Municipal Constructive Obscurity

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 D. Schwapp, Jr. answered the Dispatch’s request for comment 48 minutes after it was sent: "I am replying for all town staff and myself, we have no comment." Section VI now notes that the Town declined to comment on whether it relied on the "equivalent combination" clause in promoting Director Stewart. Schwapp also said former Finance Director Darrell V. Hill, who was sent the request at his former Town email address, "is no longer employed by the Town of Bloomfield and will no longer receive your emails." The Dispatch asked the Town for another way to reach Hill.

Other recipients have until Wednesday, September 30, at 3:00 PM EDT to respond. Any responses will be added here.

AI-generated satirical illustration, not a depiction of actual events: the Bloomfield Town Council meets behind locked doors while a resident is kept out and the broadcast feed is cut.

BLOOMFIELD, CT (September 28, 2026) — The Bloomfield Community Dispatch reviewed hundreds of pages of records: agenda packets, date-stamped Town Clerk filings, meeting recordings, State Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC) records, court filings, and Town personnel files. Together they show what the Dispatch calls "constructive obscurity": public business that is technically on the record but difficult for residents to find, follow, or check.

Taken together, the records show six problems that have made it harder for residents—and at times councilors themselves—to see how decisions are made and money is spent:

1. Records requests routed through the Town Attorney, as legal costs soared. Before the FOIC’s July ruling, public records requests—including the Dispatch’s own—were handled through the Town Attorney’s office. On June 30, 2026, that office’s budget grew by $416,000 (154.9%) in one year-end transfer. The Town’s written reasons listed FOI work alongside legal defense related to the FY2026 budget referendum, tax appeals, investigations, and abatements. How much went to FOI work is unknown: the itemized legal invoices residents have requested had not been released as of September 14.
2. An appeal with no public authorization vote on record. Outside counsel appealed the FOIC’s July 22 decision in Kirton v. Wong—which found the Council violated the state’s open-meeting law and ordered Council members to attend FOI training—to Superior Court. The Town Charter requires Council approval to appeal. The Dispatch found no public Council vote approving the appeal before it was served on August 18.
3. An unannounced vote after a closed-door session. On August 24, after leaving executive session, the Council added an item to the agenda and voted on it. Councilor Suzette DeBeatham-Brown confirmed this on the record, and no one disputed it. What the item was has not been disclosed. A resident says the chamber doors were locked when he tried to re-enter, and the video broadcast never came back on.
4. Minutes that leave things out—or arrive months late. The August 24 vote does not appear in the Clerk of Council’s record of motions and votes or in the draft minutes, although Councilor DeBeatham-Brown says she emailed corrections twice. Separately, draft minutes of two April budget meetings did not reach a Council agenda until tonight—161 days later. They record that Mayor Anthony Harrington, at the April 20 meeting, corrected an earlier claim and acknowledged that he, not former Mayor Danielle Wong, authorized the signing of the Town Attorney’s contract.
5. An internal-only search for the Town’s top finance job. The Finance Director opening was posted for Town employees only, for 14 days. Ten days after it closed, the Town Manager signed Donna Stewart’s promotion letter at $172,499 on pay grade M-12. The Town’s pay schedule lists Finance Director at M-13; its own job description says M-12.
6. A subcommittee meeting without a quorum. On September 22, the Finance Subcommittee, which lists five members, met for 63 minutes with only two present. The chair closed by saying, "We don't have a quorum, guys."

The Town Council meets at 7:00 PM tonight, Monday, September 28, 2026. Its published agenda does not include the August 24 minutes, which the Council tabled on Sept. 14. In the Dispatch’s view, the record shows a government that too often treats open-meeting rules as optional.

THE STRUCTURAL PERIMETER OF CONSTRUCTIVE OBSCURITY

• Phase 1: Records Routing — Public records requests handled through the Town Attorney’s office and then returned to the Town Clerk following the FOIC’s July ruling.
• Phase 2: Budgetary Impact — Department 0160 (Legal) expanded by $416,000 (155%) at year-end. Spent or committed: $683,874. Itemized legal invoices requested on August 17 are still unreleased as of September 14.
• Phase 3: The Appeal — Hinckley Allen appeals the FOIC’s Kirton v. Wong decision. No public Council vote approving the appeal was found beforehand.
• Phase 4: The Unannounced Vote — August 24: the Council leaves executive session at 9:54 PM, adds an unlisted item, and votes on it. A resident says the doors were locked; the broadcast never resumed. The item has not been identified.
• Phase 5: The Record — Draft minutes omit the August 24 vote. April budget minutes wait 161 days for a Council agenda. The Finance Director job is filled through a 14-day internal-only posting.

