City council rejects appeal of denied bartender license

On a 5-3 vote, members of the Medford City Council on Monday night rejected an appeal from an area woman who was denied a bartender license for having an OWI ticket from 2024 on her record.

As Medford Police Chief Chad Liske notes, the action of the council does not prevent the individual from working in a bar or from even working as bartender under the supervision of a licensed bartender. State law requires at least one licensed bartender to be on premises when taverns are open.

Nikki Sherman got ticketed for operating while intoxicated (OWI) in April 2024 and pled not guilty. She was convicted of OWI in October 2024. In her letter requesting the appeal, Sherman noted that since her conviction she has “remained compliant and have had no further legal issues.” She also addressed the council and explained that the VFW has a need for bartenders and was doing this more to assist them.

City policy requires the applicant to not have “an OWI conviction within the past one (1) year.” Bartender licenses are up for renewal every two years and Sherman included the information about the OWI on her application. Liske credited her with being honest and forthcoming with the information.

Under the city’s rules, people who are denied a bartender license may reapply in six months. There is also an appeal process which allows the applicant to make their case to the city council to potentially override the decision of the police chief.

Liske said he had no concerns either way, but cautioned that it could set a precedent and require the city to change its policy in the future. The major issue was with the timeline, said council member Mike Bub, noting that if the license was coming due in December this would not be an issue because the 12 months would have passed from when the OWI conviction occurred.

Liske explained that the city goes by conviction date rather than incident date because people are considered innocent until proven guilty. He noted that every community has its own rules regarding restrictions on giving out bartender licenses.

“It is up to the town board in each municipality if or how they are going to issue bartender licenses,” said City Clerk Ashley Lemke, explaining that there are no uniform state rules for municipalities issuing operator licenses.

Council member Tim Hansen rejected concerns over setting a precedent. He noted the city policy contained an appeal process for a reason.

“That is why we have an appeal process, we look at every case separately,” Hansen said. He noted that Sherman did everything she was required to do by the court and was currently in a payment plan for the fine.

“I don’t think it is wrecking the policy if we decide as a board to accept the appeal,” he said.

In the end, council members Dave Brandner, Hansen and Bub voted in favor of accepting the appeal with council member Randy Haynes, Clem Johnson, Laura Holmes, Ken Coyer and Christine Weix opposed. The request for appeal failed 5-3.

In addition to the appeal request, the city council looked at other parts of the policy and took up changes requested by Liske.

The first change was to include prohibited alcohol concentration (PAC) convictions in the policy language. When someone is stopped for an OWI, they are charged with the OWI and with PAC based on their blood alcohol level. Under state law people are only convicted of either OWI or PAC with the other being dismissed. While typically it is the PAC charge that is dismissed, there is the possibility of just having a PAC conviction. Liske noted that these are the same offense, but the city’s policy did not include any reference to PAC. He asked the council to add that reference.

“There is really no distinction,” he said. Liske also requested a change to distinguish between ordinance violations and more severe criminal violations. He described ordinance violations as being one step above a warning.

He gave the example that someone could be given a disorderly conduct ticket for such things as being too loud at a park. Other times, charge requests filed would be sent back from the district attorney saying there wasn’t enough evidence to make a criminal charge.

The current policy states a reason for denial as: “Applicant does not have any criminal or ordinance convictions that are related to the license requested. These include, but are not limited to: gambling, controlled substances, disorderly conduct, non-sufficient fund checks, battery in bar/ tavern, within the past two (2) years.”

Liske asked for ordinance violations to be removed from the policy. Council members agreed and unanimously approved the change.

The third policy-related item on the agenda was Liske asking for direction from the council on license renewal made where the individual has a disorderly conduct ordinance violation on their record from last year. Liske said he had not formally denied the license renewal because the council was scheduled to take up the policy change.

With council having made that change, Liske asked if the license application should follow the previous rules or the new rules. He said the current application is incomplete and follow up is needed on it. The policy requires people to list any past convictions or arrests from age 17 on. Liske said it is common that people will forget to list items that are older, while this is grounds for denial, Liske said it has been his practice to follow up and ask the applicant about items that show up in the routine background check and give them an opportunity to amend their application “As long as they are open and honest,” Liske said he had no issues if the people come forward with the information. “I have never denied one just because they forgot,” he said.

Unlike ordinances which require publication before they go into effect, policy changes made by the council are immediate. While the request would be denied under the old policy, with the change to eliminate ordinances it would be allowable.

“These policies do have a direct impact on people,” Lemke said.

In the end, council members voted 7-1 to grant the license under the new policy pending the completed application. Hansen voted no.

In other action, council members:

• Approved renewing the private well permits. The city is awaiting permit renewals from Chad Kloth, Medford Area Public Schools, Sierra Pacific, and Wayne and Eva Kautzer. Lemke noted the school and Sierra Pacific used the same plumber for their request and the permit request was mailed together and has not arrived and it being resent.

• Recommended during the committee of the whole portion of the meeting, to purchase a 2025 Bad Boy Rogue zero turn mower from Lang Equipment for $13,080.95. The city had also gotten a quote from Klingbeil’s for a 2025 Gravely Pro Turn 560 mower for $13,650. Council was informed that Fourmans declined to give a price quote due to no longer carrying commercial-grade mowers.

• Received the June pool report. Weather had a major impact on pool attendance in June. From June 4 to June 30, the pool was closed either full or part for 12 days. City Coordinator Joe Harris explained that if a rain event happens after 6 p.m. the pool will not reopen, but that earlier in the day if there is lightning, the pool must be closed at least 30 minutes after it ends, he noted that if there is more thunder the clock starts over.