News Analysis
A Tale of Two Defeats: Two State Agencies, Two Rulings Against Bloomfield, and a $30,000 PR Contract in the Middle
by Peter C. Frank
Editor-in-Chief, the Bloomfield Community Dispatch
Editor's disclosure: The author served as the authorized non-attorney representative for complainant Rickford Kirton in the Freedom of Information Commission proceeding described in this article. Connecticut law permits a party to a contested case to be represented by a non-attorney. The author received no payment or compensation of any kind for his role. Every finding attributed to the Commission below is drawn from its written decision; all other documents cited are public records or part of the public case file. Readers should weigh this reporting with that relationship in mind.
BLOOMFIELD, CT - July 27, 2026 — Within a single month, two Connecticut state agencies have ruled against positions taken by the Town of Bloomfield in matters involving current and former members of its own Town Council. Both matters trace back to the 2025 municipal election season:
1. On July 22, 2026, the Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC) adopted in its entirety a hearing officer's decision finding that the Bloomfield Town Council broke the state's open-meetings law when it closed its doors to the public on July 14, 2025.
2. Three weeks earlier, on July 1, 2026, the State Elections Enforcement Commission (SEEC) dismissed a complaint that Town Manager Alvin D. Schwapp, Jr. had filed against sitting Councilmember Shamar Mahon, finding no probable cause to support the Town's allegation that Mahon was not a legitimate Bloomfield resident.
3. Public records show that during this period, the Town paid approximately $32,000 to an outside public relations agency. The Town Attorney testified that he initiated this engagement. Meanwhile, the Town's communications office had a $632,098 budget and employed a public relations manager.
4. Neither state agency addressed the Town's motives, ruling only on the specific questions presented. The following sections outline the documentary record and the questions it raises.
I. The Freedom of Information ruling
The case, Kirton v. Wong et al., Docket #FIC 2025-0655, concerned a single agenda item at the Town Council's July 14, 2025, regular meeting, listed under "Executive Session" as an update on "Pending Claims, Litigations, and Investigations."
The underlying subject was a 2022 workplace complaint filed by a town employee against Rickford Kirton, then a sitting councilman. A third-party law firm investigated and issued a final report in the form of a letter addressed to the Town's human resources director.
The Commission's findings explain how the issue resurfaced. Days before the July 2025 meeting, the employee asked Town Attorney Andrew Crumbie about her three-year-old complaint, stating she had never been informed of the outcome and was considering legal action. Crumbie, unaware that the complaint or investigation existed, searched the former town attorney's files and found the report. The employee (who testified that she is the senior administrative assistant to the town manager) testified that Crumbie told her he thought the Council should be briefed, and that she then worked with him to add the item to the July 14 agenda. Crumbie testified that he did not draft the agenda language himself, but that he told her the item needed to be described with more specificity, citing a recent Commission decision penalizing a municipality for vague executive session listings.
Kirton attended the meeting and, during public comment, asked that the item be taken up in open session. The Council instead voted to enter executive session, along with 15 other items.
Before that vote, the chairperson told the public that all matters to be discussed "relate exclusively to legal claims against the town," and that the Council was "meeting to receive legal advice and consider the town's potential exposure, legal and financial."
The Commission found the closure unlawful. Its reasoning turned on a distinction that is easy to miss and, here, decisive.
Connecticut law allows a public agency to discuss its attorney's written privileged communications in private. A separate statute, General Statutes § 1-231(b), forbids holding an executive session to receive or discuss oral attorney-client communications unless the session also qualifies under one of four other permitted purposes. The Town admitted it had no such independent purpose.
After reviewing the investigation report in private, the hearing officer found that it contained no legal advice from the Town's current attorney to the Town Council. Crumbie had not drafted it. He brought a copy into the session but gave it to no council member — testifying, "I brought it just to refer to myself, but I didn't distribute the report." He delivered his advice orally.
The Commission concluded the Town violated General Statutes §§ 1-225(a) and 1-231(b). It ordered that, within one week of the notice of final decision, the Town Council contact the Commission's Director of Education and Communications to schedule Freedom of Information training that council members "shall attend," and strongly encouraged the Town Attorney to attend. It declined to impose a civil penalty.
