Taking Back Control: How Residents Can Demand Legal and Fiscal Accountability in Bloomfield Without Relying on the Town Council
By Peter C. Frank
Editor-in-Chief, the Bloomfield Community Dispatch
(Did you catch our previous article? Read Part 11 of the series here.)
A note to readers: This article describes legal and administrative avenues that may be available to Bloomfield residents. It is not legal advice, and the Dispatch is not a law firm. Whether any of these is appropriate depends on the facts and procedural requirements specific to each individual and each situation, and several carry real costs and real risks. Anyone considering any action described herein should consult with a licensed Connecticut attorney first.
BLOOMFIELD, CT - July 12, 2026 — For now, voting is no longer an option. On June 6, 1,959 residents voted "NO" on the budget, short of the 2,287 votes representing 15% of registered voters required by the Town Charter to reject it. Under Charter Section 906(e), the $118,445,032 budget is now officially adopted.
Approving a budget does not permit the administration to violate the Town Charter or state law. To address issues stemming from an inactive Town Council and rising legal costs, residents can pursue legal and administrative actions. This article examines available options, highlighting their strengths and limitations.
Phase 1: State Oversight Through the MFAC
First, a correction to a phrase that circulates locally: no one is going to place Bloomfield in "receivership." That is not how Connecticut's municipal oversight system works. What exists is a tiered structure. The Municipal Finance Advisory Commission (MFAC) is the entry point — an advisory body that reviews a municipality's financial condition and can formally designate it Tier I, placing it under the Commission's ongoing oversight. The heavier machinery, the Municipal Accountability Review Board, sits further up and is reserved for far more acute distress.
Bloomfield is already eligible for Tier I. That is not this newspaper's opinion — it is a determination in writing from the state.
In a letter dated July 18, 2025, obtained by the Dispatch through a Freedom of Information request, OPM Executive Financial Officer Kimberly Kennison notified Town Manager Alvin D. Schwapp, Jr., on behalf of the MFAC, that Bloomfield's FY2024 audit — statutorily due December 31, 2024 — remained outstanding; that as of July 1, 2025 the Town had exhausted the six months of extension allowed under state law; and that Bloomfield "is eligible for Tier I designation under Section 7-395d of the General Statutes." The Commission wrote that a chronically late audit "is a serious matter and potentially a warning sign of financial and/or internal control challenges."
In fairness, Bloomfield was not alone; OPM records show that twenty municipalities received such letters. And eligibility is not designation: as an OPM official explained in correspondence also obtained by the Dispatch, a municipality eligible for Tier I "would have to be formally designated as Tier I by the MFAC after an evaluation by the Commission of the municipality's financial condition and fiscal practices."
What sets Bloomfield apart from a simple filing delay is what the Town's own Finance Director told the state. In the corrective-action schedule Bloomfield submitted to the MFAC, Director of Finance Darrell V. Hill listed among the reasons for the late audit: "No bank reconciliations were completed for 15 months, including all of FY2024." That is not an allegation by this newspaper. It is the Town's chief financial officer, in writing, to the State of Connecticut. The independent auditors (CliftonLarsonAllen or "CLA") arrived at the same conclusions, finding two material weaknesses: one in financial statements close (Finding No. 2024-001), which supports the Finance Director's admission to the State OPM, and the other in general ledger maintenance (Finding No. 2024-002). CLA further noted that the Town took approximately 18 months after year-end to produce an audit-ready trial balance.
There is additional evidence, which has already prompted action from the credit markets.
On September 19, 2025, a material event notice was filed on EMMA, the municipal securities disclosure system, recording that Moody's had moved Bloomfield's rating from Aa2 to "WR" — withdrawn. Moody's did not downgrade Bloomfield. It stopped rating Bloomfield at all. The Town's own Finance, Budget, Audit & Bonding Subcommittee minutes from that period record the Finance Director discussing the prospect of exactly that outcome.
