Judiciary & Administration Committee - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone. Good afternoon, I guess. It's not evening. It is September 2nd, 2026 at 3.03 p.m. I'll call to order this special meeting of the Judiciary and Administration Committee. We have all members of the committee in person present, except for Councilmember Weston and Councilmember Bedford, who are both excused. This meeting is open for in-person attendance. I'll make this reminder multiple times. This is different than a regular Judiciary Administration Committee where there's public comment. There is no public comment, but the public is allowed to view the process. So this special meeting of the Judiciary and Administration Committee has been convened as a result of the complainant filed against the complaint in the matter of the City of La Crosse versus Bennett O'Reilly's LLC doing business as Bennett O'Reilly's with intent, notice of intent for revocation or suspension of combination class B beer and liquor license for the premise address 213 3rd Street South. on Legistar as 26-0879, as well as complainant in the matter of the City of La Crosse v. Moonshine on Vine LLC doing business as Dell's Bar with notice of intent for revocation or suspension of combination Class B beer and liquor license for the premise addressed 229 3rd Street North on Legistar as 26-0889. We will take up the matter of 26-0879 first, the complaint in the matter of City of La Crosse versus Bennett O'Reilly's LLC. So today, the Judiciary Administration Committee will conduct a hearing on whether to revoke or suspend the license. This is not a public hearing, but rather a contested hearing. The Judiciary Administration Committee is convening as a quasi-judicial body, not a legislative body. Accordingly, members of the public are able to observe what is occurring, but they will not be able to speak on the issue because this is not legislation. The purpose of the contested hearing is to take evidence on whether the license should be revoked or suspended. And at this time, both the complainant and the licensee can present evidence and witnesses, cross-examine witnesses, and be represented by counsel. After the presentation of evidence, the Judiciary and Administration Committee will convene in closed session to consider the evidence and formulate a report and recommendation to the City Council as to what action, if any, the City Council should take with respect to the license. The Wisconsin Open Meetings Law allows the Judiciary and Administration Committee to convene in closed session for this purpose pursuant to Wisconsin Statute 19.85 , and the report and recommendation will be in writing. It is anticipated that the Judiciary and Administration Committee will finalize its report and recommendation at its special meeting on September 10th, 2026 at about 5.30 p.m. That is TBD, but just note that we have planned to have that meeting next week prior to council. And a copy of the report and recommendation will be provided to the complainant and the licensee. Both parties will be able to object to the report and present arguments to the city council at its meeting on September 10th, 2026 at 6 p.m. After consideration of the report recommendation and objections and arguments of the parties, the city council will make the final decision on what action, if any. and should be taken on the license. And finally, City Council's decision is subject to judicial review. Okay, now that we've got all that out of the way, at this time, I ask the parties to identify themselves. Who is present for the complainant?

For the complainant, Assistant City Attorney Gideon Wertheimer.

Thank you. And who is present for the licensee?

Attorney Brent Smith, Your Honor. Thank you. I'm used to calling people Your Honor, so I'm sorry.

Okay. One moment, please. Attorney Maddie, the complainant go first. Okay. The complainant may make their opening statement.

Sure. Thank you. So we are here today because Ben and O'Reilly's had three convictions in the previous license year. Now, that third one did not go through until July when the new license year started, but all three incidents were from last year and pursuant to a resolution in 1987. That means that they should have a hearing in front of this body in terms of whether their license should be revoked or suspended. The complainant here is not asking for a revocation. It will defer to the body on... A suspension in previous incidents, we have done stipulations for 10-day suspensions on a first offense such as this, but would defer to the body if they want to do something else in this manner. We will be presenting testimony about four incidents, but three incidents in terms of citations being read – written against either the president, Mr. Householder, or employees of the bar. Given that, I believe the evidence will show that they do have those three convictions and they have violated Wisconsin statute along with our municipal code and then would defer to the court, sorry, defer to this body in terms of penalty. Thank you.

Thank you, Attorney Wertheimer. Attorney Smith and Bennett O'Reilly's, would you like to make an opening statement now?

Sure. Okay. I think the facts of the case that you're going to be hearing today are really not going to be much in dispute as to the allegations of what conduct was by Bennett O'Reilly's. There's not going to be a... denial or anything like that, that those are going to be in evidence and basically undisputed. What I think we'll be presenting by the evidence of Darren Householder is that what he did in reaction to this, what items he has tried to do to prevent the underage drinking, which he takes as a very serious offense. And I think you're going to hear, if you've read his document that he supplied to the council, to the council, to this committee, It's going to be things like the equipment that he bought, the scanners, the cost. We've got the receipts here, but it was over $3,000. He changed as he went along. Each time we got a little further in this procedure, he tried to up what he had there to try to prevent it. He's had two employees, one a very long-term employee, who were the ones who were unfortunately serving to underage. Both of those are no longer employed there. One was fired the very day that one event occurred. The other was given a warning. She had been there for four years without any problems. And when she first time was given a warning, second time when it happened, she was terminated right away. So he's been the owner, the householder since 2016. You know, O'Reilly's has actually been at that location since 2004. And this is, of course, the first time that we've been here. So we think the evidence will show it's a good business owner, concerned about this problem, has taken steps to try to avoid the problem. And at the end of the day, all of those things we think mitigate what are the very serious two or three, four incidents that we'll hear about today. Hope that those other factors come into your decision and should be considered when you make a decision on what to do, if anything, regarding his license. Thank you.

Thank you, attorney. Then I'll ask, we'll have the complainant begin its case in chief, but first we need to start by swearing in folks who will testify. I'll have attorney Maddie do that for us. All right, you may begin.

City calls Sergeant Mandujano. Sergeant, can you state your name and spell it for the record, please?

Yeah, Danny, D-A-N-N-Y Mandujano, M-A-N-D-U-J-A-N-O. And how are you currently employed? I am a sergeant with the City of La Crosse Police Department within the Investigative Bureau, specifically the Neighborhood Resource Officer Unit.

How long have you been with the City of La Crosse?

Coming up on 12 years.

And what are some of your responsibilities as a police sergeant?

Specifically, I oversee our Neighborhood Resource Officer Unit daily, but I have other duties as well, specifically the Alcohol Compliance and Tobacco Unit. compliance that our department oversees throughout the year.

As part of your responsibilities as in terms of alcohol enforcement, are you familiar with Bennett O'Reilly's?

Yes.

How are you familiar with them?

During the last licensing year, conducting compliance checks both with random on the patrol level and then the Department of Revenue as well.

And what is Bennett O'Reilly's?

It's a bar located on 3rd Street.

And I should say there's another Bennett O'Reilly's in the city, correct?

Correct, which is on the south side. So the one in question is on 3rd Street. Okay.

I just wanted to make sure we're on a specific one.

Okay. Prior to the license year 2025 to 2026, has your... I'm going to call it your department, had issues with Bennett O'Reilly's?

No, no more than any other establishment within the city. Okay.

So no special issues with underage drinking?

No, and usually we get either anonymous tips or just information from different people throughout the community on troubled establishments, and they have not crossed our radar, if you want to say. Okay.

In that last license year, you have had some issues with Bennett O'Reilly's, is that correct?

Yes.

Okay. Can you tell me about the incident that occurred on December 5th of 2025?

Yes, so earlier or later in the evening on that date, our patrol officers received a complaint from an unknown individual stating that there were several underage people inside of the bar. I believe this was around 11.30 p.m. or so. It's typical for our patrol division to do random bar checks downtown and throughout the city on weekends, weeknights. just to make sure everybody is following the rules. Once those officers arrived, several individuals who appeared to be underage were observed in the bar. Many of them took a brace or bolt for the back door, which is behavior concerning to officers. Just when people see police, they don't necessarily run, but that's one of the signs that those officers saw. With that, several individuals were cited that night. I believe a total of seven citations were issued that night. And several of those people during interviews stated that the bouncer either just let them in or didn't check their IDs.

And why were you concerned about the number of people in the bar, or underage people in the bar on that night?

With that, when you see a larger number of underage individuals, you wonder, you know, is this a known establishment to underage people that, hey, we can get into this bar pretty easily and consume alcohol? So that just raises your concern as to why there are so many.

And did some of those underagers make statements about this being an underage bar?

Yes, they did.

Was that consistent, at least prior to this incident, with your observations of Bennett O'Reilly's?

No. According to their statements, they knew, or at least they said they were familiar with people talking about how it was easy for underage individuals to get into the establishment and consume and purchase alcohol.

All right. So I am going to be showing you what I marked as Exhibit A. What is that?

It is an arrest report or a report by Officer Fogelson from the incident on December 5th.

And that is the incident you just spoke about?

Correct.

What was the next police contact with Bennett O'Reilly's

That was about two weeks later on December 17th, 2025, where officers responded to a fight call for service.

And I guess, I'm sorry, for the December 5th incident, did you write a ticket against the bar?

Yes, the president received a citation as well as the other individuals that were located on scene. Okay.

And was the president of the bar Darren Householder?

Yes.

And was he, to your knowledge, was he convicted in municipal court of that citation?

Yes. Okay.

All right. So now moving on to December 17th, what occurred?

Officers at the patrol level received a 911 call stating that there was a fight going on somewhere around a Bennett O'Reilly's. Contact was made with several individuals who were involved in the fight. Video cameras were reviewed. The fight happened outside of the bar. But, however, the argument started inside of the bar, and some individuals who were witnesses or involved admitted to consuming alcohol inside of Bennett O'Reilly's.