The report itself was found genuinely privileged, and the Commission did not order its release. This was not a ruling that the Town lacked a confidential legal interest. It was a ruling that the manner in which the Council closed its doors was unlawful.
The Town's final position is worth noting. In a brief filed two days before the vote, the Town accepted all of the hearing officer's factual findings, accepted that the report was privileged, did not contest the training order, and conceded that the reason it gave the public for closing the meeting was not the reason it later argued in the proceeding. It asked the Commission to strike the three paragraphs containing the legal conclusion and treat the matter as a defective-notice problem only. The Commission declined, and it adopted the decision as written.
It will not be the Town's first session with the Commission's education office. The FOIC's public calendar shows its Director of Education and Communications conducted sessions for the Town of Bloomfield at Bloomfield Town Hall (800 Bloomfield Avenue) on January 9, 2025, and again on December 17, 2025.
The ordered training will be at least the third session since January 2025.
II. The election complaint
On October 14, 2025, or roughly three weeks before last year's municipal election, Town Manager Alvin D. Schwapp, Jr. wrote jointly to State Elections Enforcement Commissioner Clair Kindall and Chief State's Attorney Patrick J. Griffin.
The subject line read: "Apparent Criminal Violation of Connecticut Election Law by Bloomfield Elected Official."
The letter alleged that Councilman Shamar Mahon, first elected in 2021, had moved his "bona fide residence" to 244 South Street in Hartford around 2022 — a building purchased by an entity Mahon established, housing a package store and three residential units — and that he failed to disclose the change, continued to serve, and ran for re-election in 2023 and again in 2025.
The letter did not hedge. It stated that the Town's own inquiry had concluded, "by a preponderance of the evidence," that Mahon's residence was in Hartford. It cited Section 204 of the Town Charter, under which a person ceasing to be a resident elector "shall thereupon automatically cease to hold elective office." It then cited a series of criminal statutes: § 9-357 (fraudulent registration, punishable by fine or imprisonment), § 9-358 (false testimony as to residence, a class D felony carrying disenfranchisement), and § 9-361 (unlawful participation in a primary, a class D felony under certain subdivisions).
It closed by describing the conduct as "apparent ongoing criminal conduct," calling it "blatant," and requesting that both offices "investigate and prosecute this matter."
The SEEC conducted its own investigation. In File No. 2025-089, Chairman Stephen T. Penny signed a Notice of Dismissal finding that, applying the Commission's established factored analysis for bona fide residency, "the evidence does not support the allegations." The Commission determined no probable cause existed and dismissed the matter.
Mahon won re-election in November 2025 and continues to serve on the Town Council.
Two points of fairness belong here. A finding of no probable cause means the evidence did not support the allegations; it is not a finding that the complaint was brought in bad faith, and the SEEC did not make such a finding. And residency determinations under Connecticut law are genuinely fact-intensive — the SEEC's own precedent holds a person need only possess a present intention to remain at a residence, not an intention to remain indefinitely. Reasonable investigators can differ.
What is not in dispute is that the Town's chief administrative officer asked state prosecutors to bring criminal charges against a sitting member of the body he serves, three weeks before an election, and that the state agency with jurisdiction found the evidence insufficient.
There is a further wrinkle. Section 502(a) of the same Town Charter provides that while the town manager "need not be a resident of the town or of the state" at the time of appointment, "the town manager shall reside in the town during his or her tenure of office." The Dispatch has confirmed on multiple occasions that Alvin D. Schwapp, Jr. is registered to vote in Simsbury, not Bloomfield, according to the Secretary of the State's database. Voter registration is evidence of residence but is not by itself determinative — as the SEEC's own factored analysis in the Mahon matter illustrates. The Dispatch has asked the Town Manager about the discrepancy on two occasions. He responded "no comment" the first time and did not respond the second.
III. The public relations contract
Entered into the public record of the Freedom of Information proceeding is a contract between the Town and the Avon-based agency Adams & Knight, together with its invoices.
