Breaking: The "Percolation" Protocol
BREAKING: The "Percolation" Protocol
Documents Reveal Taxpayer-Funded Surveillance and PR Strategy to "Target" Candidate
By Peter C. Frank | The Bloomfield Dispatch
The internal records are in.
Early this afternoon, former Town Councilor Rickford Kirton provided The Bloomfield Dispatch with a cache of internal documents obtained via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. These documents confirm that key communications decisions in Bloomfield’s government were deliberate, politically timed, and involved a coordinated effort between the Town Manager, Town Attorney, elected incumbents, and a taxpayer-funded PR firm.
THE SURVEILLANCE: The 6-Month Gap
To understand the scandal, one must understand the timeline.
The controversy centers on a private text message exchange involving Rickford Kirton (who was a private citizen at the time) and Shamar Mahon, who was a sitting Town Councilor at the time.
It remains unknown how this image came into the Town's possession, as it depicts a private communication on a personal device. However, the image circulating within the Town Administration is not a digital screenshot. As seen in Exhibit A, it is a photograph of a physical phone screen, likely taken surreptitiously.
The disturbing implication is not the content of the message, but the fact that the Town appears to have been surveilling a sitting Council member (Mahon) and a private citizen (Kirton).
The text exchange occurred on March 19, 2025. Yet, the Town did not address it then. Instead, officials held onto this "surveillance" photo for six months, waiting until the height of the election cycle to deploy it against these political rivals.
TIMELINE OF THE SCHEME
- 📅 March 19: Text exchange occurs. "Surveillance" photo is taken shortly thereafter.
- 📅 July 1: Town hires PR firm Adams & Knight for "Mayor's Vision."
- 📅 September 25: Town Attorney advises delaying the release to "let it percolate."
- 📅 September 26: PR Firm coordinates release with "The Bloomfield Messenger."
THE INTENT: "Let It Percolate"
On September 25, 2025—six months after the photo was taken—Town Attorney Andrew Crumbie sent an email advising the Administration on how to weaponize it.
In the email (Exhibit B), Crumbie advises the Town Manager and the PR firm to delay their official statement. His reasoning was not legal; it was tactical. He wrote that “we give the post a little while to percolate… [so] this gives us a second shot at bringing up the issue.”
The "War Room"
This was not a private conversation between the Manager and Attorney. The email chain included a broad list of Town officials and vendors, proving a coordinated effort:
- Alvin Schwapp: Town Manager
- Andrew Crumbie: Town Attorney
- Brian Wolff: Communications Coordinator (Town Staff)
- Kenneth McClary & Anthony Harrington: Incumbent Councilors
- Michelle Bonner: VP of Adams & Knight (PR Firm)
The PR firm was explicitly coordinating with local media. In the same chain, Michelle Bonner writes: "Considering the Messenger goes online tomorrow, this is time sensitive..." This reveals that the taxpayer-funded firm was managing the placement of this story in the Bloomfield Messenger.
THE MEANS: The "Zombie" PR Contract
How was this strategy funded?
On July 1, 2025, Adams & Knight sent an estimate addressed “To: Mayor Danielle Wong” for “Town of Bloomfield – Public Relations Strategy and Execution.” The agreement was approved by Town Manager Schwapp.
Even after Mayor Wong’s resignation took effect on Aug. 24, 2025, Adams & Knight continued billing the Town. September invoices show charges of $5,000 for "Monthly Public Relations Support."
Critics may see this as a “zombie contract”—a PR engagement initiated under one Mayor but quietly continued with taxpayer money after she left office—particularly because the September invoice coincides with the “percolation” strategy.
THE SHIELD: "Privilege" Demolished
When these emails were requested under the Freedom of Information Act, the Administration invoked attorney-client privilege.
Legal experts say that position is vulnerable. “Generally speaking, yes, a third-party public relations firm being included on an email…waives attorney-client privilege,” said Yosi Yahoudai, co-founder of J&Y Law. “Privilege doesn’t apply to business or political strategy.”
THE LIABILITY: "Prima Facie Evidence"
The Bloomfield Dispatch consulted legal experts to assess the liability of using taxpayer dollars for this strategy. The consensus? It likely crosses the line.
ON ELECTION LAW VIOLATIONS:
Yosi Yahoudai (J&Y Law) stated: "That kind of email could most definitely be viewed as prima facie evidence of a violation. Using a government office or legal authority to manipulate public information for personal political advantage is the opposite of what our country was founded upon."
