business owner is responsible for his employees and what happens there, and the actions of the employee have now caused this business that the licensee is responsible for to accumulate almost 300 demerit points, which is almost a 100 demerits over the limit for revocation. So again, we’re not talking about minor violations here.”
He believed that giving them more time to run the business while they attempted to sell it was, indeed, giving a free pass. “[I]t does send the message to other businesses that by just coming here to this committee and asking for more time for some reason, or just asking for leniency, that they can expect, that they can they can have violations and not face consequences for those violations.”
Alderperson Siebers still disagreed, responding, “I don’t agree with my colleague over there saying that we’re shirking our duties if we allow them some time. I agree with everything in terms of, you know, that their violations. I agree with that. The only thing that I’m struggling with is the idea in terms of giving them, at least, you know, some time, you know.”
Alderperson Schultz agreed with Alderperson Siebers, saying, “Similar sentiments. Some of it is based on the notion, or at least what was what we heard, that this sort of came out of left field, and they weren’t aware of this as they’re going through the process of selling the business and about agreeing to forfeit the license. It feels like ramifications of what happened are taking place. Business is being sold, and they’ve agreed to forfeit the license. So that that’s going to happen. I mean, I do agree with my colleagues that this is what we’re here to discuss and make a determination based on the fact, but I guess I’m struggling a little bit myself, and I feel like we could potentially give them a little bit of time to get to that determination, which I think we all agree is laid out before us, and I think we’d all agree to it. So really it is just about question of whether we want this new business taking over this location to have the challenge of having to wait six months and essentially tank the sale if that business is not willing to wait that long, and then what happens to the business itself? So, I’m struggling with it. I do agree with my colleagues here. I’m not even sure I’m going to vote yet.”
Alderperson Fenton confirmed with Mr. Suess that he had fired the bouncer before the conviction and the accrual of demerit points and not as a result of the conviction. Mr. Suess indicated he had fired the bouncer over a year before the conviction happened.
The committee ended up voting 3-2 to hold off on voting on the license revocation until the 01/08/2025 committee meeting.
Alderperson Schultz did tell Mr. Suess, “I would strongly encourage you to forfeit that license as soon as possible. That will put you in better standing.”
[As I mentioned above, I really didn’t understand why it was so important to keep the license until the sale was completed. I understand why a revocation would be harmful, but it didn’t make sense to me why Mr. Suess couldn’t have just surrendered the license at any time in order to avoid that revocation. Why did he need to keep it until the sale was completed?
I’m also just baffled in general by the lack of knowledge the alcohol license holders who ended up before the Safety and Licensing Committee seem to have about basic aspects of their license, the responsibilities that they have in order to keep those licenses in good standing, and the ramifications of receiving demerit points. This ignorance has been displayed by the two businesses that received 150 demerit points for having illegal gambling machines on their premises and by the owner of the Corner Pub who didn’t seem to be aware that she needed to actually operate her business in order to be able to maintain her license, and now by Mr. Suess who seemed to reject the notion that he as a business owner was responsible for the behavior of his employees and could face legal repercussions for the illegal actions of the people who work for him.
Additionally, it seemed odd to me that nobody seemed concerned by Mr. Suess’ casual reference to some sort of third incident that happened in October. There was the semi-nude dancers in 2022 that resulted in 150 demerit points and a 10 day suspension, then the incident in 2023 that resulted in the 145 demerit points and this revocation hearing, and then during the hearing Mr. Suess told the committee, “Recently we’ve we let the bar manager go in October after another incident happened.” Nobody on the committee found the revelation of a third incident at Speakeasy to be concerning or worthy of a follow-up question?
One can only hope that nothing bad happens at Speakeasy during this grace period the committee had provided them with. Just a couple months ago, the committee and Common Council decided to show unwarranted grace and favor to the Corner Pub by allowing them to renew their license even though they had been closed for over a year and a half and had not been fulfilling the responsibilities that came along with the license. The Council did that with the seeming expectation that the Corner Pub would then reopen and start engaging in commerce again. The Corner Pub, however, is open in only the most minimal sense of the term. I recently communicated with the owner and confirmed with her that since renewing their license they have only provided service during Packer games which amounts to around 14 times for a few hours each time. It’s hard to see how a bar that is open in such a minimal capacity is providing any economic benefit to the city. It’s certainly hard to see how what benefit it is providing warranted the Council granting them special dispensation to renew their license rather than allowing another business to have the license.
In the case of the Corner Pub, the preferential treatment that the Council showed to a specific license holder who came before them with a sob story has resulted in nothing more than an alcohol license being given to a business that is not utilizing it well or bringing much economic benefit to the city. Hopefully, the preferential treatment the Safety and Licensing Committee is showing to the owner of the Speakeasy Ultra Lounge will not result in any worse consequences.]
View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1227017&GUID=E1FFA19B-4922-4618-A273-CC1E8688F269
Be the first to reply