The written estimate, addressed to [former] Mayor Danielle Wong, describes the engagement's purpose: the Town "would like assistance in developing a public relations strategy to effectively address recent negative attention and proactively share positive, impactful stories that enhance the town's image."
The terms were $7,500 per month, reduced to $5,000 by a $2,500 "professional courtesy discount," for six months, totaling about $30,000. Town Manager Alvin D. Schwapp, Jr., signed the contract on behalf of the Town.
Under oath at the June 12, 2026, hearing, Town Attorney Andrew Crumbie described how the firm was retained and testified that the initiative was his. He said he knew the agency from representing another client, "a large healthcare group," and told Town officials, "their messaging is second to none." He testified that he then said he did not know whether the Town could afford them, but that if the firm would offer a reduced rate, "it would be perfect to have our messaging kind of mimic the effort of counsel." He testified that he personally contacted the firm's leadership and arranged a conference call with the town manager and the then-mayor.
Crumbie testified that the Town "was in the process of trying to bolster its public image." He explained that Bloomfield's "detractors of folks in office are very loud," and this was "affecting the way the town looks to investors, looks to developers." He also said the Town was preparing to issue a request for proposals to develop the town center. According to him, the agency's role "really was to sell Bloomfield."
Crumbie also testified, under direct examination, that the agency had no connection to the matter involving Kirton. Asked whether Adams & Knight "had anything at all to do with" Kirton, he answered, "No." Asked whether the firm ever made a statement about Kirton, he answered, "No." Asked whether the July 14 agenda item "had anything to do with Adams and Knight," he answered, "No." The hearing officer made no finding contradicting that testimony, and the Commission's decision does not mention the public relations contract.
The invoices offer more detail than the contract, and the differences are significant.
The June 2025 invoice, for $2,500, covers a kickoff call "to discuss emergent needs," crisis plan development, and media monitoring.
The July 2025 invoice — covering the month of the executive session — departs from the contract's language in a specific way. Where the signed agreement calls for defining a vision "for the town, focusing on values, community priorities, and long-term goals," the July invoice bills for core message development to "define the mayor's vision for the town, focusing on leadership values, community priorities, and long-term goals." Where the agreement calls for pitching stories about "the town's accomplishments," the July invoice bills for pitching "in-depth stories about the mayor's leadership, accomplishments, and community impact." The same invoice includes op-ed writing, crisis plan development, and media monitoring.
The August invoice, dated August 27, 2025, and the September invoice, dated September 16, 2025 — each $5,000 — revert to the contract's original wording. Both describe defining a vision "for the town" and pitching stories about "the town's accomplishments." The word "mayor's" does not appear. Invoices for October through December were not included in the FOIA packet.
For July 2025, the billed work focused on a single elected official rather than the municipality.
The outside engagement ran alongside an in-house operation. The Town's adopted FY2026 budget allocates $632,098 to the Office of Strategic Communications & Government Affairs — a 15.5 percent increase over the prior year's $545,456. The office is staffed by a Director, a Community Engagement & Public Relations Manager, a part-time Recording Secretary, and a part-time Communications Specialist.
It is common for municipal governments to hire communications support, and promoting a chief elected officer is not inherently improper. However, the change in billing language, its timing, and the decision to hire outside messaging support while maintaining a fully staffed communications office are facts residents should consider. Residents can determine for themselves what these facts signify.
