The "Victory" Lap vs. The Reality: While the administration stirs the pot, the plaintiffs examine the cracks in the foundation. (Image Concept: The Bloomfield Community Dispatch)
Why The Real Cost of Bloomfield, CT's "Total Victory" is a Roadmap to a Slush Fund
On January 5, 2026, the Town of Bloomfield issued a press release characterizing a recent Superior Court ruling as a "total victory" that "rejected all claims" challenging the town's FY2026 budget process. Former Mayor Danielle Wong echoed this assessment in a Facebook post, stating the court had validated the administration's financial transparency.
However, a detailed review of Judge Huddleston's 40-page decision—and the subsequent appeal filed on January 12—reveals a more nuanced outcome. While the court legally validated the town's $4 million transfer, the ruling exposed what some voters and legal observers characterize as a significant loophole in the Town Charter's referendum protections.
Let’s break this down like a tech review—comparing the Town’s Claims vs. the Court’s Facts—and keep a running score to see who actually won the war for the truth.
Key Terms Explained:
Appropriation: Official permission to spend money from the town budget.
Nonbudgeted: Not included in the official budget document voters saw.
Summary Judgment: When a judge decides a case based on agreed facts, without a trial.
Stipulated Facts: Facts both sides agree are true, eliminating the need for evidence.
Trust Fund: A separate account where money is set aside for specific future use.
Round 1: The "Non-Budgeted" Question
The Plaintiffs argued that the $4 million transfer to the Economic Development Trust Fund was "nonbudgeted"—meaning it wasn't in the official operating budget presented to voters. The Town argued it was part of the "budget process."
The Ruling:
The Judge explicitly agreed with the Plaintiffs. She wrote: "It is undisputed that the transfer was not included in the operating budget for the 2026 fiscal year... It was, consequently, 'nonbudgeted.'" (emphasis supplied)
The Verdict:
FACT CHECK: PLAINTIFFS CORRECT. The Court explicitly sided with their interpretation that the funds were hidden from the operating budget.
Round 2: The "Appropriation" Loophole (The Slush Fund)
This is where the Town secured its legal escape hatch. The Charter says any "nonbudgeted appropriation" over 1.5% needs a referendum. The Plaintiffs argued this transfer was an appropriation.
The Ruling:
The Judge ruled that while the money was moved, it wasn't an "appropriation" because an appropriation is an "authorization to spend." Since the money was just being moved to a "committed" Trust Fund to sit there until the Council decides to spend it later, the Judge ruled it didn't count.
The Verdict:
LEGAL WIN: TOWN. The Town gets the point for the win, but the Plaintiffs get the assist for exposing the mechanism. The Court has now confirmed that the Council can legally bypass voters by moving money into "holding pens" (Trust Funds) first, then spending it later in smaller chunks.
Round 3: The "Misleading" Ballot
The Official Legal Notice said the budget was $113.6 million. The Ballot asked voters to approve $117.6 million. The Plaintiffs argued this discrepancy was misleading.
The Ruling:
The Judge admitted that including the transfer in the budget total was "technically inaccurate" because the transfer was not part of the operating budget. However, she ruled that the Plaintiffs failed to prove that enough voters were confused to actually flip the election result.
The Verdict:
SPLIT DECISION. The Town won on the standard of law (the election stands), but the Plaintiffs were vindicated on the facts (the ballot was inaccurate).
Round 4: The Press Release vs. Reality
Here is where the Town loses credibility entirely. On January 5th, the Town issued a press release claiming the Court "rejected all claims that challenged the legality of the budget process."
The Misstatement:
"The Court rejected all claims."
The Truth (Footnote 1):
Judge Huddleston explicitly wrote: "The first and second counts [Civil Rights violations]... were not addressed in the cross motions for summary judgment and consequently are not addressed in this decision."
The Verdict:
FACT CHECK: FALSE. The Town claimed victory on counts the Judge hasn't even touched yet. It is a demonstrably incomplete statement.
Round 5: The $100,000 Question—And Why We Can't Verify It
In her Facebook post, former Mayor Wong stated that defending the lawsuit required "over $100,000 of un-budgeted taxpayer funds." Town Councilor Michael Oliver cited a similar figure. Moreover, Town Attorney Andrew R. Crumbie states, "Defending this lawsuit required the use of over $100k of unbudgeted taxpayer funds..." in the Town's press release.
