SPECIAL INVESTIGATIVE FEATURE MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTIVE OBSCURITY: Inside Bloomfield’s Twin Crises of Secrecy, a Lawsuit Without a Public Vote, and Financial Breakdown By Peter C. Frank Senior Investigative Researcher & Editor-in-Chief, the Bloomfield Community Dispatch Updates & Corrections September 29, 2026, 1:46 AM EDT: At its September 28 meeting, the Town Council approved the April 20, April 21, and September 14 draft minutes as part of its consent agenda. The August 24 minutes, which the Council had tabled to that meeting, were not taken up. The author of this article spoke during public comment and submitted a written statement for the minutes. Correction: The Editor’s Note at the end of this article now lists every recipient of the Dispatch ’s request for comment; Town Clerk Andrea DiStephan was inadvertently left off the original note. This update log has been moved to the top of the article. September 28, 2026, 12:50 PM EDT: Town Manager Alvin...
News Investigation // Public Records & Open Government
THE MISSING 224 SECONDS: Bloomfield Truncates, Then Restricts Aug. 24 Town Council Meeting Recording Following Dais Exchange
By Peter C. Frank
Editor-in-Chief, the Bloomfield Community Dispatch
An editorial illustration depicting the post-broadcast modification and subsequent restriction of the August 24, 2026 Bloomfield Town Council meeting recording.
BLOOMFIELD, CT (Aug. 28, 2026) — On Thursday, August 27, a formal request was sent to Bloomfield town leaders to preserve and restore public records. This came after the official recording of the August 24, 2026 Town Council meeting was shortened on the Town’s YouTube channel and then taken down from public view.
Former Town Councilor and Deputy Mayor Rickford Kirton notified the Council about the video change on Thursday through a formal message sent to Mayor Anthony Harrington, the Town Council, Town Manager Alvin D. Schwapp, Jr., Town Attorney Andrew Crumbie, and the Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC). Analysis of the timestamp checks shows that the original YouTube broadcast, which was 1 hour, 43 minutes, and 36 seconds long, was cut by 3 minutes and 44 seconds (224 seconds), ending at 1:39:52. That endpoint corresponds to the moment the Council voted to enter executive session — recorded as 8:40 PM in the Clerk of Council's filed Motions and Votes memorandum. Everything removed from the published recording falls between that vote and the clearing of the chambers.
Figure 1: Public notification issued by former Councilor Rickford Kirton regarding the excision of transition footage and the formal preservation demand submitted to Town leadership and the FOIC.
the Bloomfield Community Dispatch has reviewed a recording of the Town's livestream, captured as it aired, that preserves the footage removed from the published version. The recording covers what happened immediately after the Council voted at 8:40 PM to enter executive session. The exchange occurred while members of the public remained in the chambers and before the closed session began. During this time, Schwapp was recorded talking with Mayor Harrington, praising the mayor's meeting management and saying, "There is no f***ing reason for these meetings to go past 8:30," before yelling at the public to leave the room.
Figure 2: Digital capture of the archived broadcast documenting the active dais exchange following the executive session motion but prior to the clearing of the council chambers.Figure 3: Forensic metadata confirming the original 1:43:36 total duration of the published August 24 recording, shown alongside the 1:40:57 to 1:42:08 dais exchange excerpted for playback — a portion of the material later removed from the Town's published version.
The truncated recording remained publicly viewable on Thursday morning, when Kirton documented the missing segment and issued his preservation demand. the Bloomfield Community Dispatch transmitted a direct inquiry to Mayor Harrington at 8:07 PM that evening and emailed formal press questions to Town officials at 8:23 PM. By 8:33 PM — ten minutes later — the entire August 24 recording had been set to "private" on the Town's official YouTube channel, removing it from public view. Access to change the visibility settings of that channel is restricted to Town personnel. The Town has not responded to inquiries identifying who made the change, when, or on whose authority.