ON THEFT OF HONEST SERVICES:
Shane Lucado (InPerSuit) added: "Abuse of office can attach even to a $5,000 legal or PR bill if it’s clearly for the purpose of protecting an individual politically... it can open the door to an abuse of office complaint, or even a civil action to recover funds under a fraud theory."
Both attorneys warned that if the Town Manager and Mayor authorized this strategy, they could face personal exposure, including civil penalties or potential "clawbacks" of the funds.
CONCLUSION: A Pattern of Retaliation
In the Taylor case, former employee Wendy Taylor alleges in a pending Hartford Superior Court lawsuit that the Town’s legal apparatus was used to retaliate against her. In the “percolation” emails, the Town’s attorney and outside PR firm discuss timing a public statement about a six-month-old text message involving a political rival.
Those two episodes, taken together, raise questions about whether Bloomfield’s legal and communications machinery is being used to manage political risk for senior officials rather than simply to serve the public.
Update 1 (4:45 PM): This article was updated to include additional legal analysis regarding election law and the theft of honest services, clarify the timeline of events, and replace an early draft version that was inadvertently published at 4:00 PM.
Update 2 (12:00 AM): This article has been updated to clarify the context of the text message in Exhibit A. The exchange was a private communication between Rickford Kirton (a private citizen at the time) and Shamar Mahon (a sitting Councilor). It is unknown how the Administration obtained this photograph of a private device. The issue raised by these documents is not the content of the private message, but the fact that Town resources were seemingly used to surveil a Council member and a private citizen, holding the material for six months to deploy it during an election cycle against political rivals.
Request for Comment: The Bloomfield Dispatch provided Town Manager Alvin Schwapp and Town Attorney Andrew Crumbie with a deadline of 4:00 PM today to comment on these documents. As of publication time, neither official has responded.
Love these articles. But this one is more confusing because it isn't clearly identified who exactly is conversing on the iphone text photo. It appears that this is a photo of someone's phone and they are texting with Shamar. I can tell that because it says Shamar at the top of the screen. And since you tell us that it is a "text message exchange involving Councilor Rickford Kirton" I am assuming that the messages in blue are Rickford's words and the messages in grey are Shamar's words.
ReplyDeleteIf this is true, it appears that Rickford is focusing on race and not outcome when he says "let's get a bunch of people who don't look like us telling us what we need." Shame on you Rickford!
Thank you for reading my articles. I'm grateful to have developed a loyal following. To clarify the confusion regarding the text message photo (Exhibit A):
Delete1. Who is speaking: On an iPhone, the name at the top of the screen indicates the person being texted, not the owner of the phone. The Blue Bubbles represent the phone's owner. Since the name at the top is 'Shamar,' and the messages in blue are from Rickford, this confirms that Exhibit A is a photo of Rickford Kirton’s private phone. This reinforces the article's finding that the Town was in possession of a surveillance photo of a private citizen's device.
2. The 'Racial' Comment: You mentioned Rickford's comment about 'people who don't look like us.' Context is critical here. Bloomfield is a majority-minority town (approx. 55% Black), yet the Superintendent of Schools is White.
When an elected official in a majority-Black town questions why leadership does not reflect the community they serve, that is a discussion about political representation, not racism.
The disturbing issue here isn't a private citizen discussing representation with his Councilor; it is the fact that the Town government secretly photographed private conversations and sat on them for six months to weaponize them during an election.
The Town has already paid $17,500 to this PR firm out of the Communications budget. There are 4 people (2 full time 2 part time) people in this department so what are those people being paid to do? This is a department/function that didn't even exist in FY 2022. Even then, why are taxpayer funds, whether it be from paid town staff or hired PR firms being used to support individual politicians? Ironically the department's mission as described in the budget is to promote transparency and provide timely access to information. Clearly by what we know from this post the town sought to actively bury this. And according to open finance, there is a monthly fee the town is obligated to pay so this appears to be ongoing.
ReplyDeleteThere can be no doubt that taxpayer dollars were used to pay for electioneering, given that this outside consultant was used in the consideration of this text message for political gain.
ReplyDeleteAnd as you noted, this expense is even more egregious given that the Town already employs a full communications staff. Paying an outside firm to manage political risks that the staff cannot handle is a misuse of resources (not that staff should be handling political crisis in the first place).