Bloomfield’s Crisis of Governance Part 2: An Investigative Series

Part 2: The True Cost of Mismanagement

By Peter C. Frank

Bloomfield, Connecticut, November 24, 2025 - In Part 1, I discussed the silence of our elected officials in the face of administrative turmoil. In Part 2, I am breaking that silence to look at the raw numbers.

🚨 BREAKING UPDATE: S&P Confirms "Weaker Management" & Cannot Explain $21M Data Gap

[UPDATED 11:40 AM November 25, 2025] - In a response to questions from this reporter, S&P Global Ratings—the agency that assigns Bloomfield's AA+ credit rating—has acknowledged that the town's "management profile... is weaker relative to most higher-rated peers" and confirmed their analysis relies on unaudited financial data.

The $21 Million "Phantom" Reduction:
Crucially, when pressed to explain a $21.4 million discrepancy between the OPEB liability reported in 2024 ($97.2M) and the lower figure cited in 2025 ($75.8M)—a massive drop achieved without any significant funding increase—S&P Managing Director Charlene Butterfield clarified that the massive drop was derived from the FY2023 audit and driven by "market returns, discount rate, actuarial valuations, etc."—confirming that the debt was reduced through actuarial adjustments rather than a cash payoff.

When asked if the town disclosed the potential $1.6 million ARPA clawback risk, S&P declined to comment on non-public disclosures, stating they are "happy to discuss information contained within our reports"—reports which make no mention of this liability. 

Butterfield stated the agency "stands behind our current rating" but warned they "could lower the rating if the town's operational performance becomes imbalanced, leading to significant draws on Bloomfield's reserves with no plan to restore."

With the town currently burning through its legal budget at nearly 500% of planned spending, that imbalance may already be here.

But before I even get to the ledger, I must address the silence in the room itself.

On Friday, November 14th, at 5:51 PM—long after the Town Hall lights had dimmed for the weekend—a notice was posted for a "Special" Town Council meeting to be held the very next business day, Monday the 17th. Councilor Suzette DeBeatham-Brown shared this agenda to a resident Facebook group moments after receiving it herself, highlighting a pattern of minimal notice that leaves residents with virtually zero time to prepare or engage.

This "Friday Flood" tactic is not an accident; it is a feature of the current governance structure. The very leadership calling these snap meetings is the same leadership that has made a practice of calling special meetings with the bare minimum of notice—typically 24 hours, the minimum allowed by Connecticut General Statutes § 1-225(d)—often releasing this information at the close of business on Fridays, giving the public almost no practical opportunity to engage. The Town Council leadership (most of whom comprise today's majority) amended its Rules of Procedure in December 2023, moving Bloomfield from a twice-monthly regular meeting schedule to just once a month—supplemented by these hastily called special meetings. As reported by the Hartford Courant, this shift prioritized efficiency over access, creating a dynamic that borders on a violation of the spirit of FOIA.

The result? At the Monday meeting, the Mayor began with a call for public comment. Unsurprisingly, the room was silent. No one responded because the public hadn’t had a chance to learn the meeting was happening. This "compliance-only" approach ensures that only insiders and Council members are in the loop, effectively locking the broader community out of the democratic process.

How does this practice square with Mayor Harrington’s stated commitment in the Bloomfield Messenger to “always answer your concerns or questions in a timely manner”? Is this administrative necessity, or strategic evasion? These are questions the public deserves to have answered.

Fortunately, despite the empty room, Councilors DeBeatham-Brown and Shamar Mahan were present to challenge the narrative often pushed by Town Hall (see meeting recording). And that narrative requires challenging. Contrary to the spin found in online forums, my examination of the town’s own spending data—and the looming mountain of retiree healthcare debt—reveals a disturbing reality.

The budget isn't breaking because residents are asking questions. It is breaking because the town's mismanagement is forcing residents to sue to protect their homes, because leadership has kicked the can down the road on critical funding for decades, and because the administration is operating in a state of perpetual financial darkness.

The Budgetary Catastrophe: 185% Spent in 20 Weeks

While the administration pushes a narrative of fiscal responsibility, the raw data from town’s own spending data tells a story of a budget in freefall. According to the official FY2026 Adopted Budget, the total authorized annual expenditure for the "Town Attorney" line item is $268,538.

When I compared this authorized limit against the actual spending in just the first 20 weeks of the fiscal year (July 1 through November 20), the results are alarming.

The "Obfuscation" Factor: Finding these numbers required a forensic search. The payments to the Town Attorney were not listed under a single vendor entry. Instead, they were split across multiple slight variations in the vendor name (e.g., "CRUMBIE LAW GROUP," "CRUMBIE LAW GROUP LLC," and "Crumbie Law Firm Attorney Invo"), which obscured the total aggregate spending from casual view.

Once consolidated, the data reveals:

• Crumbie Law Group (YTD): The firm publicly designated as "Town Attorney"—accounts for only about 68% of the legal spending I analyzed. Moreover, what is most alarming is that the town has paid this firm $338,205 so far in this fiscal year to date. This means the Town Attorney alone has already consumed 126% of the entire annual legal budget in less than five months.
• Total Legal Expenditure (YTD): The remaining 32% (nearly $160,000 year-to-date) is being funneled to a web of "Shadow Counsel"—other law firms billing the "Town Attorney" department line for services that are often redundant or completely opaque. When adding these payments, the total verified legal spend hits $497,046.

This means that in just 20 weeks, the town has already spent 185% of its entire annual legal budget. The administration has burned through nearly two years of funding in less than five months.

If this "burn rate" is maintained, the town will have spent nearly 500% of its allocated legal budget by the end of FY2026—approaching $1.3 million in total legal costs—more than $1 million over budget.

Methodology Note: All figures were obtained from the Town of Bloomfield's Open Finance portal (bloomfieldct.spending.socrata.com) as of November 20, 2025, covering the period July 1, 2025 - November 20, 2025 (FY2026 year-to-date).

The "Expertise" Paradox
This burn rate forces us to ask critical questions that our elected officials are failing to raise:

1. The 500% Trajectory: Where is the extra $1 million going to come from to cover this deficit?
2. The Cost of "Expertise": The Crumbie Law Group was ostensibly hired for their specialized expertise, theoretically eliminating the need for expensive outside help. If that is the case, why do outside "Shadow Counsel" firms still comprise nearly one-third of the legal spending?
3. The FOIA Lie: The town's own records indicate that zero dollars of this overage has been spent defending the town from FOIA lawsuits, directly contradicting the "nuisance FOIA" narrative spread by officials in online forums.
4. The Cost Comparison: Why is the Crumbie model costing the taxpayers exponentially more than the previous Town Attorney, Marc Needleman?