Three months later, on December 30, 2025, Standard & Poor's — which rated the town separately — lowered Bloomfield's general obligation debt to AA and placed it on CreditWatch with negative implications, expressly citing delayed audits and insufficient information. S&P wrote that delays in financial reporting elevated the town's governance risk and warned it could withdraw its rating within 90 days, depending on whether Bloomfield produces its financials. That action was filed on EMMA on January 3, 2026, and S&P's full rating action presentation was posted on the Town's own website.
In fairness, and as this newspaper reports, Bloomfield answered that warning. On March 30, 2026, S&P reaffirmed the town's AA rating and removed it from CreditWatch. The town did not lose its second rating. But that is the floor, not a clean bill of health. Bloomfield went from two ratings to one. Moody's walked away entirely and has not returned. And the town produced financials on demand for a rating agency at the 11th hour, while year after year failing to produce them for the State of Connecticut.
The audit S&P accepted was filed on March 23, 2026 — seven days before the deadline S&P had set. And in the corrective-action materials Bloomfield submitted to the state, Finance Director Hill acknowledged how it got done: he could not get the trial balance to balance organically, and instead "utilized a mass-adjusting entry to balance the books" — one that required his team to undertake "research project(s) (some going back to 2008) to determine prior accounting treatment." The books that satisfied the rating agency were brought into balance by absorbing sixteen years of unresolved legacy variances in a single entry.
And the pattern has now repeated — by the administration's own definitions. The Town's public "Truth & Transparency" page clearly states that a municipal audit is due on December 31 for the fiscal year that ended on June 30. Miss that date, and the town is "Delinquent" as of January 1. OPM allows six one-month extensions through June 30. Miss that date, and the town is officially "Non-Compliant" as of July 1.
Bloomfield's FY2025 audit was due December 31, 2025. Its six months of extensions expired June 30, 2026. That date has passed, and no audit has been submitted. By the Town's own published standard, Bloomfield has been non-compliant — the more serious of the two designations — since July 1, 2026.
That same page lists the Town's audit filing history, which is notable for where it concludes:
- FY2020 — filed December 31, 2020. On time.
- FY2021 — filed August 8, 2022. Non-compliant.
- FY2022 — filed October 24, 2023. Non-compliant.
- FY2023 — filed June 26, 2024. Delinquent.
The table ends at this point. It omits FY2024, which missed its extension deadline on July 1, 2025, received a state warning letter, and was not filed until March 23, 2026, nearly 21 months after the fiscal year ended. FY2025, which missed its extension deadline on July 1, 2026, also remains unfiled. The Town's "Truth & Transparency" page does not display audit history for these two most problematic years.
Including these years, the record indicates that Bloomfield has not filed an audit on time since 2020. For five consecutive years, none have met the legal deadline.
This is not an allegation by the newspaper; the administration anticipated this result. The Town's own page states that its corrective plan will "return the Town to compliant fiscal filing by the end of calendar year 2026 (i.e., the FY2026 audit)," indicating that the Town had prior knowledge that FY2025 would be late. The page also notes that meetings with OPM addressed "the reasons for the non-compliance for the third time in four years."
Note: As of July 1, 2026, the FY2026 audit officially became due. The Town has only until December 31, 2026, before the audit officially becomes late. Once again, we are left with two outstanding audits due to our significant delay in our audit schedule.
What can residents do? They may write to the MFAC through OPM to request that the Commission complete its evaluation, formally designate Bloomfield as Tier I, and initiate a review. This process is free, does not require legal representation, and asks the state to act on its existing written findings.
Phase 2: Executive Accountability via Writ of Quo Warranto
Charter Section 502(a) is unambiguous: "the town manager shall reside in the town during his or her tenure of office." The requirement is repeated in the Town Manager's employment agreement.
Public voter registration records reviewed by the Dispatch list Alvin D. Schwapp, Jr. as a registered voter in Simsbury. The Dispatch has asked the Town Manager to state for the record where he resides and how he satisfies Section 502(a), and he has previously replied, "Please be advised the Office of the Town Manager has no comment," on January 14, 2026, at 6:35 PM. He has not responded to further inquiries on the subject since then.
