West Allis committee recommends revocation of The Drunk Uncle liquor license after harassment, safety and licensing complaints

The Public Safety Committee of the Common Council of the City of West Allis voted unanimously on April 3 to recommend revoking the liquor license of Steffek LLC, which operates The Drunk Uncle at 1902 S. 60th Street, following a hearing at which multiple patrons and city officials testified about alleged misconduct at the bar.

The committee chair, Suzette Grisham, opened the hearing under Wisconsin Statutes §125.12 and said the committee would “determine whether any of the charges against you are true and . . . make findings of facts and conclusion of law,” noting the prosecutor had the burden of proof. The committee later found counts 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of the city’s complaint sustained and dismissed count 4; the committee voted 5–0 to recommend license revocation and directed staff to prepare a report and recommended findings for the Common Council’s May 6 meeting.

Why it matters: The committee’s recommendation would remove a longstanding neighborhood bar’s ability to sell alcohol if the Common Council accepts it, affecting public-safety enforcement, the bar’s employees and patrons and local business regulation.

Committee members heard testimony from seven witnesses who described overlapping incidents. Allison V., who said she was at the bar on March 30, 2024, testified that owner Neil Steffek was “intoxicated,” exposed his chest to her and repeatedly told her “it was your turn”; she said Steffek then reached for her wrist and tried to pull her behind the bar. Logan (surname not given), a patron who testified he intervened that night, described trying to de-escalate by ordering drinks and said Steffek ignored him and continued to harass the woman. Dana C. testified about a separate May 26, 2024 incident in which she said Steffek shouted slurs, blocked the door and “threatened to shoot us”; Dana reported she called West Allis police that night, the department’s call notes recorded a report of a threat to shoot, and an officer testified the call notes reflected that the owner had threatened patrons.

Other witnesses included Samantha S., a longtime patron who described repeated unwelcome conduct over several years; Officer Kyle Webster and Officer Kevin Musati of the West Allis Police Department, who described review of the police call notes and recurring tavern checks; and two Department of Revenue agents who testified about seller’s-permit records. Agent Evans identified a Findings and Order of the Department of Revenue showing a seller’s permit under Steffek LLC was revoked July 18, 2024; a second agent testified that a new seller’s permit had been issued under a different entity name but that a valid DOR permit alone does not substitute for a municipal liquor license.

Steffek denied most allegations. At one point he testified, “They’re pretty much all false except for one’s got small I’ll give it 20% truth to it,” referring to an instance when he said he briefly left the premises. He also disputed details of some witness accounts and challenged dates and beverage brands mentioned in testimony.

City and police witnesses described tavern checks after the DOR action, including an instance when officers observed service with no licensed bartender on duty and temporarily halted service until a licensed supervisor arrived. Officer Musati testified that tavern checks in the months after the DOR action showed the establishment operating while the revoked seller’s permit remained in DOR records.

The committee’s formal actions included a voice vote sustaining counts 1, 2, 3 and 5, a separate voice vote sustaining count 6, and a unanimous roll-call vote (Chair Suzette Grisham; Ald. Kevin Haas; Ald. Ray Turner; Ald. (Halverson/Halvorsen); Ald. (Roet/Gaynor) — recorded as five ayes) to recommend revocation of Steffek LLC’s license. The committee dismissed count 4 by motion earlier in the hearing. The chair said staff and the city attorney would prepare a written report with findings of fact and conclusions of law and provide the report to the parties ahead of the May 6 Common Council meeting, at which the licensee or complainant may file objections and present argument.

What the committee considered: testimony from victims describing unwelcome sexualized behavior and threats; the revocation and later issuance history of seller’s-permit records with the Wisconsin Department of Revenue; police call notes reflecting a patron report that an owner threatened to shoot; tavern-check testimony about service and licensed-supervisor requirements; and social-media posts and responses that precipitated some recent complaints. Committee members said they weighed witness demeanor and the consistency of multiple independent statements in finding several counts sustained.

Next steps: The committee’s recommendation goes to the full Common Council on May 6. The council will consider the committee’s report, hear any objections and decide whether to accept, modify or reject the recommendation. The hearing record shows the committee’s recommendation is not itself the final action; the council’s vote will determine the license’s legal status.

Ending note: The hearing record shows the committee balanced older allegations with more recent complaints and administrative records. The committee stated its recommendation is based on the totality of witness testimony, police call notes and Department of Revenue records; it also noted the city’s duty to protect patrons and uphold licensing laws.