Part 4.5: The Mayor’s "Fact Sheet"
A Case Study in Contradictions
When "Transparency" Means "Opacity." The Facts Behind the Mayor's Fact Check.
By Peter C. Frank
The Bloomfield Dispatch (Read Part 4)
BLOOMFIELD, Connecticut, December 12, 2025 — On Monday night, December 8th, Mayor Anthony Harrington delivered a 15-minute address to the Town Council and the viewing public. He labeled recent reporting on the town’s financial crisis as "misinformation" and promised to provide a "fact-based overview."
However, a comparison of the Mayor's statements against the Town's own internal documentation reveals significant discrepancies. While the Administration characterizes the audit delays as routine matters of "turnover," the internal correspondence tells a story of structural breakdown.
Below is a fact-based timeline and analysis of the claims.
Timeline of the Crisis
Part I: The Documents vs. The Speech
1. The "Tier I" Designation
What the Mayor Said:
"The correspondence from OPM... does not place the town of Bloomfield under MARB oversight... but rather... under Connecticut General Statutes 7-395D."
What the Documents Show:
The July 18, 2025 letter from OPM explicitly cites the statutory criteria for "Tier I" eligibility. While the Mayor is technically correct that Bloomfield has not yet been formally designated, the distinction is one of process, not financial health. The town has triggered the warning system.
2. The "Turnover" Defense
What the Mayor Said:
The Mayor attributed the audit delays and compliance issues primarily to "turnover in the department of finance" and stated that OPM is "gaining comfort" with the town's path.
What the Documents Show:
In an August 4, 2025 email to the State, the Finance Department admitted to a much deeper issue than empty desks. They confirmed that:
- Daily transactions were not entered into the MUNIS financial system for 15 months.
- No bank reconciliations were performed for over a year.
- The town's $117M budget was being tracked on "manual, offline spreadsheets."
3. The OPEB Liability Reduction
What the Mayor Said:
He cited the $21 million reduction in OPEB (Other Post-Employment Benefits) liability as "accurate" and "audited," implying a fiscal success.
What the Documents Show:
Correspondence from S&P Global Ratings confirms that this reduction was primarily due to an "actuarial true-up" (a data correction based on changing assumptions), not a cash payment or structural reform.
The Bottom Line: Whether it is 12% (Official) or 16% (with the "Ghost" or "Miracle" Savings), the town is effectively operating on a "Pay-As-You-Go" basis for retiree healthcare. This is a massive, unsecured debt that future taxpayers—the children of Bloomfield—will have to pay off, dollar for dollar, because the money was not set aside today.
4. The "Friday Dump"
What the Mayor Said:
The Special Meeting notice was posted "before 5:51 p.m." on Friday, meeting the "24-hour notice" requirement.
The Reality:
This is technically compliant with the letter of the law. However, posting an agenda at the close of business on Friday for a Monday meeting violates the spirit of the "transparency" the Mayor claims to champion.
Part II: The Pattern of Silence
While the Administration insists the delay is purely administrative, the behavior of the Town's oversight bodies suggests a reluctance to engage with the public record.
The "No Report" Pattern:
A review of Town Council minutes reveals a recurring pattern where the Finance Subcommittee—charged with fiscal oversight—either cancels meetings or provides "No Report" to the full Council. This has occurred in consecutive months (November and December 2025) during the height of the audit delay.
Part III: The "Alumni" Weigh In
The Mayor attributes the town’s collapse of financial controls to "turnover." But former Bloomfield leaders aren't buying it. Joseph Washington, a former Councilor who understands the weight of the seat, noted in a post on December 6, 2025 in a private Facebook group for Bloomfield residents the perceived arrogance of the current majority:
Larry Pleasant, another former Councilor, was even more blunt about the competence crisis in his response:
When the people who used to run the town say the current leadership is inexperienced, that isn't "misinformation." That is a performance review. (Note: Both Messrs. Washington and Pleasant consented to have their comments published by this reporter.)
This competence gap extends to the Administration itself. During Monday's meeting, Mayor Harrington repeatedly referred to Finance Director Darrell Hill as "Interim Town Manager"—a position that doesn't exist. (Mr. Hill serves as the Acting Town Manager's designee; the Mayor later acknowledged this as "an unfortunate mistake.") In a town manager form of government overseeing a $156 million budget for 21,000 residents, the volunteer Mayor's confusion about who is entrusted with day-to-day operations underscores the concerns raised by former Councilors about experience and institutional knowledge.
