Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police Discipline topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Milwaukee sergeant faces discipline after internal affairs finds inaccurate timecards, unearned overtime
Summary
A Milwaukee Police Department internal affairs probe found that then‑Sergeant Kenton Burch was listed as present for roll call on multiple days he arrived late and was paid overtime he did not earn. The department served charges and referred sustained allegations to the chief, who later reviewed discipline.
A Milwaukee Police Department sergeant who was removed from a supervisory rank faced a disciplinary hearing after an internal affairs investigation concluded he recorded attendance and overtime inconsistently with department rules.
Assistant City Attorney Cynthia Harris Ortega told the hearing the investigation covers July 10, 2022, through Dec. 24, 2022, and that records and testimony would show then‑Sergeant Kenton Burch “was late for duty 29 times, missing roll call, but claiming compensation for roll call for those 29 times.” Harris Ortega identified the core values and standing operating procedures the department cited in the charges.
The issue landed before the Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission after internal affairs investigator Sergeant Raymond Hewitt and others reviewed time sheets, electronic payroll entries and parking access records. Hewitt testified he “discovered that there were several instances where, officer Birch had arrived after roll call had either started or concluded. Yet on his biweekly time sheet, he was indicating that he was actually present for roll call.” Hewitt said he cross‑referenced electronic time entries, biweekly paper time sheets and MacArthur Square parking key‑card scans to reach his conclusions.
Hewitt testified his report identified 36 instances initially under review and that the investigation ultimately focused on 29 occasions when Burch was recorded as attending roll call despite parking scans showing later arrival; he also reported calculations that, when factored together, showed about “8 hours of unearned overtime.” Hewitt told the commission he found eight occasions where Burch had attempted to remove roll‑call credit in the electronic system but the clerk later reentered the roll‑call time on the paper biweekly sheet.
Burch denied intentional wrongdoing in his testimony. He told the commission he had medical issues after a reassignment and said supervisors allowed him some flexibility. “Catherine gave me permission to work from home,” Burch testified, and said he believed some time he performed — such as work‑related phone calls on the way to work — was treated differently by supervisors. He also acknowledged that, per department procedure, he should have completed and signed biweekly time sheets daily and accepted responsibility for failing to do so.
Defense attorney Tom Sukovic argued the department did not meet the legal just‑cause standard for the discipline the chief imposed. Sukovic told the commission “the chief has not met his burden on factors 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7,” saying the investigation contained procedural errors, missed internal deadlines and inconsistent calculations. The defense pointed to a counseling memorandum dated Jan. 23, 2023, saying Captain Roberta Klein had previously addressed time‑card accuracy with Burch and removed the clerk from certain entries in one example.
Hewitt acknowledged a delay in completing the investigative summary; he testified he suffered a stroke after initial investigative work and said he obtained written extensions from his chain of command. The investigative summary in evidence is dated Sept. 6, 2023; the lieutenant’s cover memorandum is dated Nov. 7, 2023; charging paperwork was served to Burch on Jan. 12, 2024; and defense counsel and the investigator referenced a chief’s letter dated April 24, 2024, in which the chief described final discipline for the matter. Hewitt also confirmed that one sustained allegation in the internal affairs process was later “dismissed by the chief” when the chief reviewed the recommended discipline.
The hearing admitted exhibits including the initiation and summary reports, parking company records, electronic and biweekly time sheets, interview notices and the charging packet. Commissioners present at the session included Christopher Snyder, Jeff Spence and Miriam Horowitz; Hearing Examiner Dennis Maroney presided.
The proceeding separated factual findings (Hewitt’s cross‑checked records showing late arrivals and entries that remained on paper time sheets), disputed explanations (Burch’s account of supervisory flexibility and clerical corrections) and procedural questions (timeliness and investigatory steps under SOP 4‑50). Defense witnesses and character witnesses were referenced as planned testimony; an assistant district attorney was noted as expected to testify on Burch’s behalf.
The commission recessed for a break during cross‑examination and planned to resume. The record shows internal affairs referred sustained charges to the chief and that the chief reviewed and acted on discipline; one sustained charge was later dismissed by the chief in the charging document in the record.
