Paying More for Less in Bloomfield: Part 11 - Beyond the Ballot, the June Council Meeting Chaos, and the Privatization of FOIA
By Peter C. Frank
Editor-in-Chief, the Bloomfield Community Dispatch
(Did you catch our previous article? Read Part 10 of the series here.)
BLOOMFIELD, CT - July 12, 2026 — Bloomfield’s finances are now hitting taxpayers directly. Over the last decade, the operating budget increased by 60.18%, from $73,944,997 in FY2017 to $118,445,032 in FY2027. Property owners are shouldering this $44.5 million increase. The 2024 revaluation raised property values by 30.1% across the grand list, phased in over four years, so tax bills will keep going up through the end of the decade. The full tax burden remains unclear, as the Bloomfield Center and Blue Hills Fire District levies are not included in the main calculations.
With so much at stake and almost half the budget spent on education, residents deserve clear and capable leadership. But the Town Council’s late-June meetings revealed serious issues: the Charter’s voting rules were misused, a public meeting was closed off, and the Town Attorney suggested something state law does not allow.
The Charter Violation: The 4-2 Vote That Didn't Pass
During the June 22, 2026, Town Council meeting, the Council declared that an appropriation it adopted was not permitted under its own Charter.
Section 304 of the Bloomfield Town Charter mandates that no resolution or vote shall be adopted by less than five affirmative votes. When a vote was called on Item 2026-68, appropriating funds from the Council contingency, the roll call yielded 4 "Yes" votes and 2 "No" votes. Acting Chair Todd Cooper immediately declared, "The chair votes aye. The motion passes."
The motion did not pass. Almost 30 minutes later, staff member India Rogers stopped the meeting and corrected the record: "The 4 to 2 vote did not pass because we need five affirmative votes."
This is not just a technical issue. Connecticut's Appellate Court has ruled that if a town charter requires five affirmative votes to pass a resolution, then passing it with only four votes makes it null and void, along with any actions that follow (Plainville, 47 Conn. App. 783). In Bloomfield, the presiding officer said the motion passed, and the Council continued for half an hour before a staff member—not an elected official—noticed the mistake.
The FOIA Blackout: The "Dark Room" Recess
Right after the failed 4-2 vote was revealed, the administration took an action that completely excluded the public.
The Town Attorney asked for a "five-minute recess." During that time, the lights in the council chamber were turned off, the audio feed was cut, and council members joining remotely could not see or hear what was happening. Councilor Suzette DeBeatham-Brown, who was attending remotely, mentioned this on the live feed as it happened:
"I'm a little confused because the meeting that's supposed to be open and public and recorded, I think the recording has stopped... I think we might be breaking some kind of rule here, right here, right now."
Connecticut's Freedom of Information Act says a public agency can enter executive session only for specific reasons, and only if two-thirds of the members present vote for it and state the reason on the record. No such motion or vote happened. The Council's own Rules of Procedure (Section D) also state that no ordinance or resolution may be adopted except at a public meeting. The record shows the Council continued to meet in a dark room, off-microphone, with remote members left out and no authorization for any of it.
The Dispatch has asked the Town Attorney to explain the legal reason for what happened during that recess. If we receive a response, we will publish it in full.
Suspending State Law
The confusion grew at the June 30 Special Meeting, when Mayor Anthony D. Harrington tried to add a 250th Anniversary Proclamation to the agenda of a special meeting that had already been announced and posted.
Under Connecticut's Freedom of Information Act (C.G.S. § 1-225), the notice of a special meeting must specify the business to be transacted, and no other business may be considered at that meeting. That rule is how the public knows in advance what its government intends to do.
Asked for his opinion during the meeting, Town Attorney Andrew R. Crumbie advised the Council: "You are correct in that you can't add to or take away from the agenda. You can, however, suspend the rules to affect, you know, whatever change or addition you'd like to make."
A town council can suspend its own rules, but it cannot suspend a state law. The rule against adding business to a posted special meeting is not just a Council rule—it is Connecticut law, and the Council cannot override it. The advice given led the Council to do exactly what the law forbids.
The Privatization of Public Records: One Word in a Contract
These meeting problems are part of a bigger issue—a Town Attorney that is costing taxpayers real money, as shown in its own contracts.
State law (C.G.S. § 1-206) places the duty to respond to a records request on the public agency official who has custody or control of the record. In Bloomfield, the Town Budget Book identifies this official as the Town Clerk. State law (C.G.S. § 1-212) caps copying charges at 50 cents per page, ensuring that access to public records remains affordable.
Beginning with FY2027, Bloomfield's records requests are now sent to the private Crumbie Law Group, acting as Town Attorney. The Town Manager confirmed this himself. On the record, Alvin D. Schwapp, Jr. explained that the Town had gone "out to Attorney Crumby so that we could get the work of the town clerk's office done." A resident who spoke before the Council in May described what this means: she found out that the town attorney’s office handles all FOI requests, and that hers was "one of 70 plus which they complete in order."
Now, the town clerk's office is doing work for a private law firm. Looking at the two contracts the Town signed with that firm shows exactly how the extra costs started.
Under the 2023 agreement, the Town paid the firm an annual flat fee of $99,729.12 — roughly $8,310 a month — and, in exchange, the firm agreed to be available for a defined list of services. That list included, without qualification, "FOI matters." Anything not on the flat-fee list was billed hourly, at $175 per hour.
Under the 2025–2027 agreement now in effect, the flat fee increased to $102,222.36 per year, and according to the contract, it "shall increase annually based on the formula designated by the Town of Bloomfield as it relates to salary increases for union employees." The hourly rate also went up to $250, a 43% increase.
And the flat-fee service list changed. It now reads: "handle routine FOI matters."
One word was added, but it is not defined in the agreement. This means the firm decides which Freedom of Information requests are "routine" and covered by the flat fee, and which are not, so they can charge taxpayers $250 an hour. There is no standard in the contract to check this, and no one at the Town can challenge it.
As a result, the harder it is to get a public record, the more a private law firm gets paid, even though the state says a municipal clerk should do this work for fifty cents a page.
The Expanding "Undefined" Ledger
The administration has said that large "Undefined" entries in the Town's public finance portal are just a leftover formatting issue. But at the June 22 meeting, a resident challenged that explanation.
Erin Barringer told the Council that she had gone into the Town's public-facing Open Finance portal and found a vendor entry for Teamsters Local 671. As she stated on the record, "the description is our Teamster Health Insurance... the April 21 and the June 2 totaling $97,000 is sitting in undefined."
These are current FY2026 expenses, not old records. This means the Town is spending money right now in a category that residents cannot track. The "undefined" balance on the Town's portal is now about $2.26 million.
What Happens Next
We are no longer waiting for answers that will not come on their own. This week, the Bloomfield Community Dispatch is filing records requests for the Town Attorney's full FY2026 billing details, the procurement records for the NextRequest records-management software, and the documents showing why the system was moved away from the Town Clerk.
Councilor DeBeatham-Brown has invited residents to come to the Council and share their opinions. Public comment is the only part of this process that does not need anyone's permission, and the questions are simple:
Why was a failed motion declared as passed, and why did it take a staff member to notice the mistake? What allowed a dark, unrecorded recess with remote members excluded? Why was the Council told it could "suspend the rules" to do something state law forbids? And who decided to add the word "routine" to "FOI matters" in the Town Attorney’s contract—and what has that one word cost Bloomfield?
Next in the Series:
In Part 2: The Path Beyond the Dais, the Dispatch will look at the legal and administrative options available to residents that do not go through the Town Council, and what each one can and cannot actually achieve.
Comments
Post a Comment