Part IV: The Legal Escalation
Perhaps the most alarming development occurred after the meeting. In response to inquiries regarding the Mayor's speech, the Administration has now included Town Attorney Andrew Crumbie on correspondence with this reporter—a significant departure from previous practice.
When questioned about this change, the Administration stated they would need until December 19th to respond to outstanding queries. Whether including the Town Attorney reflects standard protocol for matters the Administration deems sensitive, or represents a shift in approach to media relations, remains unclear pending those answers.
What is clear, however, is that attorney involvement comes with a price tag. The questions at issue—concerning dates, employee job titles, and the status of outstanding audited financial statements—were straightforward factual inquiries that would not typically require legal review. Yet each time the Town Attorney must review correspondence because the Administration declines to answer basic questions directly, the legal budget meter runs.
And that meter is running hot. In his speech, the Mayor admitted that the Town is projected to spend $456,065 on legal fees this fiscal year against a budget of only $268,538—a 70% overrun by his own accounting.
Our own analysis in Part 2 of this investigative series suggests the burn rate may be even higher, with substantial expenditures on "Shadow Counsel" and unexplained invoices. The taxpayers are footing this bill.
Part V: What "Tier I" Actually Means
The debate over whether Bloomfield is "under" MARB or just "eligible" misses the point of what Tier I designation would mean for residents. Under Connecticut General Statutes § 7-395d, a Tier I designation triggers:
- State oversight of the town's financial planning.
- Requirements to appear before the Municipal Accountability Review Board (MARB).
- Mandatory submission of corrective action plans.
This is not a bureaucratic footnote; it is a loss of local autonomy.
Next Week: In Part 5, we will release expert analysis regarding the "13 Reasons" for Bloomfield’s delays. Stay tuned.
Correction: An earlier version of this reporting noted the Mayor's reference to Finance Director Darrell Hill as "Interim Town Manager." Mayor Harrington has since contacted The Bloomfield Dispatch to clarify that this was an inadvertent error and that Mr. Hill's title remains Finance Director. We have updated our records to reflect this correction.
UPDATE: 3:40 PM December 13, 2025 This article was updated to clarify the effects of the OPEB Liability Reduction.
Thank you for another excellent article.
ReplyDeleteMr Hill was hired in August 2024 (at a hefty salary) and appointed a new town accountant shortly thereafter. A year later in August 2025 he announces that financial records were kept on a spreadsheet and monthly reconciliations for 2024 were not done. They should have taken competent staff 2 months to fix that. Yet a year later they still hadn't completed that work. This shows the problem is perhaps a competency issue with Mr Hill and Town Accountant. For what they are paid the Town deserves results not a finger pointing to prior staff and adding staff to do whay they are paid to do. Or not do in this case.
ReplyDeleteYou are almost correct.
DeleteTo clarify: Finance Director Hill did not publicly announce that financial records were kept on offline spreadsheets. He admitted that fact only to the State Office of Policy & Management (OPM) in a private letter. To date, Director Hill has never stood at a podium and acknowledged this to the taxpayers. The only reason we know is because I submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the State, and they were legally obligated to release the letter to me.
You are right to suspect this is a bigger issue. While Director Hill walked into a disaster in August 2024, the fact that 12 months later the department had still not fully reconstructed the books suggests this is more than just 'turnover'—it is a structural failure. The dysfunction was likely so deep that no single person can take all the blame.
However, where Director Hill failed was in his decision to handle this quietly. He acted like a corporate CFO fixing a problem behind closed doors, rather than a public official who owes transparency to the taxpayers. He should have brought these issues to light the moment he found them.
At this stage, a standard audit is likely insufficient. What Bloomfield needs is a Forensic Audit—a specialized investigation designed to reconstruct financial reality when records are missing or manipulated. Without that, or intervention from the Municipal Finance Advisory Commission (MFAC) or the Municipal Accountability Review Board (MARB), we may never know exactly where every dollar went during the 'Offline Year.'
Our Mayor is Sheisty. To shutdown his nonsense, we either need to have
ReplyDeletecontradictory evidence that disproves whatever word vomit he wants to throw up on residents or or demonstration of internal inconsistency discovered via FOIA requests.
As a resident it is difficult to ascertain whether he has the intent to deceive or is just blissfully ignorant and has a high level of incompetence.
Regardless, he likely isn't guilty of political framing for he has some allegiance to protect the guilty from members of the Democratic Party.
What makes me very curious is the lack of understanding how clueless are the Republican members of the Town council and are they choosing to remain silent as well. If we observe their behavior, they tend to not challenge very much nor provide insight. Is it because they are in on the fix or just behaving what is known as Republicans in Name Only (RINO) behavior.