Paying More for Less in Bloomfield, Part 10: The Eleventh-Hour Ledger Shuffle
By Peter C. Frank
Editor-in-Chief, the Bloomfield Community Dispatch
(Did you catch our previous article? Read Part 9 of the series here.)
BLOOMFIELD, CT - June 10, 2060 — The June 6th budget referendum did not pass, so the FY2027 budget is now in effect.
Before we go further, let's clear up a common misunderstanding: the referendum did not fail by just 20 votes. According to the town charter, 15% of all registered voters—2,287 people, as certified in the Head Moderator's Return filed with the Town Clerk on June 9—needed to vote "NO" to reject the budget. In the end, only 1,959 people voted "NO." That means the effort fell short by 328 votes, not just a couple of dozen. The margin was structural: only 2,264 ballots were cast on the question, so even if every single one had been a "NO," the total would still have been 23 votes below the 2,287 needed. With turnout that low, the budget could not have been rejected on June 6, regardless of how residents voted.
The Tax Reality and the Search for Relief
Now that property owners are receiving their new tax bills, the numbers confirm what local analysts like Rickford Kirton warned about months ago. All over town, people are seeing their taxes go up by 7% to 13% compared to last year.
Now that the budget is set, the main focus should be on helping and protecting our most vulnerable residents. Councilor Suzette DeBeatham-Brown, who spoke out against the FY2027 budget, has warned that anxiety among residents is rising.
"I have heard from residents about the difficulties they are having paying their taxes and their concerns that if they don't pay, their properties will have liens placed against them," DeBeatham-Brown told The Dispatch. "They are just so concerned, and it troubles me."
To help, she has been looking for ways to get around the usual budget rules and offer support. "I think if we have extra funds in the town, then if we're not putting money back into our unassigned fund balance, we should be trying to find some way to address the critical needs of our residents regarding their taxes," she said. She added that she is still asking questions about how to best help people through this tax crisis.
While councilors look for any extra funds to help working families and seniors avoid tax liens, we also need to take a close look at how the Town Administration is spending our money.
We got some answers at the June 30th Special Town Council meeting. On the very last day of the fiscal year, the Council approved a resolution moving $813,122 in appropriations between departments — a package that, as the documents show, largely funded the costs of the administration's own disputes.
The Legal-Defense Transfer
The June 30th agenda packet shows that the Town made $813,122 in internal transfers. Where did all that money end up?
The single largest destination was the Town Attorney's budget, which received $416,000 — just over half of the entire $813,122 package. The money was drawn from a pool of four departments: Information Technology ($80,000), Police ($170,000), Public Works and Engineering ($110,000), and Fixed Charges ($453,122). The stated reason for the Town Attorney increase: "Legal defense for FY2026 Budget referendum, FOI, Tax Appeals, Investigations, Abatement."
In other words, the administration's refusal to be open is generating FOI complaints and litigation. Rather than fixing the transparency problem, they are using your tax dollars to pay lawyers to protect themselves.
Let's take a moment to focus on that last point: "investigations."
Bloomfield's Town Charter vests investigative power in a single body: the Town Council. Section 312 provides that "the council shall have power to investigate any and all departments, offices and agencies of the town," and that the Council "may direct the Town Attorney to issue subpoenas" in service of the Council's own investigatory obligations. The Town Attorney has no independent power to investigate. Section 505 sets out the Town Attorney's powers as a closed list — appearing in suits, advising officials, preparing contracts, and appealing or settling claims with Council approval — and states that each is exercised only "after authorization by the Town Council." Investigating is not among them. Under the Charter's structure, an investigation of town operations must originate with the Council; the Town Attorney's role is to carry out an inquiry the Council has authorized, never to launch one on his own.
The Dispatch conducted a comprehensive review of all Town Council minutes and Committee on Committees records for FY2026 to identify when—or if—the Council authorized these investigations. Our findings are clear: there is no public record of a formal motion, resolution, or committee vote directing the Town Attorney to conduct investigations into municipal operations during the last fiscal year (FY2026).
