The Audit Scandal & The $21 Million "Ghost"
By Peter C. Frank
Bloomfield, Connecticut – In Part 2.5, we discussed how the tax phase-in is a mathematical trap. But taxes are only half the equation. The other half is how the Town manages the money it already has.
And right now, nobody seems to know exactly where that money stands.
As of today, the Town of Bloomfield is effectively operating blind. The Fiscal Year 2024 Audit, which covers the period ending June 30, 2024, is effectively 11 months overdue (it was due December 31, 2024). Without this audit, the Town Council cannot accurately budget, the bond rating agencies cannot accurately assess the town's risk, and taxpayers cannot know if their money is safe.
Why is the audit late? (Again?)
While the Administration remains silent (despite repeated attempts to obtain comment), a review of the previous year’s audit reports (FY2023) uncovers a disturbing pattern: an accelerating loss of financial controls resulting in a "Material Weakness" finding, exploding legal costs in FY2026, and a $21 million reduction in FY2023 OPEB debt that appears to be more about a large retrospective data correction than any real‑time improvement in fiscal health.
1. The "Material Weakness" (Finding 2023-001)
In the auditing world, there is a term you never want to hear: "Material Weakness."
It doesn't just mean a mistake was made. It means the town’s internal controls are so broken that there is a "reasonable possibility" that a massive financial error (or fraud) could occur and not be detected by town staff.
In the FY2023 Federal Single Audit Report, the independent auditors (CliftonLarsonAllen) slapped Bloomfield with Finding 2023-001.
- The Issue: The Town failed to close its books on time and failed to reconcile key accounts.
- The Auditor’s Warning: The auditors explicitly noted: "The Other Employment Benefit Trust Fund had significant back and forth between us and the Town, resulting in adjustments to the fund and a revised actuarial report."
And the failure wasn't limited to local tax dollars. The Federal Single Audit also identified Significant Deficiencies in how the Town manages Federal Awards. In short: The Town struggled to manage its own money, and it struggled to properly manage the Federal Government's money, too.
This was a warning shot. Now, with the FY2024 audit delayed yet again, we have to ask: Has the wound healed, or has it become gangrenous? If the Town couldn't reconcile its accounts in 2023, and they are late again in 2024, it suggests the financial engine of the town has seized up.
2. The $21 Million "Ghost" (The OPEB Miracle)
On paper, Bloomfield's Net OPEB (Other Post-Employment Benefits) liability dropped from roughly $97 million in 2022 down to $75 million in 2023. A $21 million drop in debt sounds like incredible fiscal management.
But look closer.
The Town did not pay down $21 million in cash. They didn't find a pot of gold. To understand how the Town of Bloomfield made nearly $27 million in debt vanish into thin air, we have to look at Page 84 of the 2023 Annual Financial Report.
Figure 1: Page 84 of the FY2023 ACFR showing the breakdown of liability reductions.
It wasn't a market miracle. The Town uses a fixed 6.75% return rate, meaning they don't get to claim credit when bond yields rise. It wasn't a cash payoff.
The money disappeared because of a line item called 'Differences Between Expected and Actual Experience'—a massive reduction of $18.8 Million.
In the actuarial world, this is often called a 'True Up.' It means the Town's previous assumptions about retiree healthcare costs were so disconnected from reality that they had to be corrected by nearly 20% in a single year. Essentially, the actuaries looked at the data and admitted, 'We overestimated the bill.'
Think of it this way (I spoke with a few different actuaries and financial professionals who asked that I withhold their names, for privacy reasons, to get this explanation nailed down): Imagine you have a mortgage with a balance of $100,000. Every month, you scrape together cash to pay the interest on that debt. You budget for it. You sacrifice other things to make sure that bill is paid.
Then, one day, your accountant calls up and says, 'Hey, my bad. I made a calculation error. You actually only owe $80,000.'
That sounds like good news, until you realize the accountant admits the mistake happened years ago.
This means for years, you have been paying interest on a 'Ghost Debt'—money that didn't exist. You were over-billed, and that money is gone. That is effectively what happened here: Bloomfield taxpayers have been carrying the weight of a liability that was inflated by nearly 20% due to bad data.
