The Common Council met 02/05/2025. One of the items they took up was the bartender/operator license for Katherine. Katherine has three convictions for driving while intoxicated. The most recent incident happened in 2021 for which she was convicted in 2022. For this reason, the Appleton Police Department recommended that her license application be denied.
She did however, have documentation of her completion of probation which seemed to meet the statutory definition of evidence which demonstrated her rehabilitation. As a result, the Common Council voted 12-2 to approve her license with Alderpersons Martyn Smith (District 4) and Chris Croatt (District 14) voting against it.
I’ve prepared a transcript of the discussion for download:
Wisconsin state statute 111.335(3)(a)1 allows licensing authorities (in this case the City of Appleton) to deny licenses when an applicant has been convicted of “any felony, misdemeanor, or other offense the circumstances of which substantially related to the circumstances of the particular job or licensed activity.”
However, state law also allows the applicant to show evidence of rehabilitation for the crime that has caused the licensing agency to deny their license. Per state statute Wisconsin state statute 111.335(4)(c)1.b if the applicant “shows competent evidence of sufficient rehabilitation and fitness to perform the licensed activity […] the licensing agency may not refuse to license the individual.” [emphasis mine] Statute 111.335(4)(d)1.b indicates that documentation that would be considered evidence of sufficient rehabilitation is “A copy of the local, state, or federal release document; and either a copy of the relevant department of corrections document showing completion of probation, extended supervision, or parole; or other evidence that at least one year has elapsed since release from any local, state, or federal correctional institution without subsequent conviction of a crime along with evidence showing compliance with all terms and conditions of probation, extended supervision, or parole.”
Katherine had a printout from the correction department showing that her parole had been terminated 07/19/2023 which was over 12 months ago.
During the Safety and Licensing Committee meeting in which her application was reviewed, there had been some discussion as to whether this printout would be considered a “release document” as described in the statute. At the time, Assistant City Attorney Zak Buruin had told the committee, “I think in the most technical sense, this does not necessarily meet the requirement that the committee would be required to recommend approval. Having said that, substantively, this does appear to be equivalent to it and with what information I’ve been able to provide or locate, I have seen no reason to believe that she wouldn’t be able to provide the required documentation if she knew precisely what it was. And the statutory language is a little imprecise.”
The committee had voted 4-1 to recommend the license be approved with the expectation that Katherine would provide further documentation to the full Common Council.
At the Common Council meeting, Katherine told the Council, “I was asked to try to bring any other additional documents from my probation officer, and I was told that they don’t provide those. There used to be a, like, a discharge letter, I think is what it was called. They stopped doing that, I believe in ’21 and they do not—no longer write, or are able to write recommendation letters in any way, shape, or form. So, the document. I provided is all that I can provide.”
She also told the Council that she currently had an operator’s license in the Town of Hortonville and added, “I know that I got a DWI. I have definitely learned my lesson. I will not be getting another one. I did do—take all the steps. I did my AODA assessment. I did, actually did two different ones. I did my safe driving. I had attended a drivers course or drinking course at the Tech after my second one. Yeah, I’ve definitely learned my lesson, and I will not be doing that ever again.”
City Attorney Christopher Behrens responded to a question about whether the documentation Katherine provided was something that the Council had to accept as proof of rehabilitation and reiterated that Assistant Attorney Buruin had told the committee, “while it may not have met every technical aspect of what is typically looked for in the documents, it was his opinion that they were substantially compliant and therefore could be accepted as meeting the requirement, which you could then interpret as an approval would be appropriate. Now, given that there’s some gray area in that, if you choose to vote against it, I guess it’s your prerogative to do that. Should it be challenged, that’ll be up to our office then to defend it.”
The Council ended up voting 12-2 to approve the license.
View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1254911&GUID=3ACA8864-8E32-4602-81E7-C1966A494152
Be the first to reply