The math is undeniable: The budget is not breaking because residents are asking questions. It is breaking because the administration is writing checks it cannot cash.

Bloomfield Legal Spend: The "Shadow Counsel" Breakdown
(Fiscal Year 2026 Year-To-Date: July 1 - Nov 20, 2025)

Law Firm	Total Billed (YTD)	% of Total Spend	Primary Service Area / Role
Crumbie Law Group	$338,205	68.0%	Town Attorney (Tax Appeals, Admin, Undefined)
Wiggin and Dana LLP	$94,503	19.0%	Shadow Counsel (Corporate Litigation / Opaque "Professional Services")
Ryan & Ryan, LLC	$56,515	11.4%	Shadow Counsel (Labor & Employment - Redundant to Crumbie)
Bershtein, Volpe & McKeon	$7,823	1.6%	Shadow Counsel (Tax Liens, Foreclosures, Zoning)
TOTAL	~$497,046	100%	Combined Legal Expenditure

View the Full Analysis & Screenshots:

(View the legal analysis and screenshots of the captured data.)

The Reality of the Spending: A Shadow Counsel Redundancy

While Crumbie Law Group is paid heavily for the privilege of being the Town Attorney for the town of Bloomfield, nearly one-third of the town's legal matters get farmed to outside legal counsel, according to the town's open checkbook, which reveals:

1. The Redundancy of Ryan & Ryan: $56,515 has been paid to Ryan & Ryan, a firm specializing in labor and employment law. Since Crumbie Law Group also bills for "Labor & Employment" matters, taxpayers must ask: Why are they paying two different firms to handle the same department?
2. The Opacity of Wiggin and Dana: This major corporate litigation firm has been paid nearly $100,000 to the "Town Attorney" line. Their invoices list only "PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED", offering residents zero transparency into what they are actually doing.

The "Crumbie" Breakdown: The "Black Box" Expense

Even within the payments made to the Crumbie Law Group, the "nuisance FOIA" narrative falls apart. A qualitative analysis of the billing records reveals a disturbing trend toward opacity:

1. The "Black Box" & Miscellaneous (~29%): This category includes a massive $60,720 entry labeled only as "Attorney Invoice" (approx. 18% of total) alongside other undefined hourly billing. This offers zero transparency to the taxpayer.
2. Tax Appeals & Litigation (~26%): This remains the largest specifically identified category of billing. This confirms that the town is spending a massive portion of its legal budget fighting residents who are disputing their assessments.
3. General Town Attorney Services (~30%): Standard general counsel duties billed under the flat fee and general administrative lines.
4. Education & Labor Matters (~15%): Significant billing for Board of Education matters and HR investigations.

Refuting the "Specialization" Defense: Town officials may argue that specialized counsel is necessary for complex matters. This defense fails for two reasons: First, Crumbie Law Group was hired explicitly for their municipal expertise, including 'Labor & Employment' matters listed on their invoices. If they lacked the necessary expertise, why were they hired as Town Attorney in the first place? Second, even if specialized counsel is sometimes necessary, the budget should reflect this. A budget that allocates $268,538 for legal services but actually requires $497,046 represents an 85% planning failure.

Refuting the "Revaluation" Defense: If the 2024 revaluation created a predictable surge in appeals, the administration should have requested a supplemental appropriation or budget amendment to cover these costs. As noted by GFOA Best Practices, foreseeable spikes should be proactively budgeted. The failure to plan for this is evidence of mismanagement, not "exceptional circumstances."

The Silent Budget Killer: The OPEB Crisis

While the legal fees discussed above are alarming, they are merely a symptom of a broader culture of fiscal mismanagement. One true threat to Bloomfield’s financial future—the "Silent Budget Killer"—is the town’s failure to fund its obligations to its own workforce, compared to its neighbors.

It is critical to distinguish between the town’s two retirement "buckets":

• The Pension Fund: This pays retiree income. Bloomfield’s plan is funded at approximately 70%. While not ideal, it is stable.
• The OPEB Trust: This pays for retiree healthcare and is funded at a disastrous 12%.

The Two-Tiered Failure: General Staff vs. Police

While the administration often cites a "70% funding ratio" for town pensions as evidence of stability, this aggregate number hides a dangerous truth. The town effectively operates a two-tiered system where general employees are moderately secured, but the police force is being left behind.

According to the January 2024 S&P Global Ratings Report, the disparity is stark:

• General Town Employees: The plan is 73.3% funded.
• Police Department: The plan is only 59.2% funded.

A funding ratio below 60% is a flashing red light in municipal finance. It signals a "distressed" status. While neighboring towns like Avon and Simsbury maintain funding ratios of 85% and 88% respectively, Bloomfield has allowed its police pension fund to slide backward, dropping significantly from previous years. This is not just a math problem; it is a public safety risk.

The Comparative Failure: Bloomfield vs. The Neighbors

To understand why residents' taxes are rising so fast and so high, one must look at how Bloomfield manages these debts compared to the towns right next door. A review of municipal fiscal health metrics via the Connecticut State Transparency Portal reveals that Bloomfield is an outlier in the worst possible way.

Municipality	General Pension %	Police Funded %	Debt Per Capita	The Reality for Taxpayers
Avon	85%	High	$2,500	Low debt, high security.
Simsbury	88%	High	$3,100	Pre-funded stability.
Windsor	78%	Stable	$4,200	Stronger position.
West Hartford	75%	Stable	$4,500	Managing legacy costs.
Bloomfield	73.3%	58.2% (Critical)	$6,145	Highest Debt Load. Lowest Security.

The "Pay-As-You-Go" Trap

The consequence of this failure is not abstract; it appears on the residents' tax bill every July. Because Bloomfield has failed to pre-fund its OPEB (Healthcare) liability—leaving nearly $75.8 million in unfunded obligations (as of the June 30, 2023 valuation cited by S&P)—it is forced to operate on a "Pay-As-You-Go" model.

⚠️ Note on Data Discrepancy: Previous state data cited this liability at $97.2 million. The drop of over $21 million in reported liability has not been explained by a corresponding increase in cash assets, raising questions about whether this "improvement" is due to accounting methodology changes rather than fiscal funding. This reporter has asked S&P for clarification on this discrepancy.

According to GFOA best practices, pay-as-you-go funding models can significantly erode long-term reserves compared to pre-funded trusts. Bloomfield is effectively taxing its residents to pay for the mistakes of the past, leaving little room to invest in the future.

The Hidden Cost of 'Balance': Why Services Are Suffering

Wonder why town services are so shoddy? Here's your answer. The January 2025 S&P Global Ratings report notes that the town achieves "balanced operations" partly through "conservative budgeting" and "vacancy savings"—specifically in public works and public safety (Page 3, 'Credit Overview'). In plain English, the administration is balancing the books by leaving critical jobs unfilled. They are saving money by providing fewer services. That isn't efficiency; it's a service deficit disguised as fiscal responsibility.

