Paying More for Less in Bloomfield: Part 6 - The Golden Parachute Preemption
By Peter C. Frank
Editor-in-Chief, the Bloomfield Community Dispatch
(Did you miss the previous installment? Catch up on Part 5 of the series here.)
BLOOMFIELD, CT - May 30, 2026 — On May 22, Bloomfield Town Clerk Andrea DiStephan officially certified that a grassroots petition drive by former Deputy Mayor Rickford Kirton had secured 1,165 valid signatures—of more than 1,200 raw signatures collected in seven days—surpassing the statutory threshold to force a town-wide referendum on the $118,445,032 FY2027 Adopted Budget. On Saturday, June 6, the taxpayers of Bloomfield will finally have the opportunity to exert their democratic authority over the municipality's finances.
"While the referendum itself is still ahead of us, what has inspired me most is watching our community come together," Kirton said, reflecting on the milestone. "More than 1,200 neighbors signed the petition in just seven days, and countless volunteers have given up evenings, weekends, and time with their families to collect signatures, share information, and engage fellow residents. It has been an honor to help lead this effort and bring so many dedicated residents together around a common purpose."
For Kirton, the unprecedented mobilization represents a shift in local civic participation. "This was never about one person," he explained. "It has always been a grassroots effort fueled by neighbors who care deeply about Bloomfield and believe residents deserve a meaningful voice in the decisions that impact their community, their quality of life, and their wallets."
With absentee voting already underway, he noted that the momentum continues. "Regardless of the outcome, this effort has already demonstrated the strength of our community and the power of civic engagement. It has also reminded me why Bloomfield is such a special place to call home. When neighbors come together, get involved, and make their voices heard, that’s democracy at its best. This is what teamwork looks like. This is what community looks like. This is what local democracy looks like."
But the town administration did not wait for the voters to speak.
In a maneuver executed just days before the referendum, Town Manager Alvin D. Schwapp Jr. engaged outside legal counsel to finalize binding retirement incentive packages for 11 senior management officials. By formalizing these severances prior to the June 6 vote, the administration effectively locked in a massive institutional drain and a structural reorganization of the town's workforce that cannot be undone by the electorate.
The Preemptive Strike
The timeline and the intent of this administrative action are explicitly documented in the public record. During the May 26, 2026, Town Council Meeting, the Town Manager delivered a report to the Council regarding the impending referendum and the administration's preparations.
He stated, verbatim: "We have engaged the services of [a] pension attorney through the Crumbie Law Group and have already heard back from our actuary and found there is no concern regarding the incentive of our pension plan. Please remember this measure is a cost savings to the town and the savings remain in place, uh, regardless of any changes to the budget."
The phrasing is critical. By declaring that the measures "remain in place regardless of any changes to the budget," the administration confirmed that the retirement of these 11 officials—and the corresponding decision to leave six of those executive roles permanently vacant—has been structurally insulated from the democratic process. Whether the voters approve or reject the $118.4 million budget on June 6, the executive branch has preemptively altered the municipal foundation.
The Fiscal Reality of the "Savings"
The administration has repeatedly characterized these 11 retirements as a necessary cost-saving measure to streamline town operations. However, a clinical review of the FY2027 Adopted Budget ledger complicates that narrative, revealing the steep, immediate cash cost required to facilitate this exodus.
When municipal employees retire, they are statutorily and contractually entitled to payouts for accumulated sick leave and unused vacation time. To fund the departure of these 11 senior officials, the administration had to massively inflate a specific line item in the budget known as Reserved for Accruals.
According to the finalized Adopted Budget, the town's Reserved for Accruals account skyrocketed to $786,125. This represents a staggering 424.1% increase over the prior-year allocation of $150,000. Before the town realizes any long-term payroll savings from leaving six of these positions vacant, the taxpayers must first absorb a nearly $800,000 upfront cash liability just to get the executives out the door.
When the administration's own claimed savings of approximately $821,000 in FY2027 are weighed against the $786,125 in accrual payouts the same budget had to inflate to fund the retirements, the net immediate impact for Year 1 is roughly $35,000 — less than one-tenth of one percent of the $118.4 million budget. Whatever long-term payroll savings ultimately materialize from leaving six positions vacant lie years in the future. Year one, the math is functionally a wash.
Deputy Mayor Cindi Lloyd, who voted on the budget that funded this program, raised the same concern from the dais at the April 27, 2026 Town Council Meeting: Budget Deliberations. "I'm concerned about the rapid widespread intellectual loss to the town," she told the Council, warning the Town Manager that the planned July 1 retirement timeline did not give the town "the time we need to transition and prepare." She continued: "if we cut money, it's been said we lose services. But if we lose bodies without proper succession planning, we're still going to lose services."
The Crumbie Law Group Route
The procedural mechanism used to execute these retirements also raises questions regarding municipal spending controls. To finalize the incentives, the Town Manager did not rely solely on the town's internal Human Resources apparatus; instead, he confirmed on the record that the town "engaged the services of [a] pension attorney through the Crumbie Law Group."
This reveals that the administration is routing specialized human resources and pension finalizations through its outside Town Attorney, generating additional billable legal hours for a firm whose budget allocation is already the subject of intense public scrutiny. Utilizing premium outside legal counsel to finalize internal staff retirements ahead of a budget referendum compounds administrative costs at the exact moment the town claims to be tightening its belt.
The Wall of Silence
If the administration's actions are legally sound and fiscally prudent, they should be able to defend them in the public square. Currently, they are refusing to do so.
On May 29, 2026, at 10:00 AM, the Bloomfield Community Dispatch submitted a formal media inquiry to Town Attorney Andrew Crumbie, with copies delivered directly to Town Manager Schwapp, Finance Director Darrell V. Hill, Town Clerk Andrea DiStephan, and every sitting member of the Town Council.
The inquiry specifically requested that the administration "explain the statutory authority utilized to engage a specialized pension attorney through the Crumbie Law Group to finalize severance agreements for 11 senior officials, an action explicitly designed to remain in place 'regardless of any changes to the budget' by the electorate."
The Dispatch set a primary publication deadline of 6:30 PM on May 29. As of the publication of this article—more than 24 hours after the deadline expired—neither the Town Manager, the Town Attorney, nor a single member of the Bloomfield Town Council has provided a response, comment, or justification.
The voters of Bloomfield will head to the polls on June 6 to decide the fate of a $118.4 million budget. But thanks to the administration's preemptive legal maneuvering, a significant portion of the town's future has already been decided behind closed doors.
Next in the Series:
In Part 7: The Billing Intercept Scandal, the Dispatch will reveal how routine administrative inquiries made by Bloomfield residents are being systematically intercepted and converted into formal Freedom of Information (FOIA) trackers by outside counsel, artificially padding private legal accounts at the taxpayers' expense.
Comments
Post a Comment