Ordinance and Licensing Committee denies bartender license for Maureen Delgadillo, cites state felony bar

Waukesha, Wis. — The Waukesha City Ordinance and Licensing Committee on April 28 denied a bartender license application from Maureen Delgadillo after members said state law prevents issuing an alcohol license to someone convicted of a felony.

Delgadillo, who told the committee she has multiple past alcohol-related offenses and described a period of addiction and recovery, asked for the license to expand her employment. "Absolutely no explanation that would justify what I did. I'm very sorry and I'm so glad. I thank the Lord every day that I didn't hurt anybody," Delgadillo said during her appearance.

Committee members discussed Delgadillo's record, the length of time since her last offense and her employer's support. A representative for the Ingleside Hotel said the organization conducted background checks before hiring Delgadillo, had found her to be "in good standing" and supported her move from part-time to a larger role that would include bartending roughly 25–30% of the time.

However, the committee cited a Wisconsin state statute and an email from the city attorney indicating a fourth operating-while-intoxicated (OWI) conviction is a class H felony and that state law bars issuing an alcohol-related license to a person convicted of a felony. "The Wisconsin state statute does say that no license or permit related to alcoholic beverages ... may be issued to somebody who's convicted of a felony," a committee member said while reading the city attorney's guidance.

Committee debate noted both a pattern of prior offenses and the fact that Delgadillo's last offense was several years earlier. One member said the most persuasive factors were the felony classification under state law and the absence of the city attorney to provide live counsel. Ultimately, Alderperson Mannion moved to deny the application and Alderperson Helvins Laban seconded the motion.

The motion to deny passed with a tally of three yes votes and one recorded abstention. The committee did not record individual roll-call votes in the transcript provided; the motion and final tally were entered into the record as passed.

Clarifying details recorded during the hearing included committee members' exchange about the number of OWI offenses: committee members at one point referenced five separate OWI charges, and then corrected that count to four during the discussion. The city attorney's email that the committee cited was referenced but the city attorney was not present at the meeting to participate.

The committee concluded the item by stating that, although several members expressed sympathy for Delgadillo's efforts at rehabilitation, the city must follow state law as interpreted in the city attorney's guidance. No appeal procedure or next administrative steps were discussed on the record at the meeting.