Milwaukee commission denies motion to dismiss in Sergeant Burch time-card case

The Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission on Friday denied a defense motion to dismiss charges accusing Sergeant Burch of failing to be forthright in reporting his time, keeping the disciplinary hearing alive.

The commission’s decision came after attorneys argued over whether the charged provision — cited as 3.1(o) in the department’s code of conduct — actually applies to time-card entries and whether an alternative charge, 3.11, would have been more appropriate. The defense asked the commission to dismiss the 3.1(o) charge as a matter of law; the commission declined. The city rested its Phase 1 case after the ruling and called additional witnesses.

Why this matters: The case centers on whether Burch marked roll-call or duty time when he was not physically present and whether supervisors or clerks routinely adjusted entries in the department’s timekeeping system. The outcome may affect internal discipline for Burch and touches broader practices in the Criminal Investigation Bureau (CIB) that witnesses described as informal or inconsistent.

Commissioners heard testimony from internal affairs and multiple police supervisors about how CIB hours and roll call worked in practice. Lieutenants testified that detectives’ formal duty hours were 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., that roll call for supervisors was the 7:48 a.m. briefing, and that clerks often entered supervisors’ hours in the payroll system as 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. so payroll would require only one overtime card rather than separate front‑ and back‑end overtime entries. Lieutenant Daniel Zollo summarized that “there’s just a 12 minutes before a shift that starts at 7, that is counted as roll call time.”

Retired Lieutenant Gina Melanchhe, who supervised Burch when he joined the general‑crimes division, testified she had given him permission to work from home on occasion to complete tasks and that she would have told anyone who raised concerns that Burch had such permission. “I would have said that he would have had permission to work from home,” Melanchhe said on the record.

Other witnesses described a chain of events in which Captain Klein repeatedly texted or called Burch and at times told supervisors she could not make it in; witnesses testified those messages and informal permissions contributed to a practice of Burch doing preparatory work from home. Several witnesses said Captain Klein frequently arrived late and that clerks or supervisors adjusted time entries to reflect expected duty hours rather than actual arrival times.

Lieutenants who testified described a pattern in which supervisors sometimes made ad hoc decisions about roll call and overtime. Lieutenant Matthew Gadsalinski (spelled in the hearing record) said the summary report prepared by the internal affairs investigator was “mostly accurate” but that it omitted some context about how the matter began and how staff understood start times.

Deputy prosecutors also testified about the practical impact of the proceeding. Amy Spanczyk, an assistant district attorney who regularly called Sergeant Burch as an expert on drug‑trafficking cases, described him as experienced and reliable. “Sergeant Burch is someone I’ve worked with on countless occasions,” Spanczyk told the commission. She said Burch frequently prepared for court outside normal hours and that the office relied on him as an expert witness in serious felony prosecutions.

Defense counsel argued the investigative summary and the charges failed to account for how CIB actually operated — including common clerical practices and informal permissions — and urged dismissal. The city responded that recordkeeping functions tied to officers’ time can be treated as reports for purposes of the code provision cited in the charges.

The commission also admitted exhibit 17 (the department’s code-of-conduct document) into evidence during the hearing.

What the record shows and does not: Witnesses agreed CIB practice could differ from the written SOPs, that clerks sometimes entered supervisors’ hours to avoid multiple overtime cards, and that some supervisors worked from home or completed prep tasks remotely. Witnesses who described those practices said they did not know whether Burch had punched overtime or roll-call cards to cover every minute of preparatory work and whether those materials were adjusted later by clerks. Internal affairs (IAD) conducted the investigation, witnesses said; the city’s investigator authored a written summary (marked as Exhibit 2 in the hearing record).

The commission denied the defense motion to dismiss the 3.1(o) charge, and the city rested its Phase 1 case; additional witnesses were called and the hearing will continue. The commission set the next continuation for Friday morning at 8:30 a.m.