Because the record shows no such authorization, the next question becomes unavoidable: by whose authority were these "investigations" launched? An investigation undertaken by the Town Attorney without the Council's authorization is ultra vires—beyond his lawful power under the Charter. There is one narrow exception: a statutory investigation that an employer is legally required to conduct, such as a workplace harassment inquiry, which does not require a Council vote. But the town's only investigation of that kind—the 2022 personnel matter it outsourced to the firm Ogletree Deakins—was commissioned and paid for in 2022. A closed, years-old personnel investigation cannot account for a legal appropriation in the fiscal year 2026 budget.
When the Town Attorney uses taxpayer money to run investigations that the Town Council never approved, they are not acting as the town's legal advisor. Instead, they are acting as an unofficial part of the administration. This goes against the rules in our Charter. The Council needs to ask for a full explanation right away of what 'investigations' were conducted, who approved them, and why they were paid for with public money without any public vote.
The Cost of a Broken Ledger
The Finance Department received the second-largest bailout, requiring an additional $235,000 beyond its budget. The reason given was "Temporary accounting staff and consultant expenses."
As we've mentioned before—and will cover more in a future article—independent auditors (CliftonLarsonAllen) found a "Material Weakness in General Ledger Maintenance" in the FY2024 audit (Finding No. 2024-002). They noted that the Town took approximately 18 months after year-end to provide an audit-ready trial balance, and that a consultant had to be brought in to reconcile data that was not completed in a timely manner, including bank reconciliations. The June 30th packet shows that because the Finance Department cannot manage the ledger on its own, the town is spending $235,000 of taxpayer money to hire outside help to fix the problem.
The State Grant Shortfall
Separately, the Board of Education asked for $670,877 to close a year-end deficit tied to the Global Experience Magnet School (GEMS). This shortfall did not originate with the Board's spending. According to the Superintendent's June 24 memorandum, the Connecticut State Department of Education reduced the district's final GEMS grant by $776,207—from a projected $1,782,988—and provided no clear explanation of how the payment was calculated. That reduced payment did not arrive until early May 2026; the district produced its $670,877 deficit projection on June 17 and notified the Town Manager on June 22. The Board's own timeline documents months of correspondence with the state seeking answers before the figure was ever known.
The Blank Check
The most consequential provision on June 30th was a single sentence at the end of the transfer resolution: "And it be further Resolved, the Town Manager is authorized to transfer any unencumbered departmental balances during closeout between departments in order to balance any unanticipated overages."
Even limited, as the text says, to balancing unanticipated overages, the clause grants the Town Manager between-department transfer authority that the Charter otherwise reserves to the Council by resolution — and allows those transfers to occur during the audit closeout without a further public vote.
How bad does the financial situation have to get before the state steps in? The Dispatch has contacted the State Office of Policy and Management (OPM) to find out how close Bloomfield is to being placed under the Municipal Accountability Review Board's (MARB) control, which can take over financial management from struggling towns.
It's time to hold the Town Manager, the Finance Director, the Town Attorney, and the Councilors who approve their plans responsible. The referendum is over, but our work to protect Bloomfield's financial future is just beginning.
Charting a New Course
We can't keep paying for Bloomfield's growing administration by asking homeowners to pay more. The old way of doing things no longer works.
As we continue to look into the Town's leadership and finances, the Bloomfield Community Dispatch will also explore new ways to raise money that don't depend on taxing homeowners. For example, in our Alternative Budget Framework from Part 3, we suggested ideas like using commercial zoning, smart-growth grants, and public-private partnerships. We'll also look at how nearby towns use these tools to generate revenue.
The referendum is over, but the effort to secure Bloomfield's financial future is just beginning.
Part 10 June 10, 2060?????
ReplyDelete