"The missing footage was recorded after the Council voted to enter executive session but before the room was cleared and before the executive-session discussion began," Kirton wrote in his formal demand to municipal leadership. "This is a serious public-records matter. The footage did not capture confidential executive-session deliberations, and an embarrassing statement by a public official is not a lawful basis for removing part of a government recording. Because the footage concerns the Town Manager’s own conduct, the Council, not the Town Manager, should oversee its restoration and preservation."
From Video Alteration to Complete Suppression
Cutting and then making the August 24 meeting video private raises important legal questions under Connecticut public records and open-government laws.
Under Connecticut General Statutes (C.G.S.) § 1-200(5), recorded video and electronic data received, maintained, or kept on file by a public agency constitute official public records regardless of format. Under C.G.S. § 11-8b, public records are the property of the agency that holds them and "shall not be removed, destroyed, mutilated, transferred or otherwise damaged or disposed of, in whole or in part," except as provided by law or by regulation of the State Library Board. Separately, C.G.S. § 7-109 permits a municipal official to destroy a document in his or her custody only with the approval of both the municipality's chief administrative officer and the Public Records Administrator, and only after the retention period set by schedule under C.G.S. § 11-8a has run.
Furthermore, under C.G.S. § 1-240(a), any individual who wilfully, knowingly, and with intent alters, destroys, or mutilates a public record without required approvals is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. The statute requires proof of intent, and no such determination has been made in this matter. If the Town retains an unaltered master recording, the modification to the published version may present a question of public access rather than record destruction — which is why the Bloomfield Community Dispatch has requested the native files and editing audit logs.
The missing 3:44 segment was not restored following Kirton's request. Instead, the entire broadcast was withdrawn from public access. On Thursday evening, anyone visiting the Town’s official YouTube page (@AccessBloomfieldCT) found that the August 24 meeting recording was completely inaccessible. This left citizens unable to watch discussions on important issues, including a 6-2-1 vote to extend the Charter Revision Commission’s reporting deadline to January 30, 2027, and to set a public hearing on land-use fee increases.
Figure 4: Official channel listing for Access Bloomfield on Thursday evening, displaying earlier municipal recordings while the August 24 Town Council meeting was omitted from public listings.Figure 5: Digital capture recorded at 8:33 PM on August 27, 2026, confirming that the August 24 meeting stream was set to 'private,' blocking public playback.
The Clerk’s Filing and the "Unseen" Reconvening
The official Motions and Votes memorandum filed by Clerk of Council Latonia Tabb with the Bloomfield Town Clerk’s Office on Wednesday, August 26, at 4:49 PM, provides more context about the status of the electronic recording.
According to the official Town Clerk record:
8:40 P.M.: Councilor Shamar Mahon moved, seconded by Councilor Elizabeth Waterhouse, to enter Executive Session with Town Attorney Andrew Crumbie and the Town Council. The motion passed unanimously.
9:36 P.M.: Town Attorney Andrew Crumbie exited the executive session.
9:54 P.M.: Councilor Suzette DeBeatham-Brown moved, seconded by Councilors Todd Cooper and Waterhouse, to exit executive session.
10:10 P.M.: Councilor DeBeatham-Brown moved, seconded by Councilor Darrell Goodwin, to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
The timeline shows two important procedural issues:
First, the Town's live feed did not end when the Council voted to enter executive session. It continued for approximately three minutes and forty-four seconds past that vote — the interval later removed — and then stopped, roughly 8:44 PM. Nothing further was broadcast. Connecticut law does not compel a municipality to livestream its meetings. But under C.G.S. § 1-225(a), the meetings of all public agencies other than executive sessions must be open to the public, and under C.G.S. § 1-200(6) an executive session may exclude the public only for one of five enumerated purposes; the public meeting itself remains legally ongoing throughout. The Clerk's record shows the Council exited executive session at 9:54 PM and voted to adjourn at 10:10 PM — both open-session actions. The public record does not indicate whether the chambers were reopened, or whether any member of the public was able to observe those final votes.