While a lower debt number sounds like good news, the source of that drop—a massive data correction—exposes a critical flaw in the Town's fiscal competence. If the data was this wrong in 2023, why should we trust the projections they are feeding us now? What measures has the town taken to ensure that the numbers going forward are any good? Stay tuned to Part 4 for a possible answer...
The "Irresponsible" Path to 2026
This brings us to the most alarming question: Can we really trust the numbers they will be giving us for the 2026 budget?
We are currently careening toward being two years late on providing the FY2024 audited financial statements. At the November 17, 2025, Board Meeting, Finance Director Darrell Hill dropped a bombshell: the FY2024 audit won't be completed until the end of June 2026.
"It means that Bloomfield is essentially flying blind," remarked Mary M. Fay, when asked about Hill's statements. "You are being asked to approve future spending without knowing where you stand today," she explained.
Fay, a Fortune 50 senior finance executive who served four terms on the West Hartford Town Council and spent six years on its Finance & Budget Committee, did not mince words regarding this chaotic approach. She called the act of creating a budget with such data missing to be "completely irresponsible."
Bloomfield taxpayers deserve better than "True Ups" and delays. We deserve the truth.
3. The Legal Spending Spree
While the Finance Department struggles to count the money, the Town Attorney’s office is busy spending it.
Historically (2014-2020), Bloomfield spent roughly $200,000 to $250,000 per year on legal fees. It was a stable, predictable line item.
Current Reality: The specific data we uncovered in Part 2 of this series reveals a shocking deviation from this norm. In just the first 20 weeks of this fiscal year, the town has reportedly burned through 185% of its entire annual legal budget.
If this "burn rate" continues, we are on a course to spend nearly 500% of the total legal budget for FY2026.
(Historical Avg. vs. FY2026 Projection)
What are we paying for? Why has the cost of legal advice quadrupled under this administration? Is this money being used to defend the town, or to fight its own residents and silence inquiries?
The "One Voice" Hypocrisy
To cap it all off, Mayor Harrington issued a directive on November 12, 2025, demanding "One Voice" from the Council—effectively gagging dissent. Yet, the evidence shows that this rule is applied selectively.
Below are the receipts—communications that demonstrate the pressure applied to maintain this narrative.
In spite of this "One Voice" directive, I have continued to reach out to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, and specific heads of town departments (the Finance Director and Acting Town Manager, specifically) and have received nothing but silence in response to those efforts. As a resident who expressly identified his dual-status in the outreach, this journalist finds the silence extremely disconcerting.
The only staff member of the town to respond to this journalist's outreach has been Town Clerk Andrea DiStephan, who is waiting on Department heads to fulfill FOIA requests this journalist has had to file in order to obtain basic information that should have been able to have been answered without the necessity of a formal FOIA inquiry. The fact that Clerk DiStephan is being forced to engage in this process is, in and of itself, a form of stonewalling, especially as she has not received a response from the department heads to the inquiries to be able to pass along the information to me.
The Exception: Attacks Instead of Answers
While the Mayor’s "One Voice" policy seems to prohibit Councilors from answering legitimate financial questions, it apparently does not prohibit them from attacking the residents who ask them.
Councilor Merritt has taken to social media not to explain the $21 million OPEB discrepancy or the overdue audit, but to label concerned citizens as "malingerers" and accuse independent reporting of being "half-truths."
He has even gone so far as to publicly threaten lawsuits against those questioning the town's narrative, stating that the Town is preparing a "Fact Sheet" to "correct the record."
My response is simple: We welcome the Fact Sheet.
If the Town has data that contradicts the FY2023 Federal Audit Findings or Page 84 of their own ACFR (which we published above), they should release it immediately. But responding to forensic financial questions with threats of litigation and name-calling does not suggest confidence; it suggests panic.
We don't need "Fact Sheets" written by politicians. We need the FY2024 Audit written by independent accountants.
Rules, it seems, are for the residents, not the rulers.
The Next Shoe to Drop
We have a late audit. We have a recurring "Material Weakness." We have phantom savings on OPEB and exploding legal bills.
But there is a rumor circulating that the situation is far worse than just "delays." I am currently investigating reports regarding the specific reasons why the auditors cannot finish their work.
Spoiler Alert: It’s not just a computer glitch.
Stay tuned for Part 4, where we might be able to reveal the documents the Town doesn't want you to see.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment