Bloomfield's Crisis of Governance Part 5.3: The Administrative Collapse

"Widespread Access" and "Inconsistent" Spending: The Admissions & The Consequences

By Peter C. Frank | The Bloomfield Dispatch

BREAKING NEWS (Dec 30): CREDIT RATING DOWNGRADED

Just moments ago, the bill for mismanagement came due.
As we prepared to publish this analysis of the Administration's internal failures, S&P Global Ratings issued a bulletin lowering Bloomfield's credit rating to 'AA' and placing the town on CreditWatch Negative. The agency explicitly cited the "history of delayed audit filings" and warned of a "one-in-two likelihood" that the rating could be withdrawn entirely in 90 days. (Full details below).

The Forensic Audit: Conclusion.

In Part 5.1 and Part 5.2 of this series, we analyzed the first ten reasons provided by Finance Director Darrell Hill to the State Office of Policy and Management (OPM) explaining why Bloomfield’s finances collapsed in FY 2024. We documented the "Digital Blackout" (abandoning MUNIS for spreadsheets) and the "Blind Checkbook" (failure to reconcile bank accounts for 15 months).

Today, we examine the final three admissions—Reasons 11, 12, and 13—and how they help explain the systemic failures that S&P Global Ratings cited today when downgrading Bloomfield's credit rating.

If the previous reasons described a failure of technology, these final three describe a failure of authority. According to Finance Director Hill's August 4, 2025 letter to the State Office of Policy and Management, these issues paint a picture of a government where internal controls were ignored, spending happened without oversight, and "widespread access" left the financial system vulnerable.

---

REASON 11: "God Mode" Access

The Admission: "Weak internal controls including widespread access at the highest administrative level."

The Translation:
In the world of forensic accounting, "Segregation of Duties" is Rule #1. The person who writes the check cannot be the same person who signs the check, and neither should be the person who reconciles the bank statement.

Director Hill’s admission of "widespread access at the highest administrative level" suggests that this safety protocol was dismantled. When too many administrators have "super-user" privileges (often called "God Mode" in IT circles), the system loses its integrity. It means entries can be created, modified, or deleted without the standard chain of approval.

The Implication:
This does not just risk accidental data corruption; it creates a massive vulnerability for fraud. When "widespread" staff can modify the General Ledger, tracking who did what becomes a forensic nightmare.

REASON 12: Spending Without Visibility

The Admission: "Inconsistent use of purchase orders resulting in lack of visibility and diminished budget control."

The Translation:
A Purchase Order (PO) is not just paperwork; it is the Town’s permission slip. It confirms that money exists in the budget before it is spent.

By admitting to "inconsistent use of purchase orders," the Town is confessing to "Maverick Spend." This means departments were likely ordering goods and services first, and sending the bill to Finance later.

The Implication:
"Lack of visibility" means the Finance Department literally did not know what was being spent until the invoices arrived. You cannot manage a budget if you are managing it in the past tense. This explains how departments could overspend their budgets dramatically—sometimes by double or more—because Finance learned about the spending only after invoices arrived, not before. (We will examine specific examples of this overspending in Part 6.)

REASON 13: The Archaeological Dig

The Admission: "A wide variety of incorrect calculations, partial accounting entries, and absent/weak internal controls that in each instance resulted in a new research project that endeavored to understand legacy treatment."

The Translation:
This is the "Kitchen Sink" confession. It admits that the data entering the system was garbage. "Partial accounting entries" implies that transactions were only half-recorded—perhaps the expense was logged but the cash wasn't, or vice-versa.

The Implication:
This explains why the audit is so delayed. The Finance Department cannot simply verify the numbers; they have to reconstruct history. Director Hill calls them "research projects." In reality, they are archaeological digs. The Finance staff is being forced to excavate the debris of FY 2024 to figure out what actually happened, transaction by transaction.

---

THE CONSEQUENCE: S&P Downgrades Bloomfield

The severe breakdown in financial management described in Reasons 11-13 has now produced a tangible financial penalty for every taxpayer in Bloomfield.

In a report dated December 30, 2025, S&P Global Ratings announced it has lowered Bloomfield’s rating to 'AA' and placed the town on CreditWatch Negative.

The agency’s rationale serves as an independent confirmation that the failures described in the "13 Reasons" are measurable and consequential. In its December 30, 2025 ratings report, S&P wrote: "The lower rating reflects our downward revision of the management assessment due to a history of delayed audit filings." The agency explicitly cited the Town's "weakened financial management practices" as the basis for the action.

Key Findings from S&P (Dec 30, 2025):

The Context: As recently as August 2021, Bloomfield held an 'AA+' rating from S&P—one notch higher. Today's action moves the Town down to 'AA' and places that rating at immediate risk of withdrawal.

• The Downgrade: "S&P Global Ratings has lowered its rating one notch to 'AA' on Bloomfield, Conn.'s general obligation debt."
• The Cause: "The lower rating reflects our downward revision of the management assessment due to a history of delayed audit filings."
• The Confirmation: S&P noted that the new management team is stalled because they "needed to complete a significant number of reconciliations that had not been included in fiscal 2024 actuals"—a direct reference to the failures admitted in Reason 1.
• The Liabilities: S&P also highlighted ongoing credit weaknesses, including a $75.8 million net OPEB liability as of June 2023, a critical factor threatening future solvency.
• The Threat: "The CreditWatch placement reflects that there is at least a one-in-two likelihood we could withdraw the rating within the next 90 days."

What This Costs: Credit rating downgrades directly increase borrowing costs. According to municipal finance research, a one-notch downgrade (e.g., from AA+ to AA) typically adds 5 to 15 basis points (0.05% to 0.15%) to interest rates on new bond issues. For a $20 million bond issue with a 20-year term, that translates to approximately $200,000 to $600,000 in additional interest expense over the life of the bonds—costs borne entirely by taxpayers. [Source: S&P Global Ratings research on municipal bond yield impacts]

The Comparison: Bloomfield's downgrade stands in stark contrast to broader Connecticut trends. In September 2025, the State of Connecticut itself received credit rating increases from Moody's and Fitch, reflecting improved fiscal management. Neighboring Hartford was upgraded by S&P in December 2025 from 'BBB' to 'A-' due to "improved financial management practices"—the exact area where Bloomfield was downgraded.

THE TOWN RESPONDS (And Omits the Warning)

Following the S&P report, the Town Administration issued a public statement acknowledging the rating change. The statement emphasizes that an 'AA' rating "remains very strong" and asserts there will be "no immediate impact on taxes" because the Town is not currently issuing new debt.

The Reality Check: The Town's December 30 statement is accurate that an 'AA' rating remains investment-grade and that there is no immediate tax increase tied to this action. However, the statement omits any mention of the "CreditWatch Negative" status—the most consequential part of the S&P report. S&P explicitly warned: "The CreditWatch placement reflects that there is at least a one-in-two likelihood we could withdraw the rating within the next 90 days."

While the Town claims no immediate tax impact because they are not issuing debt today, a credit withdrawal would sever the Town from capital markets, making future borrowing for schools, roads, or emergencies exponentially more expensive—a cost that would be passed directly to taxpayers.

Editor's Note: In previous communications, the Town Administration directed The Bloomfield Dispatch to its "Truth & Transparency" webpage as its official and final response regarding the "13 Reasons." Regarding the S&P downgrade, the Town issued its public statement via NewsFlash on December 30, 2025, prior to an inquiry being made. We are reporting their position as stated in that official release.

CONCLUSION: The Bill is Due

The "13 Reasons" were not just a list of bureaucratic errors. They were an acknowledgment of systemic management failures—widespread access, uncontrolled spending, and unreliable data—that, according to Finance Director Hill's August 4, 2025 letter, left the Town unable to close its books or produce an audit.

In public statements and council meetings throughout 2025, the Administration has generally described these issues as technical modernization challenges rather than systemic control failures. Today, S&P Global Ratings delivered its verdict. The breakdown in financial management is no longer a matter of political interpretation; it is now reflected in the Town's official credit rating and its access to capital markets.

Next Up: Part 6.
Now that the systemic collapse has been confirmed by S&P, we turn to the numbers. In the upcoming Part 6, we reveal a first look at the numbers that threaten the Town's long-term solvency.

Source: Analysis based on the August 4, 2025 letter from Finance Director Darrell Hill to the OPM, and the S&P Global Ratings Report (Dec 30, 2025) regarding Bloomfield, CT.