IV. The timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2022 | Town employee files workplace complaint against then-Councilman Kirton; outside law firm investigates and reports to the HR director. |
| June 2025 | Adams & Knight engagement begins; the first invoice covers crisis plan development and media monitoring. |
| Early July 2025 | Employee approaches Town Attorney about her unresolved 2022 complaint; he locates the report and suggests the agenda item. |
| July 14, 2025 | Town Council enters executive session over Kirton's public objection — later found unlawful. |
| July 2025 | Adams & Knight invoice bills for defining "the mayor's vision" and pitching stories on "the mayor's leadership" |
| Aug.–Sept. 2025 | Invoices revert to town-focused language; $5,000 per month |
| October 14, 2025 | The Town Manager asks SEEC and the Chief State's Attorney to investigate and prosecute Councilman Mahon. |
| Nov. 2025 | Municipal election; Mahon re-elected |
| December 17, 2025 | FOIC education director conducts a session for the Town of Bloomfield |
| July 1, 2026 | SEEC dismisses the Mahon complaint — no probable cause |
| July 22, 2026 | FOIC adopts the decision against the Town in full |
It's important not to oversimplify the situation. Kirton was seeking a Democratic nomination, while Mahon is a Republican. Although these two matters share some similarities, the facts do not support a simple story of one party targeting the other.
V. The questions
Neither commission was asked to determine why the Town did what it did, and neither did so. During the FOI proceeding, the hearing officer stated plainly that motive was outside the Commission's jurisdiction.
This leaves residents with important questions to consider.
Kirton publicly raised several such questions this week in a Facebook posting:
"How much taxpayer money and staff time was spent pursuing an investigation that the State ultimately found was not supported by the evidence? And when a Town Manager files a criminal complaint against a sitting council member, what message does that send to the rest of the Town Council? Does it encourage independent oversight and healthy debate, or could it leave council members wondering whether challenging decisions or asking difficult questions might make them the next subject of an investigation?"
Kirton added, "I'm not suggesting that was the intent. But it is a fair question, because public confidence depends not only on fairness, but also on the appearance of fairness." The same principle applies to impropriety and the appearance of it.
This newspaper adds three additional questions.
What did the Town spend? The Adams & Knight contract alone was budgeted at roughly $30,000 over six months, on top of a $632,098 in-house communications office. The cost of the Mahon inquiry — staff time, legal review, and the investigation the Town Manager described as having reached a preponderance-of-the-evidence conclusion — has not been disclosed.
Who authorized these actions? The Town Charter assigns consequential decisions to the Council. The public record shows the executive session item was suggested by the Town Attorney, he initiated contact with the public relations agency, the estimate was addressed to the Mayor and signed by the Town Manager, and the criminal referral was sent under the Town Manager's signature. It does not show a Council vote authorizing any of the three. Section 505 of the Town Charter provides that the Town Attorney "shall have the following powers, after authorization by the Town Council," among them serving as "the legal adviser of the council." Section 312 gives the Council the power "to investigate any and all departments, offices and agencies of the town." In his October 2025 letter, the Town Manager wrote that "it was imperative that the Town investigate this issue to determine its validity, which it did." The Dispatch has found no Council vote in the meeting minutes authorizing that inquiry, and asked the Town whether one exists. It received no response.
What now? The Town has 45 days from the issuance of the Commission's final decision to appeal to the Superior Court. It has not said whether it will.
VI. Silence
On Friday, July 24, 2026, at 2:00 PM, the Bloomfield Community Dispatch submitted written questions to Town Manager Alvin D. Schwapp, Jr., Town Attorney Andrew Crumbie, Mayor Anthony C. Harrington, and outside counsel Alexa T. Millinger. The Dispatch asked whether the Town had a statement on the Commission's conclusion, whether the mandated training had been scheduled, whether the Town Attorney would attend, and whether the Town intends to appeal. A response was requested by 6:00 PM Saturday, July 25. At 7:00 PM Saturday, July 25, a follow-up email was sent to Mayor Anthony C. Harrington and Deputy Mayor Cindi Lloyd.
As of publication, no responses have been received.
Reached separately about the Commission's ruling in his own case, Kirton said only that he was "not surprised" by the outcome and declined further comment. His remarks quoted above were drawn from a public Facebook post he made three days ago concerning the Mahon matter.
Councilman Shamar Mahon was invited to comment and stated, "I'll let the dismissal speak for itself. I'd like to thank the members of our community who supported me by standing up and speaking out. I encourage them to continue to speak out until all wrongs are made right." Adams & Knight did not respond to a request for comment. No other members of the Town Council were contacted.
The Bloomfield Community Dispatch will publish any response received by the Town.
Comments
Post a Comment