Second, the Town Clerk’s record shows that Town Attorney Crumbie left the executive session at 9:36 PM, leaving the Town Council behind closed doors for another 18 minutes before voting to exit at 9:54 PM. Nothing in Connecticut law requires an attorney to be present for an executive session, and a council may lawfully continue after counsel departs. But under C.G.S. § 1-200(6), every portion of an executive session must remain within one of five enumerated purposes — personnel, pending claims or litigation, security strategy, real estate transactions, or exempt records. The public record does not indicate which purpose supported the final 18 minutes.
Right of Reply and Evidence Preservation Demands
On the evening of Thursday, August 27, the Bloomfield Community Dispatch sent formal press questions to Mayor Anthony Harrington, Town Manager Alvin D. Schwapp, Jr., Town Attorney Andrew Crumbie, and Town Council members. The inquiry to Mayor Harrington was transmitted directly at 8:07 PM EDT; the remaining inquiries were emailed to each recipient's official municipal address of record at 8:23 PM EDT. The questions sought clarification on the following points:
To Mayor Harrington: Inquiring whether the Town Council intends to direct the preservation and restoration of the complete recording, requesting explanation for the removal of the public feed, and seeking comment on the missing transition footage before executive session.
To Town Manager Schwapp: Did you authorize, direct, or perform the 3-minute, 44-second excision from the August 24 meeting video, and who ordered the subsequent total removal of the broadcast from public access? What was the statutory basis under C.G.S. Chapter 14 for altering and removing a published public record?
To Town Attorney Crumbie: Has the Town implemented a formal legal hold to preserve all native recording files, unedited masters, server backups, editing audit logs, and internal communications concerning the alteration and removal?
To the Town Council: Does the Council intend to exercise its supervisory authority under the Town Charter and Council Rules of Procedure to order the immediate restoration of the complete, unedited August 24 meeting record?
Ongoing Investigation
As of publication, municipal officials have not responded to requests for comment. Any statements received will be added to future updates.
Former Councilor and Deputy Mayor Kirton has said that if the full 1:43:36 recording is not restored and all related digital data preserved, he will file a formal complaint with the Freedom of Information Commission to request a state investigation into who approved the change.
the Bloomfield Community Dispatch has filed a formal Freedom of Information Act request for the original, unedited master files and administrative logs.
This is a developing investigation. Updates will be published as official responses are received.
Editor's Note & Disclosure: The author served as the authorized non-attorney representative for Rickford Kirton before the Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission in Docket #FIC 2025-0655, in which the Commission ruled on July 22, 2026 that the Bloomfield Town Council violated C.G.S. §§ 1-225(a) and 1-231(b). That decision is currently on appeal in Superior Court. the Bloomfield Community Dispatch is also a requester of records described in this article. Under the Bloomfield Town Charter and Town Council Rules of Procedure, the Town Council is responsible for maintaining the official record of its proceedings. the Bloomfield Community Dispatch will continue to monitor the status of the August 24 meeting records and report further developments as public records are released.
As one who often has to record, and upload recorded public meetings I am not sure what all the fuss is about? They voted and went to executive session. The video was probably truncated to eliminate dead air so to speak. Do you think something nefarious occurred during those 224 seconds? Usually, it's just a time as you state to clear the room and sometimes elected officials use it for a bathroom break. Mics are muted and just people milling around. Secondly the town attorney can leave executive session, and the council can still be discussing the same issue when they were present. You fail to acknowledge this possibility. I don't live in Bloomfield, so I have no skin in this game. I am just trying to understand the real point you are trying to make.
Thank you for reading, and for the thoughtful questions. You're right that trimming dead air is standard in video production. Here's why this case is different.
1. It wasn't dead air. As the article reports, the Dispatch reviewed a recording of the livestream captured as it aired. The removed segment shows the Town Manager on the dais telling the Mayor, "There is no f***ing reason for these meetings to go past 8:30," and then yelling at members of the public to leave the room. That happened after the vote to enter executive session but before the closed session began, while the public was still in the chambers. That footage was cut from the published version. Ten minutes after the Dispatch sent press questions about it, the entire recording was set to private.
2. Why it matters. A recording kept by a town is a public record under C.G.S. § 1-200(5), and under C.G.S. § 11-8b, public records may not be "removed, destroyed, mutilated, transferred or otherwise damaged or disposed of, in whole or in part," except as the law allows. As the article notes, whether a crime occurred under C.G.S. § 1-240 depends on intent, and no such finding has been made. If the Town kept an unedited master copy, the issue may be public access rather than destruction. That's why we've requested the original files and editing logs.
3. On the attorney leaving. The article does address this. It says: "Nothing in Connecticut law requires an attorney to be present for an executive session, and a council may lawfully continue after counsel departs." In fact, C.G.S. § 1-231(a) limits an invited person's attendance to the time their input is needed, so it is normal for an attorney to leave partway through. The article's question is different: every part of an executive session must fit one of the purposes listed in C.G.S. § 1-200(6), and the public record doesn't show which purpose covered the final 18 minutes.
4. The real point. We're not claiming anything secret happened in those 224 seconds. The footage shows what happened. The point is that a public recording was edited to remove an embarrassing moment involving a public official, and then pulled from public view entirely after questions were asked. Residents are entitled to know who made those changes and why. We're still awaiting the Town's response to our records request.
We filed a Freedom of Information Request with the Town and included the Director of Communications (Rogers) and the IT Director (Plummer) on that FOIA request, and we are awaiting a response.
As one who often has to record, and upload recorded public meetings I am not sure what all the fuss is about? They voted and went to executive session. The video was probably truncated to eliminate dead air so to speak. Do you think something nefarious occurred during those 224 seconds? Usually, it's just a time as you state to clear the room and sometimes elected officials use it for a bathroom break. Mics are muted and just people milling around.
ReplyDeleteSecondly the town attorney can leave executive session, and the council can still be discussing the same issue when they were present. You fail to acknowledge this possibility.
I don't live in Bloomfield, so I have no skin in this game. I am just trying to understand the real point you are trying to make.
Thank you for reading, and for the thoughtful questions. You're right that trimming dead air is standard in video production. Here's why this case is different.
Delete1. It wasn't dead air. As the article reports, the Dispatch reviewed a recording of the livestream captured as it aired. The removed segment shows the Town Manager on the dais telling the Mayor, "There is no f***ing reason for these meetings to go past 8:30," and then yelling at members of the public to leave the room. That happened after the vote to enter executive session but before the closed session began, while the public was still in the chambers. That footage was cut from the published version. Ten minutes after the Dispatch sent press questions about it, the entire recording was set to private.
2. Why it matters. A recording kept by a town is a public record under C.G.S. § 1-200(5), and under C.G.S. § 11-8b, public records may not be "removed, destroyed, mutilated, transferred or otherwise damaged or disposed of, in whole or in part," except as the law allows. As the article notes, whether a crime occurred under C.G.S. § 1-240 depends on intent, and no such finding has been made. If the Town kept an unedited master copy, the issue may be public access rather than destruction. That's why we've requested the original files and editing logs.
3. On the attorney leaving. The article does address this. It says: "Nothing in Connecticut law requires an attorney to be present for an executive session, and a council may lawfully continue after counsel departs." In fact, C.G.S. § 1-231(a) limits an invited person's attendance to the time their input is needed, so it is normal for an attorney to leave partway through. The article's question is different: every part of an executive session must fit one of the purposes listed in C.G.S. § 1-200(6), and the public record doesn't show which purpose covered the final 18 minutes.
4. The real point. We're not claiming anything secret happened in those 224 seconds. The footage shows what happened. The point is that a public recording was edited to remove an embarrassing moment involving a public official, and then pulled from public view entirely after questions were asked. Residents are entitled to know who made those changes and why. We're still awaiting the Town's response to our records request.
Thanks again for engaging.
Why did you not see if India Rogers or the IT Director also played a role? Why let them off the hook?
ReplyDeleteWe filed a Freedom of Information Request with the Town and included the Director of Communications (Rogers) and the IT Director (Plummer) on that FOIA request, and we are awaiting a response.
Delete