Were there any underage individuals involved in that incident?

Yes.

Okay. And did they state that they consumed alcohol inside Bennett O'Reilly's?

Yes.

Bennett O'Reilly's did not, or they nor any employees received any citations from that incident, correct? Correct. Okay. Can you, moving on to the next incident, can you first tell me what a compliance check is?

Yes, so there's different varieties of alcohol compliance checks that we do. Like I mentioned before, we do conduct random bar checks, if you want to call them, where officers working the patrol shift will go into random bars just to make sure that everybody is following the rules, there's no underage individuals. or any other suspicious activity. There are compliance checks, which we hold quarterly, where we send in underage individuals who present their real identification. There's no fakes. We're not trying to trick anybody with that. And that was what this one was.

Okay. And when you say this one, are you saying the incident that occurred on February 24th?

Yes.

Okay. And what occurred then?

We sent two individuals inside of Bennett O'Reilly's and they were able to purchase alcohol from one of their servers.

So there you, did you cite the server? Correct. Faith Wolfgram, I believe her name was. Okay. Wolfram. And after you cite a server for serving, failing a compliance check, do you send anything to the bar? No.

We usually work with the health department, and the health department distributes those letters, just saying, hey, you passed, hey, you failed on this date and time. So usually the health department sends those out.

Okay. And so was Ms. Wolfram convicted of that serving an underage individual?

Yes. During that inspection, we did have a conversation, or the officers did have a conversation with her about other observations that they saw inside the bar. Some of their pre-made mixtures were expired past due. That was just an educational conversation. No enforcement action was taken. But otherwise, everything else was up to snuff.

Okay. And she was convicted of that case, to your knowledge, in municipal court?

Yeah, I believe April 1st. Okay.

Uh, was there another compliance check involved? Yes. Involving Bennett O'Reilly's?

Yes. On June 3rd.

Okay. And, uh, did they fail that? Yes. Okay. And was that with Aaron Moore as well? Oh, sorry. Faith Wolf Fram.

Correct. Same bartender from the previous incident. Excuse me.

Um, and she was then convicted again in municipal court?

Yes. In July.

Okay. Um, So why are we here today?

We're here today, just like you mentioned before in your opening statement, with our three-strike resolution. When a business does get three strikes against them in a licensing year, they are here to speak and meet in front of this body. We do have concerns based on the last licensing year where, I believe, a 12-year Citations were issued to the bar over four incidents. Management has cooperated with us when we have been there. They have, like they are probably going to mention, taken steps to better their screening process, which we appreciate. We are just concerned that we need to hold everybody accountable, and we want to keep things consistent in the city. This is, we have no opinion on what we are recommending. It is up to this body. Based on past practices, there has been a 10-day suspension, like Assistant Attorney Worthingheimer mentioned, but we just want to have them do their job.

And you haven't done any specific intervention like chronic nuisance or anything like that with this bar at this point, correct? Correct. OK. So the first, and I guess I should have shown you this before, I'm showing you what's been marked, I guess, as exhibit B. Do you know what that is?

Yeah, it is the packet of citations from the incident that occurred in December.

Okay, can you look through it and see if there are other incidents as well?

Yeah, so December 6th, December 17th, February 24th, And then February, or excuse me, June 3rd.

OK. So those are just all the incidents you just testified about and all the citations in relation to them?

Yes.

OK. Did you do a memorandum that you address to this body, meaning the J&A committee, about Bennett O'Riles?

Yes.

So I'm going to show you what's been marked as or will be marked as exhibit C. And what is that?

This is my memorandum drafted on the 25th of August to this body.

And is that just a discussion about what you just, I guess, testified to?

Yes, it's a synopsis of all the events in question here that I spoke to, as well as the repeated employee violations, some of our public safety concerns, and just essentially our conclusion, which I mentioned.

Okay. This incident was filed as a complaint. Did you notice that the public and Mr. Holt's householder made some comments on Legistar?

Yes, there were a couple of emails, I believe, and a memorandum submitted to the clerk's office.

Now, did you notice that there was some comment about this being an underage bar?

Yes. I believe two of the emails said that there were numerous underage people inside the bars, or that was some of the drafter's concerns.

Okay. And you're not familiar with, again, this having reputation as an underage bar, correct? Correct. Okay. And I'm showing you what's been marked as Exhibit D. Please look through that. Is that the items that were attached to Elijah Starr for this incident, to your knowledge? Yes. Okay. And that's all I have.

Did you mark that as Exhibit D?

That's D, yeah. Okay. That's all the questions I have.

Attorney Smith, would you like to cross-examine?

Sure. Thank you. Good afternoon. Hi. From what you're telling me, only one of the incidents that you were at the bar where Mr. Householder was at, is that correct? Where he was actually present at the bar? Yes. Yeah. Yep. The first one. Yep. He was contacted on the phone, I think, the other one. Okay. And just to make this repetitive, but up to this 25, 26 season or club season time period, no issues with that bar, correct?

Correct.

Okay. You said there was like 12 tickets in that year. The majority would be out of that one night in December where the fight was. Is that fair?

Yeah, I believe. Not the fight, the one previous. There were seven citations issued, I believe, on that, and then four from the fight. Okay.

And you've, on that exhibit, we've now marked Exhibit D. It was Mr. Householder's statement or submission. Have you had a chance to look at that? Yes. Okay. Okay.

statement that you disagree with no I do want to point out that I understand that he's purchasing scanners which are great and he does note in here that I think the police department noted that scanners aren't foolproof so scanners are great it's just training what we want to make sure that we're training staff to you know equipment and Technology is great, but ultimately it comes down to, you know, your people that you're entrusting with your business, so that's what we want to ensure we're working on.

Okay, so you're looking at a combination of the technology and training. Correct. Do you know what training they're doing now, or...? From my understanding, or from my knowledge, no, just whatever the state requires, I'm guessing. Okay, and would you recommend additional training other than what they're doing as far as with their employees?

Yeah, I mean, training is always helpful, and whatever your employees can do, more knowledge, more information they have is always helpful, so whatever he feels would be appropriate.

Are the scanners they're using appropriate as best they can?

That's above my information or knowledge. I'm not overly familiar because there's so many out there.

And when you've had dealings, have you ever met Darren Householder? Have you? I don't think so. Okay. But as far as the department goes, when they've dealt with him, he's been cooperative?

Yeah, absolutely.

And he indicated in there that he's given videos when he's been asked by the department. As far as you know, that's true?

Yeah, he's always been helpful for us, so no issues with him directly. Okay.

And you were aware through that conversation, Exhibit that the bartender on the first night the first time you had a violation you he or she was fired that night is that No, I did not know that okay and the later bartender who was mentioned before and is involved in the two last incidents She's been you know she was terminated correct You think that's a good thing? Whatever he decides to do with his business is his.

So, yes, if he felt that was good, then that's great.

And there haven't been any incidents since June of this year, correct? No. That's all I have. Thank you very much. Thank you.

I don't have any redirect questions.

And you have no other, do you have any more evidence to present?

I have no more evidence to present, no.

Okay. Any questions before they conclude their side of the case? Is that okay? Attorney Maddie? Or should we wait? Or not? Okay. Any questions for the witness? All right. OK, it sounds like, Attorney Wertheimer, you've concluded your case then? Correct, yes. OK. OK, Licensee Attorney Smith, you may begin your case, Chief.

I'm going to call Darren Household. Yes. OK, sure. I think the city attorney is going to swear you in. Yes. OK. Can you state your name, please?

There's a little button with a person symbol on it.

There you go.

Do I have to hold it or no? Okay.

Yep, you're good now.

All right, thanks.

Darren Householder. Okay.

And you are the current owner of Bennett O'Reilly's? I am. Okay. And how long have you owned it?

A little over 10 years.

Okay. And how long has Bennett O'Reilly's been at that address on 3rd Street that we're talking about? Since 2004. Okay. As far as you know, you heard the earlier testimony, there weren't any incidents involving law enforcement until this year, the 25-26th year, right?

No citations like we've had in the last license year.

How many employees do you have roughly, I think, working at your downtown location?

Yeah, anywhere from 10 to 14 employees probably at a time.

Okay. And can you give us kind of an average age of those folks who are working there?

Well, that's changed over the years. When I started, they were a little bit older, but now they have gotten a little bit younger. We've gotten a little bit more part-timers. We do our best to do as many full-timers as we can, but that's hard to come by. So average age right now, I'd have to say around 23. Okay.

And when you hire somebody to work, Let me go back first. Is anybody kind of in charge of, obviously you are, but beyond you as far as security at the bar?

We have looked to Logan Club as kind of our guru on the IDs and how to spot them.

Okay.

And is he a full-time employee or part-time? Yes. Once he turned full-time, that's when we kind of gave him that responsibility.

Okay. And when did he start full-time?

Oh, that was probably when a lot of this was going on, four months ago-ish.

Okay.

Let me ask you today, when we'll go back, what type of training do you give to your employees with regard to trying to prevent underage people coming in and drinking?

IDs these days are very easy to come by. It's their picture. So one of the biggest clues to a fake ID right now is it's an Illinois ID. For whatever reason, that is the state that they can get the easiest. There are pictures that the picture quality isn't as good. There are Wisconsin fakes as well. but they don't use the newest template on there. So looking at the date of birth and knowing what template that you can use, that's part of it. Besides just, you know, UV light, making sure that is. Date of birth, I know on the Wisconsin ones at least, date of birth should match the middle two numbers on their driver's license number. And then, yeah, we got scanners too to also help with some of that.