Furthermore, S&P notes the town relies on property tax revenue for 85% of its general fund (Page 3, 'Economy'). Because the town has no other significant revenue lever to pull, any budget increase—like the 185% legal overrun—must be paid for almost exclusively by raising taxes on homeowners and businesses.

Financial Malfeasance: The "Audit Is Not Necessary" Doctrine

At the November 17th Town Council meeting, the depth of the town's financial dysfunction was laid bare by Finance Director Darrell V. Hill. When questioned by Councilor DeBeatham-Brown about the lack of an audit to establish a "jump off point" for the budget, Director Hill made a startling admission.

"The audit is not necessary for budget development except with regard to the use of unassigned fund balance," Hill stated.

This assertion is fundamentally flawed. It contradicts Connecticut General Statutes § 7-391, which mandates audits not just for balancing books, but for holistic fraud prevention and internal controls. Furthermore, per OPM data, the vast majority of Connecticut municipalities comply with the statutory 6-month filing deadline; Bloomfield's four-year delinquency streak is a statistical outlier that risks sanctions under C.G.S. § 7-396.

(Note: I reached out to Director Hill specifically to offer him the opportunity to clarify or retract this statement prior to publication, but he did not respond by the deadline.)

“In government finance, audits are especially crucial. Audits ensure a municipality has the proper controls, processes, and reporting to safeguard against fraud and abuse. Audits restore citizens’ faith in government finance by having an outside expert review how taxpayers funds are being accounted for. Audits are required for outside government ratings agencies to assign towns a credit rating. Credit ratings are essential for the town to issue bonds for capital projects. A solid credit rating ensures the town will get the best interest rate on bonds issued to finance projects. Not having timely audits by a reputable accounting firm is irresponsible.”
— Mary M. Fay, MBA, is a 4-term West Hartford Town Councilor, endorsed candidate for state representative, Congress, and Comptroller, and a senior executive for Fortune 50 financial service companies.1

Leadership in Absentia

At the center of this administrative storm is Town Manager Alvin D. Schwapp, Jr., whose recent actions—and absence—speak volumes. Mr. Schwapp recently notified the Council of his intent to take Family and Medical Leave (FMLA). However, his notification appears to lack the transparency required by law. Under the FMLA, a request must generally specify a qualifying reason and confirm that the condition renders the employee unable to perform their job functions. A copy of Schwapp’s notification, which was subsequently shared publicly on social media by a council member, shows it complied with only the timing element, omitting the critical justifications required of any other employee.

Even more disturbing is the town's handling of Schwapp's personal accountability. The Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC) recently levied a $1,500 civil penalty against Schwapp for his handling of public records requests. The FOIC explicitly found Schwapp engaged in deliberate obstruction and denied requests "without reasonable grounds"—language that suggests bad faith rather than good-faith errors.

Typically, civil penalties for bad-faith conduct are the responsibility of the individual official, intended to deter future misconduct. However, I have confirmed with the FOIC that on August 27, 2025, the Town of Bloomfield cut a check to pay this fine on Schwapp's behalf (Source: Freedom of Information Commission staff, phone confirmation to author, November 20, 2025, 2:46 PM). While C.G.S. § 7-465 allows for indemnification, paying a fine levied for bad-faith obstruction sends a clear message that there are no personal consequences for violating the public trust.

Governance in the Shadows: The Normalization of Deviance

If the financial opacity wasn't enough, the Town Council’s actions on Monday night proved that the "Crisis of Governance" extends to basic democratic rights.

During a discussion regarding the Oversized Vehicle Traffic Ordinance, a clear fault line emerged between those who want to govern in the open and those who prefer the path of least resistance. The proposed change allows the Traffic Authority to ban trucks on specific roads without a mandatory Public Hearing.

Councilors DeBeatham-Brown and Mahan recognized the danger in this. They argued passionately that removing the public’s right to a formal hearing removes the resident’s voice from the permanent record.

• Councilor DeBeatham-Brown: "I'm still concerned that the voice of the residents won't be there if there's no public hearing."
• Councilor Mahan attempted to introduce a "friendly amendment" to mandate a public hearing for every proposed street restriction, stating, "Our residents deserve more opportunities, not less, to weigh in."

The Majority's Response? Silence the Dissent. The Council majority—including Deputy Mayor Lloyd and Councilor Merritt—rejected this amendment.

The Normalization of Deviance
What we are witnessing in Bloomfield is a textbook case of the Normalization of Deviance—a sociological term describing the gradual process where unacceptable practices (like late audits, secret meetings, and budget overruns) become acceptable simply because "that's how we've always done it."

The Bandwagon Fallacy
Administrators often invoke the "all towns struggle" defense—a logical fallacy known as the Bandwagon Effect—to justify Bloomfield's failures. However, data from the Connecticut State Transparency Portal shows Bloomfield's 12% OPEB funding places it in the bottom quartile of state metrics (based on ranking Bloomfield’s 12% funded ratio against the distribution in the state transparency portal data), contradicting claims that "everyone has this problem."

This fiscal opacity is matched by a broader pattern of limiting public input. The Town Council's recent actions regarding the Traffic Ordinance exemplify this trend. By eliminating the public hearing requirement, the Council ensures that the town at large will have no idea these changes are happening until the signs go up.

The Credit Rating Question: "Weaker Management"

On Monday, November 25, 2025, I contacted S&P Global Ratings—the agency that affirmed Bloomfield's "AA+" investment-grade rating in January 2024—providing detailed information about the legal spending overruns, audit delinquency, and comparative pension funding deficits.

UPDATE (Nov 25, 2025, 11:40 AM): S&P Global Managing Director Charlene Butterfield responded to my inquiry. While stating that the agency "stands behind our current rating" at this time, the response contained startling admissions regarding the town's leadership and financial controls.

1. Management is "Weaker" S&P explicitly confirmed that their analysis relies on "unaudited data for FY24," verifying that even the town's credit assessors are forced to rely on unverified numbers. More damning was their assessment of the town's leadership:

"We also believe the town’s management profile... is weaker relative to most higher-rated peers because it lacks a formalized robust long-term financial planning practice."
— Charlene Butterfield, Managing Director, S&P Global

2. The $21 Million OPEB "Paper" Drop When pressed to explain the massive drop in OPEB liability (from $97.2 million in 2022 to $75.8 million in 2023) without a corresponding cash payment, Ms. Butterfield confirmed the reduction was driven by "market returns, discount rate, actuarial valuations, etc."—effectively confirming that the debt was reduced on paper through actuarial adjustments, not by paying it off.