To verify this claim, The Bloomfield Community Dispatch submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for all legal invoices related to this case. As of publication, that request remains unfulfilled.
The FOIA Backlog Problem
Bloomfield is currently experiencing what appears to be a systematic breakdown in transparency compliance. According to town records:
- The town has a backlog of approximately 94 pending FOIA requests (as reported by Deputy Town Manager Sharron Howe at the Town Council's January 12, 2026 meeting).
- A request filed by The Dispatch on November 24, 2025 remains unfulfilled after more than 7 weeks.
- The backlog has not decreased meaningfully despite the passage of months.
What We Know Without the Invoices:
- Four separate law firms have appeared for the defense (Wiggin & Dana, Berchem Moses, Crumbie Law Group, and Karsten & Tallberg).
- The case was resolved via summary judgment with stipulated facts—no discovery, no depositions, and no trial occurred.
- The town attorney's standard contract rate is $175/hour according to publicly available contracts.
The Verdict:
UNVERIFIABLE. Under Connecticut General Statutes § 1-206, public agencies must provide records "promptly." When officials claim to have spent $100,000 but the records proving it are trapped in a months-long backlog, transparency becomes theoretical rather than real.
Editor's Note: It is important to distinguish the role of the Town Clerk’s office in the delays mentioned above. Town Clerk DiStephan has been a model of professionalism and responsiveness. The bottleneck appears to lie not with her office, but with the administrative departments failing to provide the requested documents for release.
The "Partisan" Myth vs. The Public Record
The Town has repeatedly dismissed this lawsuit as "partisan politics." However, a review of public records contradicts this narrative.
The Plaintiffs' attorney, John M. Wolfson, is a veteran business litigator. But 20 years ago, he was fighting to save a major Town initiative—against the very administration of one of his current clients.
According to federal court records in Hollander v. Schulman (Case No. 3:06-cv-01198-AHN), in 2006, Wolfson represented voters who successfully sued to uphold a $94.6 million bond referendum to renovate Bloomfield public schools.
The Irony?
In that 2006 case, the "Schulman" he sued was none other than Sydney Schulman—then the Mayor of Bloomfield, and now one of Wolfson's clients in the current action.
The record is clear: In 2006, Wolfson defeated Schulman's administration to validate a referendum because the Charter required it. In 2026, he is working with Schulman to defend the Charter. That isn't politics; it's consistent adherence to the law.
(Attorney Wolfson declined to comment on pending litigation for this article.)
The "Victory" Lap vs. The 2027 Reality
While the Town has claimed "Total Victory," the court docket suggests otherwise.
On January 12, 2026, the Plaintiffs officially filed an appeal of the decision. Furthermore, court records show that a "Trial Management Conference" had been scheduled for June 23, 2027.
A "victory" that requires four law firms and drags on for another 18 months is not a conclusion—it is a war of attrition funded by taxpayer dollars.
Final Tally: Legal vs. Factual Outcomes
Legal Scorecard (Who Won in Court):
TOWN WINS. The transfer was legal under the current Charter language, and the election results stand.
Factual Accuracy Scorecard (Who Told the Truth):
PLAINTIFFS WIN. The Court confirmed the Plaintiffs' core claims: the funds were nonbudgeted, the ballot was technically inaccurate, and the "loophole" mechanism is real.
The Bottom Line: The Town achieved its legal objective but at the cost of having the Court confirm that their financial transparency practices are technically flawed, and it clearly has a long way to go with its factual record.
The Implications
Judge Huddleston's ruling resolves the immediate legal question—the $4 million transfer was lawful under current Charter language. However, the decision has sparked broader questions about the Town Charter's effectiveness in protecting voter referendum rights.
The mechanism validated by the court—transferring funds to a "committed" trust without voter approval, then spending from that trust in smaller increments—creates what critics characterize as a significant gap in Charter protections.
The plaintiffs have officially appealed the ruling. The Town has declined to comment on the pending appeal. For Bloomfield residents, the question remains: Does the Charter protect what voters thought it protected?