Is that something you do with every employee to talk about that?

Yeah. Yep. Yep. There's a three-day training process that we go through just to have them watch some of our veteran people go through it and what to look for. Okay.

And was that true? We start with a date in this case of December 5th, 2025 and the first violation. Was that true before then as well?

We've always done some kind of a training, but as things have progressed as far as their ability to obtain these IDs, and we've always tried to, again, just forward thinking, continue to do a little bit better and a little bit better.

We'll talk about that a little bit later, but your overall relationship with law enforcement, the police in the 10 years where you've operated the bar, good?

Yeah, as far as I know, we've always tried to be cooperative. And I know we've worked with a few of their downtown liaison officers. I got more recently close to Officer Jory Olson, who I know he got promoted, so he's no longer there right now, but we would have regular conversations.

Are you the contact person for liaison? I mean, as far as if you're going to have a conversation.

Yeah, if they're looking for somebody, they contact me. And those happen on a regular basis? I mean, I don't know if I'd say a regular basis, but anytime they would need something from me or after a few of these incidents, I did reach out to him and just wanted to get clarification on how we can be better and do better ourselves.

Okay, we've marked as an exhibit today, Exhibit D, I think it had to do with the document that you filed with the city regarding this hearing today. Do you have that with you?

Yes, I do.

Okay, feel free to refer to it. When you created Exhibit D, what did you mean that to be?

Just kind of a timeline for this body to look at that, you know, before anything had even started, we'd already been looking at, you know, how can we, you know, upgrade our ability to detect these fake IDs. And then, you know, as each incident happened, we then again reviewed what we were doing and tried to again get better and better.

So even before December 5th, which is the date that we start today with the conversation about, you were concerned about underage drinking?

Correct.

And what kind of system did you have before that date? I mean, mostly it was just the bouncer and their ability to spot it. Okay. So was the first equipment that we're talking, we'll mark all the receipts that you had as far as the equipment. Sure. Was that bought after that December 5th incident?

Yes. I want to look at that exact date on that one. That was, the first hardware was purchased December 15th.

We've heard about the December 5th, what the officer described that. Who was it? Was there somebody who terminated as a result of that, what happened that night?

Yes, yep. We had two bouncers on that night, one at the front door, one at the back door. And I don't know, for whatever reason, he decided to allow underagers into the bar from what I've been told and what I've seen pretty freely. So... let him go that night okay and you were i think that's of the incidents we talked about that was the one where you were there at least for some of the night no i was not there no uh my manager uh i don't know who called him but my manager got called in um i was then after kind of everything went down i was called by my manager and he kind of told me that he let him go and i said that was the right move um and and uh

Yeah. The December 17th, the fight that was referred to, you weren't there that night? I was not there, no.

Okay.

So it was after the first incident of December 5th that you start to purchase some equipment, correct?

Correct. I mean, we were looking into equipment already, but that just confirmed that was something that we definitely wanted to get.

Okay. And I'm not a great technology person either. What did you get?

The first piece of equipment is called a Thales CR5400 UV infrared light ID scanner. It was supposed to be good. It would check multiple things on an ID and it could do that in like 2.4 seconds. Okay.

And was there a subscription that went along with that?

Yeah, once I got the hardware in, I had to purchase a subscription for, I think that was almost $1,700. Yeah, $1,690. And that was then purchased once I received it. That was purchased on January 9th. this is what we've marked as exhibit e could you describe what there's three three pages in there could you describe what that is yeah the first page is the hardware for the first unit that we purchased uh the second year was the software that went along with that which was a subscription based and then the third page is after we found out that This scanner was not doing what it was told to do. We went back to the drawing board and purchased another scanner for $1,195.

And is that the scanner you're still using today?

Yes.

Okay.

And so the total of the three was what? $3,784. $3,784. Okay, let's go back. So you have a – you're familiar with compliance checks? Yep, very familiar. And as was described, there was one on February 24th, and they didn't do very well. The bar didn't do very well.

No, no.

That is the first compliance check that we failed. And the person who was cited that night was who? Faith Wolfram. And how long had Faith worked for you? About four years. Had she ever had any trouble – Anything else prior to that night?

No. So it came as a complete surprise to me as well that she failed.

What did you do as a result of her failing that night?

We had a sit-down meeting with her and got her side of the story, explained the significance of what happened, and we were told it wouldn't happen again.

Okay. Then in June of this year, apparently it did happen again.

Yes. The first compliance check, if you look at the citation, she did not look at the IDs on the second one. I mean, we met with her again after the second one. It does say that she did look at the IDs. She told me, she swears it said 2003. Obviously it didn't. And that's why I don't know if she was moving too fast or what happened, but that would be the failed second compliance check.

Okay. And as a result of that second failure, you did what?

We terminated her employment. Was that difficult? And she'd been there for four years?

Yeah.

I mean, you get to know somebody pretty well after working with them for four years. So it was not fun, but it was something that needed to be done.

And was it after that incident in June that you bought the last piece of equipment?

Yeah, June 5th, I believe it was, was the last piece of equipment that we purchased. Prior to that, we did have staff talk to me about the speed of it and the reliability. As the officer kind of, I mean, these are not foolproof systems either, so there's still other things that we do. But Um, actually another bar that, uh, from the downtown area had purchased a piece of equipment. They had really liked it. And so we decided to go ahead and purchase that piece of equipment as well.

How has that worked since, how has that worked since the Biden June?

Much faster. Uh, it's quicker. Um, I think the, the failure rate, uh, is less on that one. Um, but again, it's still not the only thing that we do as far as, you know, visually checking the IDs as well.

And you heard earlier, it's a combination of technology and of training. What other things do you do other than the technology, the scanning?

Again, you know, we talk to them. I mean, we do have a UV light, you know, Illinois IDs are again, always just a real red flag right off the bat. Um, so pay close attention to the picture quality on that. Um, and, uh, you know, questions are always a good thing. Uh, you know, what's your high school mascot? Uh, sorry, not tonight, you know, not going to make it. Um, Those are the things that I think are, are, are going to get past, you know, if it does get past the scanner, then, you know, just asking a simple question of what was your high school? What was your mascot? What's your, uh, you know, state motto. Um, and then see how the person reacts to that question.

Okay. Is there anything else you'd like now? I think we're done with your testimony. This is the time you have a chance to say anything given we're here today to the committee on your situation today.

Sure, sure. You know, I've kind of thought about this a lot. And to be honest with you guys, I'm not sure there's a whole lot that I would do differently. Just a couple of bad incidents, you know, two employees that failed to follow our standards and we took care of them. Again, in my opinion, how anybody else would have handled those situations. I know I've heard that it's precedent to take a 10-day suspension. I guess one thing I would like you guys to consider that the two people that we really want to reprimand in this situation are already gone. I would like you guys just to think about the other staff that I have that are part-timers that they rely on this as their income. So for them to take 10 days away from being able to make money, that could hurt them. If anything, try to think of a different way where you can reprimand me instead of also hurting them as well. I don't think I have any further questions.

Thank you. Complainant, would you like to cross-examine?

Sure. I just have a couple questions. So I just... You understand that obviously scanners are not 100% effective. Correct. Correct. So some of the other questions that you were talking about, the motto and state motto and other things like that would have to be asked for future cases, right?

Correct.

Okay. So I guess I... I want to first ask you, how often do you directly supervise this bar? So how often are you like directly there?

While we're open or? While you're open. I don't spend a lot of time at that establishment anymore.

So how do you make sure that your employees are kind of following the training that you do with them?

I rely on the managers that I have Which would be Jake Schultz and Logan Club, okay so

I noticed on the December incident, Mr. Schultz was the person, I guess, who showed up first for the incident. So is he also not always – is there always a manager on duty, or how do you supervise your employees?

No, there's not always a manager on duty. They're there quite often, but – Unfortunately, we don't have enough money to pay a manager to always be on duty.

So how many – I guess I assume weekends you probably have more employees working than a random Wednesday night, correct?

Correct. Okay.

So on – and I think all these – well, I guess actually the compliance checks didn't happen on a weekend, but on a weekend – How many employees do you have on duty? Typically, in the evenings, we'll have three employees, two bartenders and the bouncer. Okay. Now, it seems like, though, there's a back door to get into your bar. establishment, and that's how, at least on the December date, it seems like a good amount of people got in the back door.

Correct. We had four on that night.

Okay. So is the back door usually locked then?

Correct.

We started just locking it. Okay. What does your training talk about when someone shows you an ID that says under 21?

They should turn them away.

Okay. Well, sometimes there's an ID that says under 21, but then you look at the birth date and let's say it says 2003. So do you still turn them away even if it says under 21, but the date of birth is someone who is over 21?

I don't know if that's possible. I guess maybe the police department would know more about that, but- I believe once you turn 21, you have to get a new ID.

Okay. So, so the training, I think often it, to my knowledge, it might expire, you know, on the 21st birthday, but if someone shows your employees and expired ID, then they're not allowed in. They're not allowed in.

It has to be a valid form of ID.

Valid form. Okay. So, um, Obviously, with the two compliance checks, they're showing IDs that say under 21 on them. So were those two then just totally against the training that she had on those?

Absolutely, yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

That's all I have. Thank you. I don't think I have anything else.