I. Routing Records Requests Through the Town Attorney

Connecticut’s Freedom of Information Act (C.G.S. § 1-210(a)) gives the public the right to inspect and copy public records. In Bloomfield, routine requests from residents, taxpayers, and the press have traditionally been directed to the Town Clerk’s Office at 800 Bloomfield Avenue, handled by Town staff rather than by outside lawyers who bill the Town.

For a period, that changed. Public records requests filed by the Dispatch during that time were answered not by the Town Clerk’s Office but by the office of Town Attorney Andrew R. Crumbie, whose private firm, the Crumbie Law Group, LLC, bills the Town for its legal work.

The Financial Explosion: Fourth Quarter Transfers

On June 30, 2026—the last day of the fiscal year—the Town Administration brought a set of fourth-quarter budget transfers to a Special Town Council meeting. The Town Charter allows transfers between departments only in the last three months of the fiscal year (Charter § 908).

One transfer added $416,000 to Department 0160 (Town Attorney)—more than the office’s entire adopted budget in any year from 2016 through 2026, which ranged from $187,336 to $280,220, according to the Town Attorney Budget History prepared for the Council on April 21, 2026:

• The Stated Reasons: In documentation submitted to the Council, then-Finance Director Darrell V. Hill listed the transfer’s purposes as:

  "Legal defense for FY2026 Budget referendum, FOI, Tax Appeals, Investigations, Abatement."

• The Budgetary Expansion: The $416,000 transfer expanded the Town Attorney’s revised FY2026 budget from an adopted $268,538 to $684,538—a 154.9% increase at year-end.
• The Year-End Total: The Town’s June/July 2026 Monthly Financial Report (unaudited) shows $683,874 spent or committed (expenditures plus encumbrances)—99.9% of the expanded budget and 77.4% more than FY2025.

DEPARTMENT 0160 (TOWN ATTORNEY) FY2026 EXPANSION LEDGER
Adopted FY2026 Base Legal Budget	$268,538
Fourth Quarter Transfer (referendum defense, FOI, tax appeals, investigations, abatement)	+$416,000 (Adopted June 30, 2026)
Revised FY2026 Department 0160 Budget	$684,538
Spent or Committed at Year-End (expenditures + encumbrances, unaudited)	$683,874 (77.4% increase over FY2025)

Two Requests, No Records: Robert Berman’s Experience

Resident Robert Berman described his experience to the Town Council on September 14, 2026, and in an interview with the Dispatch:

• The July 22, 2026 Request: Berman asked the Town Clerk for a copy of the addendum to Town Attorney Crumbie’s contract. He told the Council that the Clerk’s Office had informed him that the request was referred to the Town Manager’s office.
• The August 17, 2026 Request: Berman requested all itemized invoices from Attorney Crumbie’s firm since November 1, 2023. That request, he said, was referred to the Finance Department.
• How Long It Should Take: Berman told the Council that former Finance Department employees told him invoices are routinely scanned "into the computer" and that the file could be produced in "as little as 10 seconds to as much as 45 seconds."

As of September 14, 2026, Berman said he had received neither record—54 days after his first request and 28 days after his second. Neither request went to the Town Attorney’s office. But the delay kept the very records that would show how the Town Attorney’s budget was spent—his contract addendum and his invoices—out of public view.

After the FOIC Decision

On July 22, 2026, the Freedom of Information Commission issued its Final Decision in Docket #FIC 2025-0655 (Rickford Kirton v. Danielle Wong et al.). (Disclosure: The author represented the complainant, Rickford Kirton, before the Commission in this case. See the note at the end of this article.)

The hearing record in that case included the Town’s agreement with the public relations firm Adams & Knight and the firm’s invoices, entered into evidence by the complainant. According to that agreement, the firm was paid $5,000 to $7,500 per month in public funds to "mimic the effort of counsel" and "bolster the Town's public image."

After the Commission’s decision, that changed back. The Dispatch’s records requests are now answered by the Town Clerk’s Office rather than the Town Attorney’s office.

II. An Appeal Without a Public Vote

In its July 22 Final Decision in Kirton v. Wong, the Commission found that the Town Council violated the state’s open-meeting law (C.G.S. §§ 1-225(a) and 1-231(b)) when it discussed an agenda item in executive session at its July 14, 2025 meeting. The Commission agreed with the Town that the underlying investigation report was privileged; the violation turned on how the Council used the closed session. It declined to impose a civil penalty but ordered Council members to attend training on the FOI Act, scheduled through the Commission’s Director of Education and Communications, and said the Town Attorney was "strongly encouraged" to attend as well.

Less than a month later, the decision was on appeal. The appeal asks the court to reverse the Commission’s finding of a violation—the finding on which the training order rests—or, in the alternative, to limit it to the wording of the agenda notice. It also asks the court to award the plaintiffs their attorneys’ fees and costs.