3. The Hidden ARPA Risk When asked if the town disclosed the potential $1.6 million ARPA clawback risk regarding unobligated funds to S&P, the agency declined to comment, stating they do not discuss information "outside of what is published in our reports." Since their reports make no mention of this liability, it appears this multi-million dollar risk remains unacknowledged in their credit assessment.

S&P also noted that while they view current costs as manageable, they "could lower the rating if the town's operational performance becomes imbalanced, leading to significant draws on Bloomfield's reserves with no plan to restore." With the town currently burning through its legal budget at a rate of 185%, that "imbalance" may already be here.

(Note: S&P’s email cites a Debt Per Capita of $3,442 (reflecting "Net Direct" debt) and an OPEB liability of $75.8 million. This OPEB figure represents a massive $21.4 million drop from the previous $97.2 million valuation—a reduction S&P confirmed was driven by "market returns" and "actuarial valuations" rather than significant cash funding. This highlights how changing actuarial assumptions can mask the severity of the town's chronic underfunding without actually paying down the debt.)

Questions the Council Refuses to Answer

I have attempted to get answers from the Town Council on these critical issues, but they have refused to respond to my outreach, both as a resident and an independent journalist. These are the questions every resident should be asking:

1. To the Finance Committee: Since the Unassigned Fund Balance is the primary tool to stabilize taxes, how can you responsibly approve the FY2027 budget when that balance hasn't been verified by an audit since 2023?
2. To the Administration: If the FY2025 audit won't be done until June 2026, is it even mathematically possible to complete the FY2026 audit by the December deadline? Is the town effectively guaranteeing a fifth consecutive year of non-compliance?
3. To the Council Majority: Why did you vote to strip residents of their right to a Public Hearing on traffic changes? Why is "streamlining" government more important than listening to the people who pay for it?

The Administration's Likely Response
Town officials did not respond to requests for comment. However, based on public statements and meeting minutes, the administration would likely argue that legal spending is temporarily elevated due to the 2024 revaluation and that specialized counsel is necessary for complex matters. These defenses, however, fail to address the core issue: Why wasn't the administration transparent about these costs? If the revaluation would predictably spike legal expenses, why wasn't the budget adjusted accordingly? If specialized counsel is routinely necessary, why isn't it budgeted? If OPEB is a known crisis, where is the plan to address it?

On Monday, November 25, 2025, at 8:00 AM, I sent a final request for comment to Mayor Harrington, Deputy Mayor Lloyd, Town Manager Schwapp, and Finance Director Hill, providing specific findings and a 6:30 PM deadline for response. As of publication at 8:00 PM, the deadline has passed, and no response has been received.

Bloomfield deserves better than a government that taxes its residents into the courtroom, hides its spending in "shadow" accounts, and silences public input in the name of efficiency.

In Part 3: I’ll examine what happens when fiscal dysfunction drags on—will state regulators step in? Are Bloomfield’s most vulnerable services next to suffer? And are ordinary residents starting to organize for real change? Don’t miss the next installment as I track the urgent fight for transparency, accountability, and a government that answers to its people.

Do you have a story about how Bloomfield's mismanagement has impacted you? Do you have information the public needs to see? Contact me directly at pcfrank73@gmail.com or 914-417-9579.

Confidentiality Assurance: All communications will be kept strictly confidential. I will never disclose your identity or the source of provided documents without your express consent.

---

1. Disclosure: Mary Fay is an acquaintance of the author and is one of thousands of professionals in the author's LinkedIn network consulted for expert analysis.
2. Note: This investigative commentary relies on public documents and recorded statements. All analysis falls under the protection of Connecticut's anti-SLAPP statutes (C.G.S. § 52-196a) regarding free speech in connection with a matter of public interest.
3. Note: A previous version of this story was inadvertently published when attempting to fix a minor typographical mistake, overwriting the author's most current version.

Bloomfield's Crisis of Governance Part 1: An Investigative Series

 

Part 1: The Mandate Denied

Inside the 7-2 vote, soaring legal bills, and the political war that defined the new council's first meeting.

By Peter C. Frank, Independent Reporter & Bloomfield Resident
(Part 1 of an investigative series; read the article that kicked off this investigative series)

November 16, 2025, BLOOMFIELD, CT — The inaugural meeting of the Bloomfield Town Council on November 10, 2025, was not a celebration of democracy but a masterclass in its subversion. In less than ten minutes, a 7-2 vote by the incumbent majority dismissed the clear will of the voters, a new councilor who ran on a platform of unity voted to suppress the electorate, and the newly re-installed mayor threatened to have dissenting residents ejected from the chamber.

This was not an isolated incident. It was the public face of a government defined by a documented culture of financial secrecy, procedural obfuscation, and a fundamental contempt for the very public it claims to serve.

I. The First Ten Minutes: A Procedural Coup

The evening began with the election of the Mayor. The tension was palpable, as the November 4th municipal election had sent a clear message: Councilmember Suzette DeBeatham-Brown had secured the highest number of votes (3,439), earning a clear mandate for leadership.

The council's leadership, however, had a different plan.

Deputy Town Manager Sharron Howe, acting as initial chair, called for nominations. The incumbent, Anthony Harrington, was nominated. Councilmember Shamar Mahon attempted to speak against the nomination but was immediately shut down by Howe, who insisted, "Not at this time. This is for nominations only... We'll have an opportunity for discussion."

That discussion never happened.

Mahon then nominated Suzette DeBeatham-Brown, "in order to respect the people's will." The council proceeded directly to a roll call.

The vote was 7-2. The mandate of 3,439 voters was dismissed.

As residents in the chamber erupted in protest, Harrington, in his first official act as mayor of the Town of Bloomfield for the 2025-2027 term, delivered an ultimatum:

"We must have order in the chamber... Any outburst in this chamber, you will need to leave the chamber."

The threat worked. But the incident—combined with Harrington's request to close the chamber doors, which Mahon publicly objected to—galvanized the room. Residents who "had not come prepared to speak" felt compelled to approach the podium to voice their disgust at what they had just witnessed.

II. The "Mandate Denied": Charter vs. Tradition

Supporters of the incumbent majority quickly moved to legitimize the dismissal of the public's choice.

"I'm... disappointed to hear the notion that the selection of a mayor is based upon the voters," announced resident and former Board of Education chair Bradley Klein. "It is not. It is based upon the council."

This argument—that the Town Charter gives the nine council members the legal right to choose their own leader—is the administration's sole defense. But it is a defense of convenience, one that ignores the "tradition" of seating the top vote-getter that has been the recent precedent.