All right. Before the witness leaves, can I just ask council members, do you have any questions for the witness? No questions?

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. I believe both parties have concluded their case in chief. Is that correct?

I have, yes.

Okay. then you have the opportunity to make a closing statement if you'd like. Complainant, would you like to make a closing statement?

Yes, thank you. So obviously I don't think it's much in dispute, the three incidents where there were citations and convictions against the bar here. Obviously, I am a bit concerned about the supervision of the bar. The December incident, obviously, according to in the police report, there's a lot of people or a lot of underage jurors in that bar on that date. You know, I appreciate in response that they bought a scanner. Scanners are not foolproof. Obviously, the You have to do more. It is concerning that they failed two compliance checks because compliance checks are not really anyone trying to trick you in terms of whether they are overage or not. I mean, it's a very specific ID that says you're under 21 on the ID. That's how pretty sure almost every state has something that says under 21 on it. And then, you know, obviously the date of birth. So those are obviously concerning. Obviously, we don't have a lot of history here, but I believe... So we're not recommending anything in terms of revocation or anything like that. If I think you can find that there was... alcohol violations under Wisconsin Statute 125. If you do find that, I believe you could then suspend them for either 10 to 90 days. 10 days is the minimum. And I believe that that is shall if you, it does say under the statute, you shall suspend them for not less than 10, no more than 90, if you do find against the bar that there are at least, I believe under the statute, at least two violations of Section 125, Wisconsin Statute Section 125. Obviously, we would defer to this committee in terms of if they want to find that and if they want to suspend. Thank you.

Thank you, Attorney Wertheimer. Attorney Smith?

Thank you. So here's the background. From 2004 to 2025, and certainly from 2016 to 2025, with this owner, there were no violations. There was no, they weren't known as a bar for underage. They cooperated. It sounds like things were well-run business. They ran into some problems in 2025, 2026. We know that, and nobody is disputing that. The question is how, when the problems came about, what did they do? Did they just kind of say, well, that's too bad. We're doing everything we can. Things like this will happen. Or did they take steps to try to remedy the problem? And the clear answer is they did take steps. When the first incident happened in December, they bought a certain amount of equipment that they thought would improve the ability to scan and identify underage people. They also, the person who had their employee that night, who obviously let the underage people in, was terminated that night. It wasn't next day. It wasn't next week. It wasn't the next incident. He or she was terminated that night. Then in December, when there was another incident, Aaron went and got another piece of equipment, tried to upgrade to a better job with the scanning, a better job with identifying. WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? WE HAVE TWO INCIDENTS WITH THE SAME PERSON ON COMPLIANCE CHECKS HAS BEEN DESCRIBED. A LONG-TERM EMPLOYEE, I THINK IN THIS BUSINESS, FOUR YEARS IS PROBABLY LONGER, NEVER HAD ANY PROBLEMS. SHE SHOULD HAVE, AS DARREN HAS TESTIFIED TO, KNOWN RIGHT AWAY AND NEVER ALLOWED THOSE PERSONS TO BE DRINKING AND TO BE IN THE FACILITY. BUT SHE, FOR WHATEVER REASON, DID NOT. Because of her tenure of four years, she was told first, a warning, progressive discipline as he called it. Second time, exact same thing happens. She's terminated that night. Again, after that happens, he again tries to up his equipment. He again tries to get a better system for identifying underage people. That's in June of this year. It's not foolproof. I'm not certainly going to say it is, but there's been an improvement, as you heard, over the last three months. No problems with the police. No problems with, I'm not, there hasn't been any incidents to report. Again, is that foolproof 100%? I don't think anybody can say that, but it's certainly been an improvement, and it's a testament to him taking this problem seriously and doing something about it, whether it be spending money over $3,000 on equipment, whether it's firing two people, one a very long-term employee, whether hiring somebody to, as you testified to, who's kind of in his terms a guru when it comes to IDs, and when it comes to training that is still done, and they're trying to up the game a little bit by giving even better advice, a three-day training course. It's not all obviously on IDs, but this is three days that these folks are trained. This is somebody who takes the job seriously, takes his bar seriously, and is trying to do something about it. So when considering what to do at the end of the day, I would hope you'd consider all these factors. We aren't, as I started out an hour ago, saying we aren't, obviously we're not denying that these happen. But I think his example is, the example he's given you, is someone who is a responsible license holder and has tried to remedy a problem that is, we all know, is not unique to this property. So I would hope that when you decide what to do, and again, I realize what the standard has been in the past. Obviously, I'd love to have you do, have not a revocation or a suspension, but I hope all these factors come into your decision properly. into play when you make your decision. Thank you.

Thank you, Attorney Smith. I just want to do a quick check with Attorney Maddie. After this case, are we going into closed session or are we going to take the next hearing before going into closed session for both? Okay, thanks. Do either of you have findings of fact and conclusions of law to present to the body?

I do. Who would you like me to present that?

Clerks, is it okay to? Okay, you can submit it to the clerk and they will provide it to us. All right. So this concludes the first hearing. As you heard, I'll repeat it because they weren't mic'd. The attorney stated that we are not going to go into closed session for this one. We're going to take the next hearing and then we will convene in closed session for both. Okay. Attorney Maddie, would you say they need to stay or are they free to go? Okay, so that was not mic'd, but what they said was that there will have to be a written recommendation that will be presented next week. So that means that there's nothing that you need to wait here for tonight. You can present to next week's Thursday council meeting, if you wish.

Will that be emailed to us?

Attorney Matty, the recommendation, how is it presented to them?

So, what is anticipated will be at approximately 5.30 on Thursday, September 10th, will be a special meeting of this body. In that, this body will then make its final decision and that written decision will then be provided to you right after that. Before the six o'clock meeting where the City Council will take up the entire thing so you would have some time to review that decision and then be able to be give objections if you wish to give any objections before the City Council makes its final decision Well, that's at the end of the day that I'd say talk to your attorney and see if that is something he can give you advice on that but we would not get the Determination of this body until that Thursday night at 530.

Yes, I

Okay, with that, thank you all for being here. We're going to take five or so to switch groups of people and take a bathroom break if needed.

Thank you.

All right, we're back. Thank you for your patience. Again, as a reminder, this is now moving to the second hearing, which is the complaint in the matter of the City of La Crosse versus Moonshine on Vine LLC doing business as Dell's Bar with notice of intent for revocation or suspension of combination class B beer and liquor license for the premise address 229 3rd Street North on Legislature 26-0880. At this time, I'll ask for both parties to identify themselves. Who is present for the complainant?

For the complainant, Assistant City Attorney Gideon Wertheimer.

Thank you.

And who is present for the licensee? Tammy Plourde, Agent Moonshine on Vine. All right, thank you.

Let's see. All right, complainant, you are welcome to make an opening statement then.

Thank you. So the city is again not arguing for revocation on this establishment. As stated previously, though, this is a new hearing, so I have to say it all again. Previously, we've done stipulations of 10-day suspensions for three violations in one license year. But I would defer to the body whether they would like to do that going forward. I believe the evidence will show that there was three violations in the license year. Two in September and then one in June. The reason why this wasn't a non-renewal hearing is because the conviction itself didn't happen until July for the third incident. Obviously, the two incidents are concerning. They both were compliance checks. that were failures. And then in one of the incidents, the bartender was legally drunk, if you go by legal standards for drunk drivings. So that is obviously concerning and employees Ultimately, the establishment is responsible for their employees. So we believe their evidence will show that there were three violations and then would defer to this body in terms of how they would like to resolve those three violations. Thank you.

Thank you, Attorney Wertheimer. Ms. Plourd, would you like to make an opening statement now or you can also wait?

In lieu of repeating myself, I guess I will just wait since I'm not represented, if that's okay? Sure, that is fine.

Okay, then I will ask the complainant to begin your case in chief.

I believe everyone who might be testifying needs to be sworn in first.

That is accurate. Attorney Maddie? So anyone testifying, please stand. Thank you. All right, you may begin.

Okay, complainant calls Sergeant Mandujano. Can you state your name and spell it for the record, please?

Yeah, Danny, D-A-N-N-Y, last name Mandujano, M-A-N-D-U-J-A-N-O. And how are you currently employed? I am a sergeant with the City of La Crosse Police Department.

How long have you been a sergeant with the City of La Crosse Police Department?

Coming up on four years.

And how long have you been with the City of La Crosse as a police officer?

Coming up on 12 years.

What are some of your current responsibilities as a sergeant?

Yeah, specifically I'm assigned to the Neighborhood Resource Officer Unit. Otherwise, I take on other responsibilities, specifically the alcohol and tobacco compliance that we oversee throughout the city.

What are some of the things you do in terms of enforcing alcohol compliance?

We conduct random compliance checks, both with underage individuals, random patrol-based bar checks, and then compliance checks with the Department of Revenue.

Are you familiar with Dell's Bar? Yes. And what is Dell's Bar?

Dell's Bar is an establishment on 3rd Street located in the city of La Crosse.

Is it an alcohol establishment? Yes. Prior to the 2025-2026 license year, had you had any alcohol compliance issues with Del's Bar?

No. None more than your random establishment throughout the city. Okay.

So nothing overly special.

Correct.

Okay. Okay. In the 2025-2026 license year, were there issues in terms of alcohol compliance at Del's Bar?

Yes. There were. Oh, go ahead. Yes.

Okay. And what were they?

They were two failed compliance checks.

Okay. When was the first failed compliance check?

