ALRC refers bartender application after background‑check and filing confusion

The Alcohol License Review Committee on Feb. 18 referred a bartender (operator) license application for Timothy Consigni to its next meeting after committee members and staff found procedural and documentation gaps in his file.

Consigni told the panel he had completed court‑ordered steps, including an eight‑week DUI course at Madison Area Technical College and about six months with an ignition interlock installed on his vehicle. He acknowledged prior police contacts listed in the MPD summary — an open‑intoxicants in a motor vehicle charge in 2020, an OWI first offense in 2021, a hit‑and‑run owner‑liability entry in 2024 and an additional OWI entry noted in 2025 — and said he had complied with court requirements.

Lieutenant Hannah of the Madison Police Department told the committee that an initial DOT/MPD query showed a revoked license, and after a follow‑up search she could not confirm an occupational license in the records she first saw. A later check of a separate record sheet showed an occupational license for Consigni; Hannah said she would dig in further. Consigni said he carries a valid occupational license and that officers who recently pulled him over had accepted that license.

Committee members focused on two problems: whether the committee was reviewing the correct, current application and whether the applicant had provided the written, credible evidence of rehabilitation the ALRC’s guidelines describe. Attorney McReynolds reminded members that guidelines identify credible evidence as agency letterhead recommendations, certificates of completion, AODA counselor letters or probation‑agent confirmation.

After discussion about an apparent clerical oversight — staff said a new application should have been filed when the prior application was placed on file by the Common Council — Alder Figueroa Cole moved to refer Consigni’s application to the committee’s next meeting. The motion asked staff to run an expedited background check, asked the applicant to submit a new application (with the $45 prorated fee explained by staff) and requested the applicant attach supporting proof (certificates and letters) to the new filing. The motion carried with no objection.

What happens next: Consigni must submit a new application and supporting documentation to the clerk’s office; staff said MPD can be asked to prioritize the background check once the new application is filed. The committee noted approval at a future meeting remains contingent on the completed background check and the written evidence of rehabilitation being submitted and reviewed.

Quotes that capture the moment:

"If we're going to recommend that an application be approved despite the guidelines, then the applicant needs to present substantial, credible evidence of rehabilitation," Attorney McReynolds told the committee.

"It would be an unfortunate optic at the very least to have that slow this down once again," the chair said, noting the committee’s concern about procedural errors.

Ending: The committee formally referred Consigni’s application to its next meeting and instructed staff to request expedited records and asked the applicant to file a new application with supporting documentation before the next hearing.