On August 18, 2026, special counsel Alexa T. Millinger and William S. Fish, Jr. of the law firm Hinckley, Allen & Snyder LLP—engaged as outside counsel for the Town of Bloomfield—served an administrative appeal on Rickford Kirton, filing it in New Britain Superior Court on August 22: DANIELLE WONG, ET AL. v. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION, AND RICKFORD KIRTON.

While the current docket in the Connecticut Judicial Branch online system lists a filing date of September 2, 2026, with a return date of September 22, 2026, the Bloomfield Community Dispatch has confirmed directly with the Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC) via an email from Russell Blair that the Commission was served with this same Summons and Complaint on August 21, 2026. Furthermore, Rickford Kirton was served on August 18, 2026, and in both of those instances, the return date was set for September 15, 2026. Court records downloaded by the Dispatch show the appeal was first filed with the court on August 22.

The docket’s later entry, dated September 2, came nine days after the Council’s August 24 executive session. That timing is consistent with a vote that night to authorize the appeal after the fact—but, as Section III explains, it is not the only possible explanation.

SUPERIOR COURT APPEAL DOCKET DATA
Case Caption	Danielle Wong, et al. v. Freedom of Information Commission & Kirton
Court Venue	Superior Court, Judicial District of New Britain
Key Dates	Dated and served on Kirton Aug. 18; served on FOIC Aug. 21; filed Aug. 22; original return date Sept. 15. Current docket: filed Sept. 2, return date Sept. 22.
Appellants	Danielle Wong (as former Council Chairperson), the Town Council of Bloomfield, and the Town of Bloomfield
Counsel of Record	Alexa T. Millinger and William S. Fish, Jr., Hinckley, Allen & Snyder LLP
Relief Sought	Reverse the FOIC’s finding that the Council violated C.G.S. §§ 1-225(a) and 1-231(b), or limit it to the agenda notice; award attorneys’ fees and costs

The Charter Question: Section 505

The appeal lists the Town Council of Bloomfield as a plaintiff. That raises a basic question under the Town Charter: who approved it?

Section 505 of the Bloomfield Town Charter limits the Town Attorney’s authority:

"The Town Attorney, or such special counsel as he/she shall designate, shall have the following powers, after authorization by the Town Council: Appear for and protect the rights of the town in all actions, suits or proceedings brought by or against it or any of its departments, officers, agencies, boards or commissions... Have the power, with the approval of the Town Council, to appeal from orders, decisions and judgments and, subject to the approval of the Town Council, to compromise or settle any claims by or against the Town."

• What the record shows: The FOIC decided the case on July 22. The Town Council met on July 27 and August 10 before the appeal was served on August 18. Neither agenda lists an executive session or an appeal item, and neither meeting’s recording or minutes shows a vote on one.
• Why it matters: Connecticut’s Supreme Court has called a city’s charter “the fountainhead of municipal powers” and held that a municipality’s agents have no authority beyond what the charter gives them (Perretta v. City of New Britain, 185 Conn. 88, 92 (1981)). Bloomfield’s Charter gives the power to approve appeals to the Town Council, not the Town Attorney. Whether an appeal started without that approval is valid, or can be fixed by a later vote, is a question for the court.

In Plain English

The Town Charter says the Town Attorney may appeal a decision only with the Town Council’s approval. The Dispatch found no public Council vote giving that approval before the appeal was started on August 18. If there was none, the appeal began without the approval the Charter requires. Whether that makes the appeal invalid—or whether a later vote can fix it—is a question for the court.

III. August 24: The Vote After the Closed Session

Six days after the appeal was served—and two days after it was filed with the court—the Town Council held its regular August 24, 2026 meeting.

The Timeline

The timeline of that evening, reconstructed from Town Clerk date-stamped filings (_08242026-1706.pdf), the meeting recording, and eyewitness accounts, raises serious open-meeting questions:

AUGUST 24, 2026: AFTER THE CLOSED SESSION
08:40 P.M.	Council votes unanimously to enter executive session "with the Town Attorney and Town Council." The agenda lists six pending lawsuits—including Item X.A.v, "Town of Bloomfield, CT vs FOIC and Kirton Superior Administrative Court Appeal," and Item X.A.vi, Berman v. Schwapp—as well as the Town Manager’s performance evaluation. The Dispatch observed Hinckley Allen attorney Alexa T. Millinger joining by Zoom; she appears in the YouTube recording as the broadcast ends, labeled "Attorney." The Clerk of Council’s record lists only the Town Attorney.
09:54 P.M.	The Clerk of Council’s motions-and-votes memo (received by the Town Clerk Aug. 26) records a motion by Councilor DeBeatham-Brown, seconded by Councilors Cooper and Waterhouse, to exit executive session at 9:54 P.M.
09:54 P.M.	THE LOCKOUT (Robert Berman’s account to the Dispatch): Berman says he was waiting outside Council Chambers, found the doors locked, and knocked to be let in to watch the reconvened open session, but was not admitted.
10:10 P.M.	Council adjourns (motion by Councilor DeBeatham-Brown, seconded by Councilor Goodwin). No recording exists of the 16 minutes between the end of executive session and adjournment.