The first failed compliance check was on September 10th of 2025. Okay.

Can you talk to us about what occurred on September 10th, 2025? Okay.

Yes, two underage individuals went inside of the establishment, presented their real ID. They were asked how old they were, or of age, and I believe the underage individuals responded that they were not of age, despite that they were able to purchase alcohol. When the officers went inside of the establishment, they made contact with one of their bartenders who admitted to serving them and thought that they were just joking when they said they were not of age. Afterwards and through further investigation, it was determined that that bartender was actually intoxicated while serving. and provided a breath alcohol concentration of a .08, and was unable to serve, so another person had to show up. Ultimately, they were, or she was cited for two different violations. Okay.

And I guess I should back up. What is a compliance check?

A compliance check is when underage individuals go inside an establishment, alcohol establishment, and try to purchase alcohol using their real IDs. We're not trying to trick anybody or have a gotcha moment. We're just hoping that everybody passes.

Okay. So you said that bartender received two citations? Correct. And was she convicted of both of those citations?

Yes.

Okay. Are there any other issues at Della's Bar in the previous alcohol license year?

Yes, on June 3rd of 2026.

Okay, what happened on June 3rd, 2026?

Again, underage individuals went inside the establishment, provided their real identification, and they were able to purchase alcohol. When officers went in, the bartender said that she did the math wrong and was going to run outside and talk to them or whatever she planned on doing, but ultimately they failed and she was cited for furnishing to minors.

Was she convicted of that citation? Yes. Were there any other issues that were noticed on that June date?

There, no.

Any other issues noticed on the September date?

No.

Okay. And, okay. Why are we here on this case today then?

Yes. Like we spoke about before, we do have a three strike resolution here in the city. Dells has had three convictions in the last licensing year. There is some concerning behavior with inability to properly check IDs, as well as intoxicated serving. The bartender in question admitted to drinking or consuming a beer and a shot while on duty. during the September 10th compliance check like I mentioned before the police department doesn't have a recommendation we're here to present the facts of what happened during each event as mentioned before as well previous establishments have received a suspension ultimately it is up to this body to determine what you guys want to do based on our information. So we're just, like I said, making sure that we're holding everybody accountable and treating everybody fairly.

Okay. So I'm going to hand you what has been previously marked as Exhibit A. What is that?

These are the citations from both compliance checks.

Okay. So those are the three citations that eventually turned into convictions, correct?

Correct.

Okay. Have you done any sort of intervention or anything else with DELSBAR when it comes to these failed issues? No. Okay. Did you write a memorandum about the issues that occurred with this bar?

Yes.

Okay. I'm handing you what's been marked as Exhibit B. Is that the memorandum that you wrote?

Yes.

Okay. And what does it discuss?

Yeah. The memorandum is a brief synopsis, essentially, of what happened during each of the compliance checks, as well as our concern and conclusion to this body.

Was there any issues when it comes to pre-mixed drinks at the bar that were noticed by officers?

There was education given by one of the officers. There was a pre-made mix, I believe that was past the 48-hour expiration date. So there was education done by the officer saying, you know, hey, just a reminder, you guys are labeling it, but after 48 hours, these do need to be disposed of.

And then did you notice after the complaint was filed in this case that there was emails and other attachments to the incident on Legistar? Yes. Okay. And you saw some of those? Yes. Correct. Okay. So I'm showing you what's been marked as Exhibit C. I'm just showing you that. You haven't specifically read into all of those comments, correct?

No. Some of them, from my understanding, are positive regarding for Tammy, as well as a letter from her and her policy for her staff.

Okay. So you don't specifically, though, know anything about those? No. Those are, we're submitting those for the record, correct? Yes. Okay. Have you ever had a conversation with Tammy?

I have not. She recently sent me an email, which I responded to, regarding an open records request, but beyond that, no. Okay.

That's all I have. Thank you.

Tammy, would you like to cross-examine? Yes, please. Okay.

Hi. Hi. I did email you. Thank you for getting me that email back. Yeah, of course. After I received, can you hear me? This is a little tall. I can't get it to go down. I need a phone book. I can't make, it keeps popping out of the thing. All right, thank you. All right, thank you. I just have a few questions. I did, upon receiving this summons, which was last Wednesday, I went in to the police department Thursday morning and requested an open records. Unfortunately, it's not enough time to have summons gotten those, so I don't have them to present, not because I didn't try, but I did have some curiosity about compliance checks and the frequency and some of the metrics garnished by the compliance checks for licensed bar owners overall in the city of La Crosse, and specifically to Dell's Bar. So I have a few questions. So we had... I don't... I'm not disputing... the incidences from September 10th or June 3rd. I do have a little conflicting narrative of what happened on September 10th, but as far as that, she didn't actually ID them. She had had some sort of banter with them about being 21 and then thought they were joking when they said they were not. Specifically, she did not see underage IDs and then serve them. She did not card them at all. Neither here nor there. Outside of the September of 2025, we also had a compliance check December 4th of 2025 that I included on my personal statement. It wasn't that we passed. There were some notations on that, but we did not receive a citation. And then we had a compliance check June 3rd of 2026, of which we received a citation. But I am curious, have you stopped Tadell's Bar on a positive compliance check yourself or any of your colleagues?

I have not, but I know in the past that you guys have passed random bar checks for our patrol as well as compliance checks.

Okay, yeah, this one is noted as Tanner Gregory, Gregory, I think.

Yeah, he's with the state, so he's not with our department.

Okay, so at some point, most of these compliance checks are made with the, You're the La Crosse Police Department and an agent of the Wisconsin Department of Revenue. For the most part, yes.

Or the GTB or whatever we're calling them.

Okay. So I don't know if it's notated on record anywhere in your department of the compliance checks that we have had that we have had a positive outcome from. But that's part of what I requested for the open records request, mostly because we have had several compliance checks in the last year that were positive to different employees of mine. And I'm not entirely sure how many of those we've had. I've been hearing that these compliance checks are random, but we have gotten them quite frequently. So is there a rhyme or reason to how you pick the establishments?

Yeah, so we do conduct random bar checks and compliance checks as I presented to this body during my quarterly report. We go all over the city, there's no really rhyme or reason. If you think about, you know, if I am not doing very well at my job, my chief, my assistant chief, my lieutenant, they're probably going to pay a little extra attention to me, give us some feedback, hey, you probably should do a little bit better, and then you might get another compliance check or two just to ensure that you're doing your job.

So then it wouldn't be random at that point?

Right, because of the previous history that's leading us to believe that you're not doing your job.

So is that your statement that we had a few additional compliance checks due to the fact that we had one that had citations on September 2025?

I think comparatively to the other bars, you do not have...

the amount of bar checks that you guys are comparative to the other ones okay um how many do you do when you guys go out for like one day or one week or however how like like one five twenty it varies i mean the other day the state came in and we had six on our list we only got two four just because

You never know what you're gonna come across. You could come against something illegal. You can come across a place where you need to shut down the bar because there's no licensee or person that can serve there. So it just kind of depends on the day.

I have been with Dells for 24 years. And I might be dating myself here a little bit, but previously, and it's always been my understanding that individuals get cited for violations, but previously also the agent or the establishment would also get cited. I did get a little clarification from city clerk's office that that might be sort of double dipping in the citation for if you were to give me a citation as the agent and the individual the same citation for that infraction of not serving a minor or drinking on the job or something like that. But it has always been my understanding that the individual gets a citation and the agent gets it or the establishment gets a citation. It's just, I make that point because I take these citations and violations very seriously. And that was one of my first questions I will always ask is, did we as an establishment or as the license holder get a ticket? And so for these instances, we did not receive tickets. So that didn't indicate that I would take it any less seriously. I just, I was not present at either one of those court dates. I should have been. But did that change or did that used to be a thing?

No, it is just kind of at officer discretion. As this body has heard in the past, we understand that mistakes do occur, and then the bouncers or bartenders are held accountable for that. When you get to your more problematic establishments to where we are receiving and seeing the problematic behavior, that's when the agent or owner gets involved.

Okay. Because after the June 3rd citation to Abigail Hernandez, I received a letter from Chief Kudron saying, Kind of stating that on June 3rd, 2026, an employee, Abigail Hernandez, was issued a municipal ordinance citation the following municipal codes, 4-6 sale furnished malt beverage to underage. Copies of the citations are attached for your review. Any further violations of city code or state law will result in a citation issued to you as the license holder agent of the establishment. So again, that's kind of reaffirmed my belief that I had not received any citations. And I guess this was important when I received my summons last Wednesday. I was a little shocked to be being summonsed because we had kind of gone through this process. And I believe that my bartenders went and did their due diligence and went to the hearings. And I'll speak to that a little bit more, but this is kind of where I got a little confused as to how my personal license was being jeopardized or threatened for suspension or revocation. So I guess if I might have to wait for the open records request, but are you saying that you do not have like a record to reference on all the compliance checks that are done throughout the city? Like so you know X amount have been done and here's how many that passed and here's how many that

failed do you have is there such a record or there is I keep a hard copy folder and then a digital copy and if you would like those I can provide those to you

I filed for the request, so yes, please. Okay, so I guess the biggest point I'm trying to make is that we have had numerous compliance checks over the past two years for sure, and although we have failed a couple, I can see why it would be very concerning that we would fail a few, and I would speak to that later. But I don't think that, oh, my other thing about this court process for the bartenders. So when they get their violations and their citations, you guys are very professional and you're usually, you know, outline what happened and what their recourses are. So I haven't actually specifically been to a hearing. I know that both these women, when they went to their hearings, they got very overwhelmed and The idea of speaking or defending themselves was more overwhelming than paying $313 and $563. So can you just walk me through what happens at those and maybe the council can understand as well?