Multiple sources, including news reports and the town's own Wikipedia entry, describe the mayor's position as 'traditionally given to the top vote-getter on the town council.' Former Mayor Sydney Schulman served six terms as mayor precisely because he was repeatedly the top vote-getter. Most recently, Danielle Wong became mayor in 2022 after receiving the highest vote percentage (14.3%) in the November 2021 election and retained the position after winning the 2023 primary. Even DeBeatham-Brown herself acknowledged in September 2025 that 'the mayor has typically been the candidate with the most votes in the general election.

It is also a defense that rings hollow when, as resident James Biffer noted in a public forum on Facebook, "the Council has routinely violated the Charter for the past 4 years... They have clearly never read it, and don't feel bound by it."

In response to this dismissal, Councilmember DeBeatham-Brown, who was not given the opportunity to deliver her prepared inaugural remarks, reiterated her stance in a public letter to the Bloomfield Messenger titled "I WILL AMPLIFY YOUR VOICE". She shared with this reporter the full version of her undelivered speech:

I am not beholden to this Council. I am not beholden to anyone who writes anonymous emails or hides behind misinformation. My commitment is absolute, and my allegiance is singular. I am beholden to the 3,439 residents who voted for me, and by extension, to every single person in the Town of Bloomfield. That is the standard of servant leadership we need going forward. The residents of Bloomfield... deserve a government that operates with integrity. They deserve leaders who prioritize competence, transparency, and accountability over self-interest.

III. The Vote, The Gap, and The Unanswered Question

The 7-2 vote included newly elected councilor Darrell Goodwin, who had run on a platform of "faith, unity, and moral guidance." His vote to override the electorate was seen by many as a betrayal of that platform.

But his vote at the meeting is not the only anomaly. An analysis of the election results reveals a significant vote deficit. While his Democratic running mates (excluding the mayoral front-runners) all received votes in the 3200-3300+ range, Goodwin received just over 3,000—a gap of nearly 200-300 votes.

This deficit is notable given that Goodwin made history as the first openly LGBTQIA+ resident to be elected to the Bloomfield Town Council. This historic first occurred in a town with a significant Afro-Caribbean demographic, a community which has, historically (due to colonization), held anti-LGBTQIA+ views.

When I (as an openly LGBTQIA+ resident and reporter) submitted a question to Councilor Goodwin asking if he believed this verifiable vote deficit was related to his historic candidacy or potential anti-LGBTQIA+ sentiment, he declined to answer.

This "empty chair" is becoming a pattern. Resident Rickford Kirton has publicly alleged that Goodwin is now "blocking residents" on social media for asking why he did not support the will of the people—a stark contradiction to the "transparency and accountability" he promised.

IV. "It Makes Me Sick to My Stomach"

The public comment period became a grim procession of residents detailing the real-world cost of the council's internal focus.

"I go on Facebook, and I read the comments... from seniors saying 'I can't afford my taxes, I'm gonna have to leave my home,'" said resident Sherry Levine, her voice heavy. "And I'll tell you, that makes me sick to my stomach."

She then posed the night's most important question directly to Mayor Harrington: "What do you have in place to help these seniors... that are afraid of losing their homes?"

The Mayor's answer—"more affordable housing" and "economic development"—was received as a total non-answer. The issue is not a lack of new housing; it is the inability of seniors to afford the homes they already own.

The sense of betrayal was palpable. "I think you had too many non-public meetings and agreements," said Dr. Anne Pidano. "I think you did some back-room deals."

V. A Documented Culture of Obfuscation

This procedural "obfuscation" is a documented, multi-year pattern.

1. The Missing Election Results: As of November 16, 2025—twelve days after the election—the Town of Bloomfield's website still fails to provide accessible, certified election results. The link for the "2025 Municipal Election Results - Signed Moderator Report" is broken, and instead directs users to a July 2025 service quote from CivicPlus. This is a fundamental failure of transparency, forcing citizens to hunt for the official data on the state's EMS portal.

2. The Delinquent Audits: For years, this administration has failed to file its mandatory financial audits on time. As of this report, Bloomfield is still listed on the state's "FY 2024 Delinquent Financial Audit Reports". This is not an allegation; it is a public record of financial failure.

3. The FOIC Fine: In July 2025, Town Manager Alvin D. Schwapp Jr. was fined $1,500 by the state's Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC) for "deliberate delays" and a "pattern of behavior" that demonstrated a "lack of diligence bordering on deliberate obstruction."

Why this matters: This finding is not a minor procedural issue. The Freedom of Information Act is a non-negotiable state law (C.G.S. § 1-200 et seq.), not an optional 'program' that can be ignored when an administration deems a request a 'nuisance.' As Town Manager, Mr. Schwapp has sworn an oath to uphold the laws of the State of Connecticut. The FOIC's ruling is a formal, legal finding that the town's chief executive—a former high-ranking law enforcement official—personally oversaw what the commission found to be a "pattern of behavior" of "deliberate obstruction."

This documented failure to uphold a foundational 'sunshine law' is a lynchpin of the 'culture of secrecy' residents like Dr. Pidano and James Biffer have cited. It establishes obstruction as the administration's default response to public scrutiny. Furthermore, it raises a critical, unavoidable question: If the administration is willing to deliberately obstruct access to public records—an act for which it was fined—what is it trying to hide regarding the delinquent FY2024 audit, the $393,980 in legal fees paid in just four months, and the 78% spending spike approved for the Town Council's own budget?

VI. The "Empty Chair" and The Hypocrisy of the Press

In the 40 hours following the meeting, this reporter submitted three detailed questions via text and email to Mayor Harrington, Deputy Mayor Cindi Lloyd, and Councilor Goodwin regarding the delinquent audits, the structural deficit, and the culture of secrecy.

At 3:56 PM on November 12, Mayor Harrington replied via SMS:

"Good afternoon sir. I am not able to respond to your request as I am one of nine counselors and we need to speak in one voice. Any future communications must first go through our Department of Operations and Communications for the Town of Bloomfield. Thank you!"

At 4:00 PM, the same questions were sent to that exact communications department, as directed.

Councilor Goodwin was the only official in the majority to respond. His reply:

"I will not be offering a statement for your article. Thank you for the clear invitation."

No other response was received. This administration—which is in violation of state audit deadlines and was fined by the state for secrecy—refused to answer a single question from an independent resident reporter.

The hypocrisy is stunning. The Fox61 news report on this incident claimed it "reached out to all the town councilors." This is questionable, at best. Both Councilmember Mahon and Ms. DeBeatham-Brown have publicly stated they were never contacted. My analysis of the broadcast video confirms it contained no interviews with them.

The administration, having enforced a "media blackout" by refusing to speak to me and (allegedly) to the dissenting councilors, is actively controlling the narrative.

The residents of Bloomfield deserve better. They deserve answers. And they deserve a government that doesn't threaten to eject them for demanding them.

[Edit: This article was revised at 8:48 pm to indicate that the meeting was initially called to order by the Deputy Town Manager, not the Town Clerk.]

