Bloomfield's Crisis of Governance Part 4

The Cover-Up

By Peter C. Frank

BLOOMFIELD, Conn., December 4, 2025 — In Part 3, we exposed the financial chaos: the "Material Weakness," the phantom OPM savings, and the exploding legal bills.

But there was one question we couldn't answer: Why is the Administration hiding the truth about the delay?

Today, The Bloomfield Dispatch is releasing documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act that the Town hoped you would never see. These documents prove that while Town officials were telling the public that everything was under control, the State of Connecticut was preparing to intervene.

And most damning of all: The leadership knew.

📄 DOWNLOAD THE OPM "TIER I" WARNING DOCUMENTS (PDF)

1. The "Tier I" Warning (The Receipt)

On July 18, 2025, Kimberly Kennison of the Connecticut State Office of Policy and Management (OPM) sent a formal letter warning that Bloomfield now meets the eligibility criteria for "Tier I" State Oversight under the Municipal Accountability Review Board (MARB).

For months, the narrative has been that the Council was "kept in the dark." The records prove otherwise.

We have reached out to every member of the Town Council to determine what they knew, and when.

To be absolutely clear: the documentary evidence proves that nearly the entire sitting Council was informed that the State OPM was threatening the town with Tier 1 MARB oversight. The first page of the email packet reveals that the following elected officials received a copy of Undersecretary Kennison's July 17, 2025 warning letter:

Councilor Todd Cooper, Deputy Mayor Anthony Harrington, Councilor Cindi Lloyd, Councilor Shamar Mahon, Finance Committee Chair Kenneth McClary, Councilor Joseph Merritt, Councilor Michael Oliver, Councilor Elizabeth Waterhouse, and Mayor Danielle Wong.

But, the level of engagement varied. Finance Director Hill responded that same day to ensure the Mayor and Deputy Mayor were included. Finance Chair McClary engaged in follow-up correspondence with OPM's Bill Plummer regarding the urgency of the September 10th deadline, demonstrating he understood the gravity of the situation.

But this knowledge was never shared with the full Council or the public. Three days later, when Director Hill appeared before McClary's Finance Subcommittee and characterized the OPM correspondence as merely concerning the 'municipal finance advisory committee' rather than state takeover eligibility, Chair McClary—who had directly corresponded with OPM about that very threat—remained silent.

2. The Material Misstatement (July 21, 2025)

Just 72 hours after receiving this warning letter, the Town Council’s Finance Subcommittee met on July 21, 2025.

Finance Director Darrell Hill appeared before the committee. When discussing the consequences of being 6-7 months late in light of the OPM correspondence, the official transcript records Hill stating:

"This is not a MARB issue. This is the municipal finance advisory committee."

This characterization was false in its essential meaning. The letter explicitly stated Bloomfield was 'eligible for Tier I designation under Section 7-395d'—which is MARB oversight. Whether the warning came from MFAC or MARB directly, the consequence was the same: state intervention. The distinction Hill drew obscured the severity of the state's warning.

But the bigger scandal is the silence. Chair McClary sat in that chair, having received the warning letter three days prior, and said nothing. He allowed the Finance Director to mislead the public and the rest of the committee without correction.

3. The Confession (August 4, 2025)

On August 4, 2025, Director Hill responded to OPM with a status report that can only be described as a confession of administrative collapse.

This crisis didn't emerge suddenly. According to Hill's own August 4 admission to OPM, the FY 2023 audit wasn't completed until June 26, 2024—nearly a full year after the fiscal year ended. This marks at least the fourth consecutive year of audit failures, yet the Administration took no corrective action until the state threatened intervention.

In this document, the Town lists 13 separate reasons for the audit failure. While all are concerning, three of them reveal that the Finance Department effectively ceased to function as a modern accounting entity (I'll examine the other 13 reasons in Part 5 of this series, and I'll take a look at the preliminary budget in Part 6):

A. The "Spreadsheet Government" (Items 1 & 12)

The Town admitted to OPM that for 15 months, they stopped entering daily transactions into the official accounting system (MUNIS). Instead, a town with a $117 million budget was tracking its finances on manual, offline spreadsheets.