I just want to pause here for a moment because this is cross-examination. So we want to make sure we're asking questions or cross-examining their testimony. And then you can include... like your arguments in your own case. Does that make sense?

Oh, yep. It makes sense. I just said on this memorandum, it was, or I think even he said something about coming to the court case or whatever she said at the court case about, or maybe that was when she got the citation about thinking that they were joking when they were under 21. So I'm just trying to get an idea of what's expected. Who should I ask that question to?

Attorney Matti, do you want to weigh in if that's appropriate for cross-examination?

I think the question is, the question to the witness is basically how that citation process works, and that's the municipal court process. If I'm understanding, you're asking a question how that citation, how it gets processed through municipal court?

Yeah, I mean, both of these bartenders were recommended to show up at court and defend themselves, plead guilty or not guilty.

So then if the witness knows that process, the witness can answer the question as the witness knows.

I don't know the ins and outs of municipal court, but essentially we issue a citation. The citation goes to the court. There is a hearing date set. And then the individual who received that citation would be able to go in front of the judge, essentially like what we're doing today, give their side of the story. The city attorney's office will present their side of the story, and then the judge makes a decision on if they're guilty or not, or whatever that they might find.

Okay. Both women who attended got pretty overwhelmed and chose to plead guilty and not plead their cases. It's neither here nor there. guess it was a little bit overwhelming and again i hadn't um attended because i wasn't aware that my license was also sort of on the the hot plate for both of those uh incidences so um i don't think i have any further questions thank you attorney do you want to address anything sure i'll just kind of ask you a couple questions um

So do you know how many times Dell's bars passed bar checks or compliance checks?

Not off the top of my head, no. Okay.

But they have obviously passed.

Traditionally, yes, they have passed.

Okay. And then you were saying something about bar checks, which... Is there a difference between compliance checks and bar checks?

Yeah, so a bar check is conducted randomly, like I said before, at the patrol level. Bars on the downtown 3rd Street, 4th Street, anywhere in the city essentially, will be conducted randomly throughout the night just to ensure that everything is going okay in those establishments and a compliance check. is something we set up beforehand where we have two underage individuals go in and try to obtain alcohol in alcohol establishments.

Okay. So with bar checks, those are mainly targeted – At the 3rd Street bars, are those more the ones that are maybe closer to Main Street, or does that also include Dells?

It includes anywhere in the city. It depends. I mean, you've got your group of bars on the north side, you have yours on the south side, you have your downtown. It just depends on where officers are at during the day.

Where are most bar checks occurring, though?

Downtown, on 3rd and 4th Street.

Would you include, I mean, Dell's is downtown, so do you include Dell's as one of those bars that have more bar checks than something on the north side, for example?

Yes. Okay.

I'm going to ask you about, do you know the law when it comes to writing the bar with failed compliance checks? Yes. Okay. Do you know that if it's a, if you use an undercover individual, underage individual, that the law states you can't write it against the establishment? Correct. Okay. So you can only write it against the bartender or the bouncer, whoever let that person in? Correct. Okay. So that is part of the reason why Dell's bar wouldn't be written a citation for failed compliance checks?

In these circumstances, yes.

Okay. That's all I have. Thank you.

I can see that you want to... So you can cross-examine. Again, I want to avoid the back and forth, but I see you have a response.

It'll be real quick. I just, yeah, so. Do you also have record on bar checks to Dell's bar then in the last licensing year? I assume since we hadn't gotten any citations, but I'm not entirely sure how often you absolutely come. So do you have record of that?

Through open records request, yes.

Okay. All right. So that would be something I would get in the, okay.

Yep.

Do you, just a general piece of knowledge, so we'll just talk about, you guys talked about it at the last hearings about, fake IDs and the issues that are stemming from just the sheer volume of fake IDs that are getting ordered and being used by underage drinkers. Do you, in your opinion, feel like that's getting worse or is better or the same?

Like as far as how many underage... Do you mean like the purchase of them or the use of them or what we're seeing, the bars we're seeing, or what do you mean specifically?

Like are you seeing or are you... I mean, we confiscate a lot of fake IDs, so are you also seeing that there is a pretty huge uptick in kids having fake IDs, or do you not really see them?

I mean, we only get called to ones that are reported to us, and so it's hard to quantify what the actual number is, so I would say, I mean, no more than your average school year. Okay.

Okay, that's it for me.

All right, Attorney Wertheimer, anything else on this witness? No. Okay. Council members, do you have questions for the witness? Attorney Wertheimer, you have a question for her? Is that allowed, Attorney Maddie?

The attorney is not sworn as not providing evidence, so the witness is the one providing evidence.

What are we counting as the three violations? So the resolution says three violations. What are the three?

In this specific case or? Yes. So the three separate citations. So it would be the serving underage, the serving while intoxicated, and then from the other compliance check of serving and underage. So even though there's two events, the citations total is three.

But that's just two incidences, is that correct? Correct. It's just two incidences and two people?

Correct.

It's not three incidences and three people?

Two people did three things incorrectly, yes.

Okay, thanks.

Any other questions for the witness? Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Attorney Wertheimer, do you have anything else

No, Your Honor.

Okay, so you conclude your case. Yes. Okay. All right. Licensee then may begin its case in chief. And we already swore in. And just you, so you don't have a witness. Oh.

Okay.

Sorry.

Just give me trouble. Okay. I was able to, I think, and it was submitted as one exhibit, but all of my submissions and attachments, I'm hoping that you were all able to review. I brought my actual binder of useful information, but I will have to bring it back to the bar so that they have access to it. But most of the stuff that were pertinent to this hearing, I submitted for you. So, let's see. So, I have my new hire letter that I give to all potential and hirees that I choose to, enter into employment with, they are given a very strict, detailed outline of what the expectations are. I have always had a zero tolerance policy for drinking and not following the rules and regulations. I, too, I would say have a three-ish strike policy. meaning that I do follow a procedure for reprimanding people. And at some point, if we have to get to the point of termination, I have made difficult decisions to terminate people. I do take people's livelihoods very seriously. So the two women that are outlined in this complaint, they do still work for me. They didn't have any offenses prior to and they have not had any offenses following those two incidences. So I'll outline that a little bit, but generally speaking, you understand that one woman got two violations and the other one got a violation. The other attachment is my 2026 policies. The only reason it's outlined as 2026 is every year I update them to the current year and make sure that I try to find anything that has changed as far as legalities and things that I... provide to the staff so that they are knowledgeable. I have a Department of Revenue checklist. I actually have the full chapter 125 printed and in my binder of useful stuff. So people are able to look at that and they've been sent that link numerous times. I also outlined specifically, and this was probably a result of one of these infractions, the under 21 policy. Since these infractions have happened, we actually have opted to go to a zero tolerance, zero under 21 policy. And I know that chapter 125 and the code for here for the ordinances do allow for certain exemptions for under 21 agers to come in. And we have chosen to not use those guidelines and just be strictly 21 and over. And then the document that I have that shows the DOWS binder of useful stuff, I'll just outline some of the procedural updates that I have taken as a result of wanting to be compliant and at some of these incidences that have happened. I have also attached my resume. It's fairly short. I haven't worked at too many places, but I have been in this town since 1994 and went to UW Hill. I started my first business in 2000, I think, and so I have been an entrepreneur since I was 22 years old. And part of that comes with it is coming, I'm sorry, is employing people and trying to do license renewals and all sorts of compliances in hospitality. So I've been in this industry for a very long time. And then lastly, there's letters of support that are outlined on here, and I hope that you've had a chance to review those. I already spoke about the opens records request, so I will submit that if there's an opportunity to do so or if that is needed. Thank you for listening today. Again, I've been part of this organization for 24 years, from 2002 to 2021 under Tom Young, under the TA Young Incorporated. After he sadly passed away, I was able to form my own proprietorship and be the operator for the last four and a half years. So I am very familiar with all the history behind Dells Bar for the last 24 years and have guided and been the leader on license renewal, compliances, employment, all the processes and procedures during those years. I personally don't have any violations for myself or the agent in those years. But so, okay, sorry. Both of those incidences, the women were advised to go to court. I had hoped for a different outcome because, you know, they made a mistake. They had no history of citations. I think they could have made a strong case for themselves. They both got very anxious and overwhelmed and were not able to do the process. So I'm hoping that the process could maybe be a little friendlier. I understand that they had a citation and they don't have to be coddled. But they both chose to plead guilty and pay their fines. I felt like their fines were pretty steep fines. punishments for the crimes or the violations And we had several meetings in regards to them And they were put on notice and those those incidents were recorded under their employment history And again, they had no prior one Erin Moore has worked for me for almost 20 years has this is the only incidents that she has had with me and her employment for me and then Abigail has worked for me for almost seven years and again, I She's kind of a tough cookie, and I've never had any issues with her. I know that in her situation, one person was of age, I believe, and the other person, their birthday was in June, and her citation happened June 3rd, and she got a little kerfuffled, and when she realized her mistake, she did go back and tried to see the female's ID again, and she was already issued a citation. So I believe that good people make bad choices. And in lieu of dwelling on that, we made a lot of updates to our policy that I think were very positive and they have helped us really have a better, smoother procedure in dealing with a lot of issues that we face as far as underage. patrons wanting to try to get into the bar. So like I said, I have the full chapter 125 printed and in this binder. We have chosen to control, we have two entrances and exits in the bar. We have chosen to control one entrance and exit the side door on Vine Street for the PM hours when we are a little busier and they're are a lot more people that are trying to come in and more college students during that time. So you'll see that we have signs that we post at the start of our PM shifts and this panic bar goes into exit only, emergency exit only mode so that you have to hit the panic bar and sound off the alarm to be able to use that door. It is locked from the outside so you're not able to enter the establishment through the outside door. That has helped us a lot in controlling and being able to be visible who is coming in and leaving the bar. We also got an ID scanner. They're not fallible. I mean, they're not totally fail-proof, but you'll see that in the picture it does, for the most part, tell us if there is a fake ID or a, excuse the age on this one. Um, if there is a real ID, um, so those are very helpful, but there are a lot of times where we're not entirely sure. And some of the new, um, fake IDs that are coming out there that the kids are getting actually scan is valid. Um, but there are telltale signs. A lot of the times that they are not, um, Real IDs, the corners are usually jagged. So as a backup system, all my bartenders carry a small flashlight. And if you're able to put your flashlight on the ID, the whole ID perimeter will glow. And it's a very telltale sign that that is a fake ID. So we usually use both procedures, and we're fairly accurate. On my last page here, I have all of the fun IDs that we have. We do not give those back. So if you have the audacity to come into our establishment and try to commit a crime, we mark these up and we put an end to their night pretty quickly. Following the first incident in September, I put a $20 bounty on all confiscated IDs just to see the metric on what I was dealing with, and I dished out almost $1,000. So I guess incentive is a big thing. It's not a very sustainable model for business. And I also updated our policies and procedures to make sure that they were following the rules as well. So those were a lot of things that we did. to kind of update and try to protect ourselves. Are we 100%? I'd like to think that we are. My biggest struggle has always been human error or human decisions that choose not to follow the policies and procedures that I put in place. My resume will show you that I've sat on a lot of boards in this community. And one of the boards I had the pleasure of serving on was the Wisconsin Brewers Guild. So I did a lot of work in defining and helping to update Chapter 125 and in the ways of how it is experienced through license holders, through manufacturers, producers. and human beings. So it's been a very interesting process for me to say that I did that and I'm still sitting here in front of you. I hope it goes to show that there is some fallibility in some processes that might be outside of my control. But I'm very proud of my crew and I will always stand behind them, even the ones that got... I think that they had to learn some really tough lessons and I had to learn them as well. Outside of that, I have a very nice stack of recommendation letters that speak to my strictness and my policies and procedures and the way I choose to operate. And I hope that you will have a good sense of kind of my style and what I expect. Thank you very much. Yes.

Attorney Wertheimer, do you want to cross-examine?

Sure. So I'll just kind of ask you a couple questions. So first, the three tickets, are you disputing that those three tickets happened?

I'm not disputing that they happened.

Okay. I just wanted to make sure of that. How often are you in the bar?

So I will say that if I am in town, which is almost all of the time, I go to the bar several times a day. I do my administrative stuff typically when people are not around so I can think and people aren't talking to me. I am also in communication with my staff. I choose to not have general managers, shift managers, or assistant managers. I do all of the daily operations and all of the shift managing and all of the general managing myself. because I like to stay very in tune with what's going on. So all of my staff can say they see me often, they hear from me daily. And while I'm not on site 24 hours during a shift, I utilize a camera system that is on my phone. And part of what I use for compliance is also to review my cameras quite frequently, do spot checks on the cameras to see if I see anything. I've used those cameras to catch and people that were drinking on the job and those people no longer work for me. So I believe that system helps. And I live about three and a half minutes from the bar. So I often, I've said I've been on call for 24 hours a day for 24 years. So it's not uncommon that I am coming to the establishment if and when there is ever incidents. My staff feel very comfortable in contacting me if they have a question that they don't want to flub up on and they will contact me. So I have a very big open line of communication and dialogue with my staff.

Okay. And do you own other bars in the city?

I do not own other bars. I used to work at the brewery, but I don't work there since I became the proprietor of this establishment. I do spend a lot of time there because my partner owns the brewery.

Okay. I noticed there were emails from Pearl Street Brewery, and I was curious. Okay, yeah.

Yeah.

Okay. So at your bar, is there usually only one person on duty or one bartender on duty? No.

No, I mean, during happy hour where we have a lower volume, we do have one. We have historically always had one shift member during higher volume times of nights and weekends. We have four to two, depending. And then there are times where we know it's going to be a really high volume day. It's not uncommon to see me sitting on a bar stool carting people. And then we will staff up as needed for that. things like pub crawls or big giant events okay and so how so obviously both of these incidents there was only one bartender on duty correct yes knowledge okay one was at like six o'clock at night and the other one was also a happy hour like a low volume time it wasn't like a night or weekend

So one of the incidents is obviously your bartender was impaired. So how do you prevent that sort of thing from your bartenders from drinking on the job?

It is constant supervision. It's constant follow-up. I mean, it's a climate where... i've been here for two and a half decades and back in the day that was just kind of the known practice it's never been my practice i have always had the same standard of zero percent alcohol people have broken those rules um most of those people who have broken those rules no longer work for me so it's usually uh you know that's kind of where the three strikes you're out kind of thing is if i've caught you then you're on record then you get another write-up. And then if you get any more incidences, I never really get to the third strike. It's just not going to work out. If you want to drink, then you're going to drink. And so for me, I'm always like, if you want to go and have a good time, please cover your shift. No one's ever mad at you. I never say no if they don't want to work. If a friend comes from out of town, then you should go do that. But I'm very clear about that.

Okay. And then what is your... policy for IDs that say under 21 on those?

Yeah, they have to be a valid current ID. So if they say under 21 and they're an expired ID, of course, we do not accept those.

Okay. So then in these two incidents, right, the, well, in one incident, I don't think they even gave an ID. They just said they were 18. But in the other incident, they give an ID that says under 21 on it. Yeah. So is that just a violation of your policy then?

It would be a violation of my policy. More specifically, she got tripped up on the fact that the woman's birthday was in June of this year, coming up in a few weeks. And she just had that kind of mind fart that said, If this was a good ID, I don't even think she probably noticed the under 21, but she should have. Yes.

Okay. And what if I told you that it, that the birth year was actually 2006 and not 2005? Does that, and she just read that? Yeah.

I mean, she made an error. And I think like, again, as in speaking with her, she was really focused on that June, like coming up birthday. And Yeah, I mean, she screwed up. I'm not contesting that she didn't. But, like, walking her through where her brain was, that's what...

But, so you just said, though, you... If... And you would not accept expired IDs. And when it says under 21, it expires on your birthday. So why is she even considering that ID at all if she sees under 21? And then...

She shouldn't.

So in those cases, she shouldn't even be considering them, correct?

She shouldn't even be considering them. Again, like I said, I don't know. I mean, that should have been the thing that she saw. Yes, absolutely. It was a pretty big error.

Okay. And that's all I have. Thank you.

Okay. I would like to ask council members if they have any questions for you before you wrap up. Do you have any other comments you want to make before I do that?

You know, I just, with these letters, it's just, you know, what I'm trying to outline is my 24-year history with this city. and no violations. I think the clerk's office would probably say yes if I said I'm very, very untuned with emailing, asking questions. I'm very open line with the Department of Revenue, so I'm not trying to shirk my duties. in any way, shape or form. We take responsibility of what happened, absolutely. And I think that's what compliance checks are for. They're to show you that you have a hole in your system and what happens from there is up to you. And what I chose to do is make our system better. And I believe that I have shown you that and I'm happy to discuss that further if you'd like me to. I would also like to point out that during the course of the year, although it's been highlighted, the violations, I believe that we have passed a lot of compliance checks and we have been visited numerous times within the last licensing year. And I believe that we have done a pretty good job in preparing for them. I don't typically sweat when we're going to be visited because I believe that on the whole, I personally train students. and hire everybody myself. And so I like to try to think that I'm very thorough in, um, those incidences. The fact that I'm sitting here tells you that there was a few holes, and I believe that we've taken a lot of steps to try to make sure that those are not an issue moving forward. I would like you to consider that the frequency of compliance checks in the city to all establishments have increased exponentially in the past several years, which I don't contest or argue with. That's okay. But then that does say a lot about The ones that we were highlighted on, again, the failures, they don't also speak to the ones that we passed. I hope that you also consider the testimonies and letters that outline my reputation and the way that I operate and people's experiences and my rules and expectations. So I'm hoping that the committee will consider something a little less severe than a suspension or a revocation. And I remain available by cell and email or any which way you'd like to ask me more questions. Thank you.

Are there any questions? Yes. Go ahead.

Can you tell me how many of your bartenders or your servers have had their licenses revoked?

None of my staff have ever, I mean, those are the only two violations, or three violations that we've had. No revocations. I do require everyone that works for me to take the online bartender's training course to show me and verify certification and then be licensed by the City of La Crosse to be a bartender for me. I know there are some establishments that might not necessarily require that one of the things that I think is pertinent and probably is not for you guys but I hope that in the future when you are considering some of these issues that remain I understand your want to hold responsibility and for people to be you know responsible for making sure that we're providing a space that is compliant and respectful and responsible. I totally get that. You also license all of these people personally. They get their bartender's license from the city of La Crosse as well. So if they're looking at suspension and revocation or not being able to renew their licenses, they're not going to be able to go to another place that will hire them and fail compliances and do things. So it's just a place to look at. in addition to looking at the agents and license holders, because I'm on your side. I get it. And there's no money to be made serving underage kids. So I look forward to kind of understanding from this process some ways that maybe it can improve for everybody.