---

Stay tuned for Part 2 of this investigative series, where we will follow the money and expose the financial crisis this administration is hiding: including $393,980.29 in legal fees in just four months, a 78% spending spike in the council's own department, and the $72,000,000 tax abatement deal championed by this new mayor.

---

Companion Backgrounder: The Crisis in Bloomfield

For a national reader, the political chaos in Bloomfield, Connecticut, can be understood as a microcosm of a larger American crisis: a breakdown in local government transparency and financial accountability.

Bloomfield is a diverse, first-ring suburb of Hartford with a population of just over 21,000 and a significant, politically active Afro-Caribbean community.

The current crisis stems from a 7-2 Democratic supermajority on the Town Council, led by Mayor Anthony Harrington and Deputy Mayor Cindi Lloyd. This incumbent bloc, which operates with near-total power, has been plagued by a series of scandals that have eroded public trust:

• The Mayoral Vacancy: In August 2025, former Mayor Danielle Wong resigned amidst significant controversy. Her council seat was filled by appointee Darrell Goodwin, and the council (per the charter) elected one of its own, Anthony Harrington, to serve as the new Mayor.

• The Financial Crisis: The town is currently on the state's delinquent audit list for fiscal year 2024, continuing a multi-year pattern of financial mismanagement.

• The Secrecy Ruling: The administration's leader, Town Manager Alvin Schwapp Jr., was personally fined $1,500 by the state's Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC) in July 2025 for what the commission called "deliberate delays" and "obstruction" in providing public records.

• The 2025 Election: The November 4, 2025, election was seen as a referendum on this leadership. Voters elevated a dissenting Democrat, former mayor Suzette DeBeatham-Brown, to be the top vote-getter (3,439 votes). However, at the November 10th organizational meeting, the 7-member incumbent bloc (including the newly appointed Goodwin) ignored this mandate and voted to re-install Harrington as Mayor, leading to public outrage and the events detailed in this report.

---

Citation List 

1. Town Council Meeting (November 10, 2025)

• Base Video URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xw2caq1KBc0

• [00:02:55] The Rules: (Town Clerk reads rules for mayoral nomination)

  • URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xw2caq1KBc0&t=175s

• [00:05:19] Mahon Denied: (Councilor Mahon is denied the right to speak against a nomination)

  • URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xw2caq1KBc0&t=319s

• [00:09:39] The Vote and Public Disruption: (The 7-2 vote completes, and public outcry begins)

  • URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xw2caq1KBc0&t=579s

• [00:10:31] The Mayor's Threat: (Mayor Harrington: "Any outburst in this chamber, you will need to leave...")

  • URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xw2caq1KBc0&t=631s

• [00:25:51] Saunders Dismisses Mandate: (Mark Saunders: "...does not create a mandate to become mayor.")

  • URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xw2caq1KBc0&t=1551s

• [00:28:16] Klein Dismisses Voters: (Bradley Klein: "...not based upon the voters. It is not. It is based upon the council.")

  • URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xw2caq1KBc0&t=1696s

• [00:30:22] Levine Sick to Stomach: (Sherry Levine: "...seniors saying 'I can't afford my taxes... That makes me sick to my stomach.")

  • URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xw2caq1KBc0&t=1822s

• [00:30:54] Levine Asks Question: (Sherry Levine: "What do you have in place to help our seniors...")

  • URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xw2caq1KBc0&t=1854s

• [00:35:35] Pidano Alleges Backroom Deals: (Dr. Pidano: "...too many non-public meetings and agreements.")

  • URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xw2caq1KBc0&t=2135s

• [00:50:04] Mahon's Full Objection (Attorney): (Councilor Mahon begins his 50-second objection to the Town Attorney appointment)

  • URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xw2caq1KBc0&t=3004s

• [00:58:04] Attorney Vote (7-1-1): (The roll call vote where Mahon votes "Nay" and DeBeatham-Brown "Abstains")

  • URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xw2caq1KBc0&t=3484s

2. Town Council Meeting (November 13, 2023)

• Base Video URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDG3wIbj8jw

• [00:30:11] Mahon Shut Down (2023): (The Mayor shuts down Mahon's question about whether other firms were considered)

  • URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDG3wIbj8jw&t=1811s

• [00:38:44] Mahon Votes "Yes" (2023): (The roll call vote where Councilor Mahon votes "Yes" on the attorney's 2-year term)

  • URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDG3wIbj8jw&t=2324s

3. State & Legal Documents

• FY2024 Audit Delinquency: (Connecticut OPM report listing Bloomfield as delinquent)

  • URL: https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/opm/igpp/munfinsr/best-practices---municipalities/municipal-audit-report-public.pdf

• FOIC $1,500 Fine: (Inside Investigator article detailing the fine against Town Manager Schwapp)

  • URL: https://insideinvestigator.org/not-credible-foic-fines-bloomfield-manager-1500/

4. Official Town Documents & Publications

• FY2024-2025 Adopted Budget: ($2.75M Fund Balance Use)

  • URL: https://www.bloomfieldct.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4038/

• FY2026 TC Recommended Budget: ($3.75M Fund Balance Use / 78% "Town Council" spike)

  • URL: https://www.bloomfieldct.gov/DocumentCenter/View/6241/

• FY2026 Adopted Budget Book: (Adopted 78% "Town Council" spike)

  • URL: https://www.bloomfieldct.gov/DocumentCenter/View/6397/

• Revaluation Phase-In Risks: (Town documentation on revaluation)

  • URL: https://www.bloomfieldct.gov/1075/FY2026-Town-Managers-Proposed-Budget

5. Public Records: Town of Bloomfield & State of CT

5.1    Bloomfield Democratic Town Committee (2023). Darrell Goodwin... "first openly gay man..."

• URL: https://www.ucc.org/ucc-clergy-running-for-political-office-feel-a-calling-to-do-more-in-their-communities/

5.2     Fox61 News (Nov 12, 2025). "Bloomfield town leaders hoping to turn the page..."

• URL: https://www.fox61.com/article/news/local/hartford-county/bloomfield-connecticut-town-council-leaders-disputes-2025/520-58039131-3bc5-4c57-9e5f-3860e01c0bd1

• Note: This article confirms the quote: "Mayor Anthony Harrington (D) had been serving as appointed as mayor... following the resignation of former Mayor Danielle Wong (D) in August..."