Translation: There is no real-time data. Operating a government on spreadsheets is like flying a 747 with a paper map because you turned off the GPS and on-board navigation systems.

B. The Missing Bank Reconciliations (Item 2)

The report admits that bank reconciliations—the basic act of balancing the checkbook—were not performed for the 5 primary bank accounts and several secondary accounts for over a year.

Translation: The Town does not know how much cash it actually has. Without reconciliation, fraud, theft, or errors cannot be detected.

C. The Open Books (Item 7)

The Town admitted that the Fiscal Year (which ended June 30) remained "open" for 60+ days after the close date.

Translation: They couldn't close the books because the numbers didn't add up. (It's like trying to reconcile your checkbook but you can't because there's a significant discrepancy between what your records show and what the bank says you have in your account.)

4. The Secret Meetings (October - December)

Following this admission, the State OPM began direct oversight of the auditing process, meeting directly with the town's staff and auditors. Critically, the Council—the elected body charged with financial oversight—was not briefed on these meetings or their outcomes.

• October 28, 2025: OPM met with the Finance Department and Town Manager’s Office. The Council was not briefed on the outcome.
• October 30, 2025: OPM’s Bill Plummer contacted Director Hill to demand a follow-up meeting with OPM Undersecretary Kennison.
• December 2, 2025: That high-level meeting took place just 48 hours ago.

While Councilors Suzette DeBeatham-Brown and Darrell Goodwin were not seated on the Council at that time, the documents reveal a pattern of concealment that extended to the newly elected Council.

Most troubling: On November 17, 2025, Finance Director Hill delivered his report to the Council at a Special Meeting—just three weeks after the October 28th OPM oversight meeting and two weeks before the December 2nd follow-up. Yet Hill made no mention of the state's direct intervention. The new Council members were sworn in without being informed that Bloomfield was under active OPM oversight.

The Dispatch has reviewed transcripts of recent Finance Committee meetings and found no mention of the OPM meetings. When questioned about state oversight in Council and Finance Committee meetings, Director Hill has consistently minimized the severity of the situation.

5. The 36 Missing Items

In the August 4th report, the Town identified 13 separate reasons for the audit failure and provided a timeline showing 36 critical items that needed to be submitted to the auditors by August 20, 2025. That deadline came and went, which is why OPM demanded face-to-face meetings in October and December.

The Verdict

We are not facing a simple delay. We are facing what appears to be a Cover-Up.

The Finance Chair knew. The Administration knew. And now, thanks to these documents, you know.

Council Reaction

We have reached out to Mayor Harrington, Deputy Mayor Lloyd, Finance Chair McClary, and the entire Town Council regarding these documents. We provided them with a deadline of 1:00 PM today to explain why the Tier I threat was minimized in public meetings and why the Council was excluded from recent state interventions.

Councilor Shamar Mahon responded to our inquiry with the following statement:

"I was never made aware of any meetings between staff and OPM and am deeply troubled that the implications of the state's oversight were allowed to be minimized. Our town and residents deserve better and I am demanding answers for this."

Councilor Suzette DeBeatham-Brown confirmed with this reporter shortly after publication in a text exchange that, being new to the council, she was not given any information about OPM's involvement with the Town. She responded in a text with, "This is so disturbing 😳"

As of publication time, no other Councilors have responded. This story will be updated if the Town chooses to address these documented failures.

(It is the opinion of this author that holding back these documents any longer would run counter to the interests of the public good, as they have been kept in the dark for far too long. Additionally, the town Council has not once responded to a single request for comment; the likelihood that they will do so now in their "One Voice" directive from Mayor Harrington is virtually guaranteed not to happen.)

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.