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 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 stated they "cannot provide at this time a date by which we can respond" to the question.

S&P Managing Director Charlene 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): 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 a startling admission regarding the town's leadership and financial controls.

S&P explicitly confirmed that their analysis relies on "unaudited data for FY24," verifying that even the town's credit assessors are being 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

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" is arguably already here.

(Note: S&P cited a Debt Per Capita of $3,442 and an OPEB liability of $75.8 million in their email, which differs from the $6,145 debt and $97.2 million OPEB figures found in their own January 2024 published report and town comparative data. This $20M+ discrepancy in reported liability only further highlights the confusion caused by Bloomfield's lack of timely, audited financial reporting.)

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.