5.3     Town of Bloomfield. "2025 Muncipal Election Results - Nov. 4." CivicAlerts.

• URL: https://www.bloomfieldct.gov/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=231

• Note: This is the main "News Flash" page. The link on this page, "2025 Muncipal Election Results - Nov. 4," is a PDF. The direct URL for that PDF is:

• Direct PDF URL: https://www.bloomfieldct.gov/DocumentCenter/View/6389/2025-Muncipal-Election-Results

5.4    Town of Bloomfield. "2025 Municipal Election Results - Signed Moderator Report."

• URL: https://www.bloomfieldct.gov/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=231

• Note: This link is also on the main "News Flash" page. The direct URL for this PDF is:

• Direct PDF URL: https://www.bloomfieldct.gov/DocumentCenter/View/6388/2025-Municipal-Election-Results---Signed-Moderator-Report

5.5    Town of Bloomfield. "DocumentCenter/View/7617" (CivicPlus Quote #Q-104246-1, July 22, 2025).

• URL: https://www.bloomfieldct.gov/DocumentCenter/View/7617

• Note: This is a Statement of Work from CivicPlus, signed on July 22, 2025.

5.6    State of CT Election Management System (EMS). (ctemspublic.tgstg.net).

• URL: https://ctemspublic.tgstg.net/

• Note: This is the main portal. The user must select the "11/04/2025 -- November 2025 Municipal Election" from the dropdown to see the results.

6. Comparative Analysis:

6.1    CT Office of Policy and Management (OPM). "Delinquent Municipal Audits - FY 2024." (List dated 10/1/2025).

• URL: https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/opm/igpp/munfinsr/best-practices---municipalities/municipal-audit-report-public.pdf

• Note: This is the canonical OPM landing page for the audit delinquency report. The PDF link may change as new reports are issued.

6.2    CT Freedom of Information Commission. Final Decisions Database.

• URL: https://portal.ct.gov/foi/decisions/final-decisions/final-decisions

6.3    Inside Investigator (July 2025). "Not Credible: FOIC Fines Bloomfield Manager $1,500."

• URL: https://insideinvestigator.org/not-credible-foic-fines-bloomfield-manager-1500/

Review of the Acer Chromebook Plus C515

Acer Chromebook Plus C515

I've always said Chromebooks are great for most people, but not for me. I need a machine that can handle serious multi-tasking. Well, enter the Acer Chromebook Plus C515, stage right.

This machine finally handles the workload I require. Unlike Windows, ChromeOS doesn't require huge resources, so the 8GB of RAM and 256GB SSD are more than sufficient. I routinely run 25+ tabs and 10 or so apps at once, and this lean, mean multi-tasking machine just keeps up, thanks to the Intel Core i3 "oomph." It even has a quiet fan, so it never gets too hot under a heavy processing load.

The "Plus" features are what seal the deal for me. The AI-enhanced 1080p webcam controls are built right into the dock and make me look fabulous. But the real value? It includes a free year of Google's Gemini Advanced program. That's over a $250 value (with tax), which means if you get this on sale, the device practically pays for itself!

The hardware is solid. Battery life is an easy 10-12 hours depending on what settings you're using. The FHD touchscreen is bright and crisp, and the upward-facing stereo speakers are a game-changer—no more muffled sounds coming from underneath the keyboard! It's also super light weight at just over 3 lbs with great WiFi 6 and Bluetooth.  And did I mention that Chromecast is built right in? There's even a Pomodoro mode for serious productivity, as well as Do Not Disturb modes to keep you from distractions. The AI-enhanced mics are excellent for calls, too as my contact sometimes think I'm in the same room as they are.

One of my few complaints is the keyboard. For starters, it's not backlit, and the standard Chromebook layout has a weird slant eeif you're used to a PC QWERTY keyboard like I am. You get used to it, but it could be better. At least the keys are spaced out well, which is an issue on some laptop keyboards.

My only wish? That I'd bought this sooner. I now do about 90% of my computing on this Chromebook Plus. It handles light video editing and software development just fine. But for heavy-duty compiling or video rendering, I still turn to my Windows machine (since this only has 8GB). And of course there is the odd program that will only run on Windows. But for everything else, this is my go-to, daily computing device now.

(Disclosure: This Acer Chromebook Plus C515 was purchased by the author from Amazon during a sale event.)

Whether you choose this Acer or another Chromebook "Plus" model, you can't go wrong. Like me, you'll wonder why you didn't switch sooner. And the eco-friendly packaging is just a bonus that seals the deal. 

The Silence of the Eleventh Hour:

 Why Veterans Day Lost Its Meaning to the Bottom Line

By: Peter C. Frank
November 11, 2025

Veterans Day, November 11th, has always been special to me. Today, my bank is closed and the post office is silent. Yet, many local businesses are open, college classes are running, and life moves on with barely a pause. What makes this day even more profound for me is that my own father is a veteran. We observe Veterans Day, but we don't seem to observe the service or sacrifice it represents.

Why? Because today, a federal holiday no longer holds its original meaning—national day of rest or reflection. It means only that federal employees get the day off.

This erosion of observance is a quiet tragedy for which no one weeps. It speaks volumes about what we, as a nation, prioritize: Commerce always wins, especially over solemn reflection.

---

The History: From Armistice to Acquisition

Our confusion is rooted in the history of Veterans Day. It began as Armistice Day in 1919, marking the end of hostilities in World War I—specifically, the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month in 1918.

President Woodrow Wilson proclaimed the first commemoration, focusing on "solemn pride in the heroism of those who died in the country's service". It was a day dedicated to the cause of world peace.

• 1954: After World War II and the Korean War, Congress officially changed the name to Veterans Day to honor all American veterans, living and deceased, who served in all wars.

• Purpose: The focus shifted from honoring the war dead (which is Memorial Day's role) to celebrating and thanking all who served.

---

Why Isn't Everything Closed?

The simple answer is that only government and banking institutions are mandated to close.

• Closed: Federal offices, post offices, state and federal courts, and most banks are closed because they follow the Federal Reserve or the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) holiday schedule. Most public and private schools are also closed.

• Open: Private businesses, including all major retail stores, grocery chains, restaurants, doctors' offices, and stock markets (NYSE/NASDAQ), remain open and operate as usual.

The decision for smaller, local businesses and even colleges to remain open is purely economic. They are not legally required to close. For national retailers, Veterans Day is a major promotional sales day. Our national commitment stops where the ledger starts.

---

What Should We Be Doing?

You're right to wonder if we're still meant to pause and reflect. The original spirit of Armistice Day—solemn reflection—is being lost beneath the crush of discount sales and regular business hours.

Veterans Day, as stated by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, is intended as a "celebration to honor America's veterans for their patriotism, love of country, and willingness to serve and sacrifice for the common good."

We honor our veterans not just with parades and free meals but by actively creating space for remembrance. We should still be doing what Americans originally set out to do:

• Reflect: Take a moment of silence at 11:00 AM to acknowledge the moment the guns fell silent in 1918.

• Visit: Visit local cemeteries or memorials, or attend a ceremony arranged by one of your local veterans organizations.