Connecticut law provides a mechanism for resolving precisely this question. Under C.G.S. § 52-491, a resident may bring a complaint in the nature of quo warranto to have the Superior Court determine whether a person is lawfully holding a public office. Connecticut courts have held that a plaintiff's status as a taxpayer is a sufficient interest to establish standing in such an action and have granted the writ removing an official whose appointment violated a town charter. Once the question is properly before the court, the burden shifts to the officeholder to establish his legal right to the office.
What this can and cannot do: Residents should know the limits, since this is often misunderstood. If a quo warranto action succeeds, it removes the officeholder from that point forward. It does not undo what he did while in office. Under the de facto officer doctrine, which Connecticut courts have followed since State v. Carroll in 1871, the actions of someone who held office with apparent authority remain valid, even if his title is later found invalid. Contracts, appointments, and rates do not disappear. Anyone who says otherwise is mistaken.
Phase 3: The Spending Chokehold via Writ of Mandamus
The budget has been approved, but the Charter places strict limits on how the administration may actually spend it.
Charter Section 603(c) is explicit, and it is worth reading in full:
No purchase shall be made by any department, board, commission, officer or agency of the town, other than the board of education, except upon requisition and no such requisition and no contract for public work or other services to the town shall be valid unless the director of finance, after examining the same, has certified in writing that there is a sufficient unencumbered balance of an appropriation applicable thereto to pay the same. The director of finance shall record the amount of each requisition and contract as an encumbrance on the appropriation from which it is to be paid.
There are two key duties. The Director of Finance must certify in writing, in advance, that funds are available. He must also record the encumbrance against the correct appropriation, which enables the town to track spending. The Charter states that without this written certification, the requisition or contract "shall not be valid."
Yet the independent auditors found journal entries posted without sufficient independent review, and current-year spending continues to land in "undefined" categories on the Town's own public finance portal — which is what happens when encumbrances are not recorded against the appropriations they belong to.
Under C.G.S. § 52-485, a court may issue a writ of mandamus compelling a public official to perform a duty. Applied here, a writ would require the Director of Finance to do the two things Section 603(c) already requires of him: certify in writing before the money moves, and record the encumbrance so the public can follow it.
Mandamus can only compel an official to perform a clear, required duty that does not involve personal judgment. This supports the claim, as reviewing a requisition, certifying a balance in writing, and recording an encumbrance are mandatory steps. However, a court will not direct an official's discretionary decisions; the claim must focus on certification and recording, not on how funds are allocated.
Key considerations include standing and the appropriateness of this remedy. A petitioner must demonstrate a clear legal right to have the duty performed and that no other adequate remedy exists. Unlike quo warranto, in which Connecticut courts have allowed taxpayers to bring cases, it is less certain that a resident can compel a finance officer to comply with certification rules. Residents should consult an attorney, as success is not assured.
Phase 4: State Grievance Committee Enforcement
Under C.G.S. § 51-90e, anyone can file a written complaint about attorney misconduct with the Statewide Bar Counsel. Residents should keep their expectations realistic: complaints are reviewed, the process is slow, and most do not lead to public discipline. This is a real option, but it is the slowest and least certain of the four.
The factual predicate, however, is already on the public record: the routing of the Town Clerk's statutory records functions through a private firm; an engagement agreement that quietly narrowed the flat fee to cover only "routine" FOI matters while leaving "routine" undefined and raising the hourly rate to $250; and legal advice, given on the record at a public meeting, that a council could "suspend the rules" to take an action that state law prohibits. Separately, the Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission imposed a $1,500 civil penalty on Town Manager Schwapp in 2025, finding he had denied a records request without reasonable grounds and that his testimony was "not credible."
If town funds were used to influence the referendum, residents may also file a complaint with the State Elections Enforcement Commission under C.G.S. § 9-369b.
What This Adds Up To
None of these options requires Town Council approval, but none offers an immediate solution. The MFAC petition is currently the most accessible, though it is often misunderstood. The state has already confirmed in writing that Bloomfield qualifies for oversight, and the Town's Finance Director has provided supporting explanations. The issue is not insufficient evidence, but rather a lack of follow-through.
Residents interested in pursuing these actions should consult a Connecticut attorney first. They should also recognize that these avenues are available now and do not require Council approval.
Comments
Post a Comment