And what has happened to these two employees of yours?

Again, they still work for me. They had no known prior offenses with me. They were written up and the incidences were put on their employee files. They've had no issues since. If they would have further issues, then they would be reviewed for their employment.

And can you tell me just sort of a a ballpark number, how many of your staff, like a lot or a few last year or up to now this year, have you let go because they haven't met your standards? Like, so how many people have you had to fire because they didn't meet your standards in this last year?

I changed my, I kind of changed the way that I, I'm not, I'm, Employing people is not for the faint of heart. I'm just gonna, they're your most important resource. It's very challenging, and in this climate, keeping hospitality staff is exceptionally hard. My staff, almost every single one of them, have maybe two years with me or more. I do have a new batch of people, and some of them had submitted letters that have only been with me for under four months. I've only let go of one staff in the last current year for not meeting standards. Overarchingly in 24 years, that number is very big.

Oh, firing people? Yeah. Right. And then can you say... Well, not like very big, but bigger. Sorry. Okay. So you have fired people who didn't meet your standards? Yes.

Absolutely. I mean, people know that if they don't meet these standards and they put ourselves and our licenses and our livelihoods on the line, that they will be held to those standards and not be able to continue. And what was my next question?

Oh, can you say roughly how many people are now who work for you, have worked for you for more than a year, and how many people have worked for you for less than a year, roughly?

I would say there are four people that have worked for me for under a year. One of them doesn't really count because she kind of has worked for me and then came back. But in this tenure, the rest of the 80% have worked for me for over five years, probably.

So if I asked you that question differently, it would be something like, how many of your employees have worked for you for more than five years versus how many have worked for you for less than five years? Yeah. Because one year isn't really the standard that seems to apply in your situation. Yeah.

No, I mean, I typically pride myself. I think that I'm very clear with my expectations, and I provide a good place to work and with great guidelines and stuff, so I don't have a ton of turnover. But I would say a majority of the people that have worked for me have worked for me for over a couple years all the way up to 20 years. Okay, thank you.

Any other questions? Sure, Council President.

So I wrote this question before your testimony, so understand where it came from. So what is your most effective method for maintaining compliance?

I'll leave it at that. I might have a follow-up. Yeah, you know, my most effective method is really good communication and really, really outlined guidelines. And so my binder of useful stuff, I think, is really clutch because it's always there. It's always on hand. I'm always reviewing it. Um, and then obviously like follow up or, you know, like I don't wait till something stews or gets worth worse. Like if something happens, I'm one to, you know, notate that and deal with it immediately. Um, so that we don't get into this situation where we're having violations or we're doing things that we're not supposed to be. Does that make sense or okay.

so my follow-up is do you think you're teaching also for visual cues of how to rate whether a person is younger or above age of 21 um that's because of past experience that we've had here so i just want you to elaborate on that a little

Um, you know, without being kitschy, uh, Erin's issue, and it sounds like she wasn't taking it seriously. She had just carded two fellas that were like 38 and then they came in. And so, you know, I'm not contesting that she had a violation, um, but it's so hard to judge a person and their age anymore. Um, I'm 50. And so I think everybody looks under 21 to be honest. So it's very challenging to say that, you know, I don't get this guideline. Like if you're, if they look under 25, I think everybody looks too young. So if I'm behind the bar, I just card everybody and I'm more willing to upset people that are like, what? I'm too old or I could be your grandmother than to like risk an infraction. And I really instill that in my bartenders as well, or I try to. Thank you. Yeah.

Any other questions? I only have one. The bartender who was drinking on the job is the one that perplexes me. So it sounds like you have let go people who were drinking on the job before, but can you help me understand why you didn't let go this person?

I have let people go that I have caught drinking. They're in an environment where they're doing it. They're doing it unabashedly. I've busted them and they know the rules. In this situation, also, I did not feel any differently about it. I thought she got a really heavy fine and she had to pay almost $563 in tickets. And so I just weighed that in considering that infraction. And the fact of her work history with me. So I didn't think it was less important or anything by any means. 0.08 is, you know, that's the legal limit. I totally respect that. Around me, you should be 0% when you're working. And I can't stress that enough. She knew that I was very disappointed in her. And again, I guess I just took the fact that she had been punished at that moment with the violations. having to go to court and having to pay that fine and the embarrassment of getting pulled out from the middle of her shift and not being able to finish it because she had made that bad decision. And it wasn't cool at all. And I certainly know that she thinks about that a lot, you know, and she couldn't feel more poorly about us being in this situation at her, you know, due to her actions. So...

So... So you took disciplinary action above the legal disciplinary steps that she had to go through. Or I guess, how will you prevent your bartenders in the future from drinking alcohol?

I can only take an onward and upward stance, and I don't believe that we have a chronic problem. I feel like I'm very, very hands-on. I'm never very far away from viewing my shifts. I touch base with them every day. I have outlined in several places these rules and regulations. Do I catch everybody and everybody's infractions? No, I don't. I have to at some point be able to sleep at night and assume that like I have set the system up for success as much as possible. We had a trust issue after that, right? And I mean, I just known her for a very long time and I know she couldn't feel worse. So I do trust that she has learned from this and has chosen to move on. I could go back and say, well, I'm in this situation. I don't want to be here. You're out. In regards to my considerations, it's that she's always had a really great history with me. She's a very great bartender. She has a very good staple of regular customers. She's always on time for work. As far as I know, she does a really great job and she is a really great person who made really bad choice that day.

Okay, thank you. So we asked you questions. I just want to confirm, have you finished presenting your case to this body? I believe I have, yeah. Okay, thank you. So at this point, I'm going to ask if either of you have any findings of fact or conclusions of law to present to this body before we finish the hearing. I'm not entirely sure what that is, but I did not bring anything. So that's just like a summary of your points that you want to present to the body and any evidence you want to present, which I believe we're online. It's okay if you didn't bring anything.

Thank you.

All right. So at this point, then the hearing process is done. We are going to now convene into closed session for the purpose. Oh, I'm sorry. So sorry, sorry.

I felt like you did that already, but we were just here an hour ago.

Attorney Wertheimer, yes, present your closing statement.

Thank you. I guess. first, I guess, to Council Member Stroh's questions. First, I will say that the resolution from 1987 just says convictions. It doesn't say separate incidents or anything like that. So that is why we're here today is because it just says convictions. So just to note that in terms of your question on that. I will also note that the state statute itself only says two violations could be enough to suspend or revoke. As I said, something similar in the previous hearing. Again, I don't think there is much dispute that there were three convictions for employees of Dell's bar. Ultimately, obviously, the bar is responsible for their employees. Obviously, we are concerned that two of the incidents were compliance checks. Those, we bring in usually two underage individuals. I think both of these cases, there were two underage individuals with their real IDs. In one instance, the ID wasn't even shown. They just said that they were 18. And I think part of the issue there is that Ms. Moore was intoxicated. And when you're intoxicated, you can't always think straight. So I don't see that as her being afraid to ask people their IDs. I think she couldn't think straight because she was impaired and impaired enough that officers, when they walked in, noticed that because they can't just, what they did was called a preliminary breath test. can't just do that without any evidence. So they obviously saw evidence of impairment there, which is concerning. I will note that being a .08 means not just a singular drink, usually two or three drinks. So her having multiple drinks is also concerning on the job. And then the other incident, is just concerning when you see an IDE that says you're under 21, that is always and should be a big red flag. You know, I hope that Tammy, you know, this is an eye opener for her. They have not had previous issues. Obviously, we are doing more compliance checks. I think that in the last couple years, and I hope that they pass future ones, but it is concerning, and they do have three convictions. In terms of the penalties, we are not asking for revocation. In terms of any other penalties, we would defer to this body. Thank you.

Thank you, Attorney Wertheimer. Ms. Blort, would you like to make a closing statement?

Yeah, I mean, I believe I've laid out our case, and again, we're not contesting our failure to pass those compliance tests, and I think that that is a very serious issue. I believe compliance checks are for the good of the establishments to understand that there are holes in the processes, and I... I appreciate that we were held to light on that. And I do hope that this body will consider all the factors that I've presented to you. Again, I'm hoping that you will consider a lesser, something lesser than a suspension or revocation. And yeah, moving forward, we don't plan on not complying.

All right, thank you both. Now that you both have presented your final statements, we will conclude this portion of the hearing and we will now convene in closed session. for the purpose of considering the evidence and determining its report and recommendation to the city council. Again, we're gonna present, so we'll have a meeting next Thursday at about 5.30, where you'll receive the finding, be able to prepare for any potential objections, which can be made to the city council. So, Judiciary and Administration Committee will convene in closed session pursuant to Wisconsin State Statute 18, excuse me, 19.85 , and we will not reconvene in open session, so you do not need to wait here. At this point, I'll take a motion for going into closed session. That's made by Council President Dickinson, second by Council Member Podeski. Can I have all those in favor of going into closed session? Aye, that is unanimous. Okay, thank you all. We will convene in closed session. Thank you for being here. Yeah, so we will reconvene in about five minutes. Take a break before going into closed session.