• Connect: The most vital way to honor the day is to connect with and thank a living veteran in your community.

The fact that so much of the country remains open today highlights the need for us to make a conscious, individual choice to prioritize respect and gratitude over consumerism. The spirit of Veterans Day demands it.

Bloomfield's Crisis of Transparency:

A Documented Pattern of Deliberate Obfuscation Uncovers
An Intentional Path to Failure

by Peter C. Frank

©November 10, 2025

In July 2025, Bloomfield's Town Manager, Alvin D. Schwapp, Jr. was fined $1,500 by the Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC). The reason? "Deliberate Delays" on a public records request that had remained unfulfilled for over a year. And there are other formal, contested cases like Docket #FIC 2024-0425 also on record.

This isn't just incompetence. It is a state-sanctioned judgment. It is a smoking gun proving what many residents have long suspected: Bloomfield's local government operates under a culture of systemic, intentional obfuscation.

That culture of opacity is on full display right now. For five days, Bloomfield residents clicking the official "Election Results" banner on the town website (which, incidentally, is neither accessible nor mobile-friendly) have not been taken to a certified results page. Instead, they are routed directly to an "Alert Center" post titled "Unofficial Election Results."

This is not transparency. This is a systemic failure. These incidents are deliberate choices to provide the bare minimum in the most inaccessible way. And they are not two isolated incidents. They are part of a larger, documented pattern. Bloomfield is a town that:

• Normalizes Delinquency: Has publicly admitted in a Finance Committee meeting that it is already planning to be four months late on the FY 2025 financial audit (due Dec 31).

• Fails its Financial Duties: Is still listed by the state's Office of Policy and Management as "delinquent" on its mandatory financial audits for fiscal years 2021, 2022, and 2023. As a result of missing the extended deadline, credit risk assessment firm Moody's withdrew the town's credit rating.

• Fakes Police Accountability: Provides a web form for citizens to file complaints against the police department, but then provides zero public data on the number, status, type of complaint, or resolution of those complaints, making true accountability impossible.

• Is a "Black Hole" for Data: Has a documented 2024 history of a 0% compliance rate on 12 public FOIA requests, as confirmed by FOIC quarterly reports.

• Passes Reckless Budgets Fueled by Unsustainable Gimmicks: The town's budgets are not just high—they are structurally unsound, revealing a clear pattern of accelerating fiscal dependency. For example:

• The FY2026 adopted budget, for example, was "balanced" by draining $3.75 million from the town's "rainy day" fund—an 87.5% increase in using one-time funds from the previous year's $2.0 million draw. This gimmick was used to fund massive, recurring administrative cost increases, including a 78% spike in the Finance/Administration budget alone. 
• The town's FY2025 adopted budget similarly demonstrated reckless spending, featuring a 6-7% year-over-year expenditure increase, including a staggering 7+% increase in debt service. This high-spending, contradictory budget (see p. 7 regarding capital projects) is touted as "excellent fiscal management"—a claim that is logically unsupportable.

• These observed behaviors are not considered "excellent fiscal management" by the gold accounting standard of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). In fact, they violate four core tenets of GAAP: chronic audit delinquency, increased reliance on fund balance, administrative bloat, and high debt service and expenditure increases. They are a deliberate, direct path to fiscal insolvency.

Tonight, the Town Council, led by the incumbent majority, is expected to re-elect its current leadership. This move is a direct message to residents: their concerns don't matter. The town essentially is telling its residents who have been raising concerns about this documented, deliberate obfuscation that it will continue to fall on deaf ears.

Nowhere could this be clearer than the response given by incumbent mayor Anthony Harrington when asked to comment:

I'm really not comfortable responding right now. I can say that I am excited about [tonight] and look forward to serving the great people of Bloomfield for another two years. We have a great team and believe we have the capacity to address any and all challenges facing our community in a positive and professional manner.

Suzette DeBeatham-Brown

However, Bloomfield's residents are not alone. A new coalition of leaders is ready to fight. Newly-elected Councilmember and former Mayor, Suzette DeBeatham-Brown, received the most number of votes in last week's election, according to the town's unofficial vote tally. She stated her intent to challenge this status quo:

It breaks my heart to see the people of this beautiful town I love so much become so bitterly divided, which is why I decided to step back into the spotlight and run again. I hope the council will hear the voters and allow this change to take place smoothly. But let me be clear: we are prepared for a two-year fight to bring accountability and transparency back to this government. The residents of Bloomfield have given us a mandate, and we will not back down.

Re-elected Councilmember Shamar Mahon has already identified a potential source of the problem:

I’ve said this before and I will continue saying it: the current council majority has only a singular focus and priority: themselves and their donors, who are the development interests in the town. They don’t care about the residents, the people who actually live here. They only care about the fancy developers who will change the nature and beauty that our residents love about what puts the Bloom in Bloomfield.

Newly-elected Councilmember Darrell Goodwin did not respond to a request to discuss these matters.

This fight is not about a broken website link. It is a fight against a documented, sanctioned, and deliberate culture of secrecy. Because what does it really matter if the town is late on submitting their audited financial statements?

Think of it this way: Imagine you called up all of your credit card companies and the bank that holds your mortgage (or your landlord, if you rent). You said the following: "I know I'm 1.5 years late but I'll get that to you next month. Oh, and in the future, I'm gonna pay you four or five months late going forward." Or imagine telling your boss that from now on, your work will consistently be four to five months late. What do you think would happen?

And to top it off, when asked for a reason as to why you're late, why you're doing what you're doing, you shrug your shoulders and walk away.

That's essentially what the town is doing, when it comes right down to it. And that's why there are laws that say our governments have to operate openly and with transparency. Because the people we elect--and the people they hire to run it in their absence--need to be held accountable. And the only way we can do that is if we know what they're doing.

We, the people, are the bosses in government, and yet we've forgotten that. The way we hold people accountable in government is either by keeping them in office, or voting them out. If they're not doing a good job, then we need to start exercising our right to vote them out. It's high time we wake up and smell the coffee, because we're all in a sinking ship. And it needs to be set righted before it runs aground.

The research is clear. Bloomfield is on a path to destruction. How quickly it will get there--or whether it can be saved--depends on what the council does at its first meeting tonight. Will they heed the voices of the growing minority who are waking up and realizing that good governance is not what is taking place in their town right now? That good governance is open, honest, and  transparent governance.

One can only hope that the incumbent majority will respect the clear mandate for change. Otherwise, it’s going to be an all-out brawl for the next two years, with the potential for Bloomfield to run aground.

[Updated 11/22/2025: This article served as the jumping off point for my investigative series into the Town of Bloomfield's governance and fiscal woes. Read Part 1 of Bloomfield's Crisis of Governance.]