Under the Connecticut Freedom of Information Act (C.G.S. § 1-225(a) and § 1-200(6)) and Section III.L of the Town Council Rules of Procedure, discussion in executive session is limited to the reason stated in the motion. Once an executive session concludes, all subsequent motions, deliberations, and votes must occur in open session with the public admitted. If the doors stayed locked after the Council left executive session at 9:54 PM, and residents who wanted to watch were kept out, the Council held what amounted to a closed meeting in violation of C.G.S. § 1-225(a). Any vote taken in that window could be declared void by the FOIC under C.G.S. § 1-206(b)(2).

Bloomfield’s blackout stands in sharp contrast to how the FOIC handles its own closed sessions. In an interview with the Dispatch, Russell Blair, Director of Education and Communications for the State Freedom of Information Commission, explained that when the FOIC itself takes a recess or enters executive session, it never severs the transmission carrier. Instead, broadcast operators place a prominent on-screen graphic across the camera feed—such as "Meeting in Recess" or "Executive Session"—while muting the microphones and dimming the background.

This continuous feed guarantees that remote participants remain connected in real time, ensuring that the second an executive session concludes, live audiovisual access immediately resumes so the public can observe whatever final business is transacted—even if that business consists solely of a formal motion to adjourn. By killing its electronic feeds entirely on August 24 and never bringing them back online, the Town left remote viewers—and the public archive—with no record of what the Council did after executive session.

The Vote Comes to Light

The vote came to light at the September 14, 2026, Town Council meeting. When the Council reached the Consent Agenda, Councilor Suzette DeBeatham-Brown asked that the August 24 minutes be pulled because they left out a vote taken after executive session. She said she had emailed corrections twice without a reply. She spoke twice, about two minutes apart:

Councilor DeBeatham-Brown (33:30):

"...we came out of executive session and there was an item added to the agenda. There was a motion, there was a vote to the agenda. ... So, these minutes are not accurate and or correct."

Councilor DeBeatham-Brown (35:29):

"I do know that we came out of executive session, there was a motion to add an item. The item was added and there was a vote taken to proceed with that item in the general council meeting."

No one disputed her account, and the Council voted unanimously to remove the minutes from the consent agenda and table them. The Clerk of Council’s records show that DeBeatham-Brown made both the 9:54 PM motion to leave executive session and the 10:10 PM motion to adjourn. She did not say on September 14 what the added item was.

What was the added item? The record does not say. Hinckley Allen’s Alexa Millinger, who represents the Town in the FOIC appeal, joined the executive session—which suggests the appeal was among the matters discussed. But the session’s agenda listed six pending lawsuits and the Town Manager’s performance evaluation (August 24 agenda, Item X). In one of those lawsuits, Berman v. Schwapp (Item X.A.vi), the law firm Wiggin & Dana filed an appearance for Town Manager Schwapp on September 3. A vote on either matter would fit the timing. The Council has not publicly identified what it voted on.

The Council’s own rules speak to how any such vote should have been handled. Rule III.T says an item not on the agenda may not be taken up as new business unless two-thirds of the full Council—six members—vote to waive the rule “at the beginning of the Council Business portion of the meeting.” The August 24 item was added at the end of the night, after executive session. Rule III.D says no ordinance or resolution may be adopted “except in a meeting of the Council open to the public.” If residents were kept out when the Council voted, the FOIC can declare that vote void under C.G.S. § 1-206.

IV. Incomplete and Late Minutes

The written record of the August 24 meeting omits the vote.

When the draft minutes of the August 24 meeting were published in the September 14 agenda packet (9-14-26 TC Agenda Packet.pdf), the record was incomplete:

• The Gap: The draft minutes record the motion to exit executive session at 9:54 PM, then jump to the adjournment vote at 10:10 PM. The Clerk of Council’s August 26 record of motions and votes has the same gap.
• The Omissions: The draft minutes omitted the motion to add new business, the identities of the mover and seconder, the roll call tally, and the item itself. Council Rule III.N requires each member’s aye, nay, or abstention on every vote to be recorded in the minutes.

After Councilor DeBeatham-Brown’s objection on September 14, the Town Council voted unanimously to remove the August 24 draft minutes from the consent agenda and table them "for the next Town Council Meeting to give the council an opportunity to review the edited minutes," according to the Council’s own draft minutes from September 14.

THE AUGUST 24 MINUTES: WHAT’S MISSING
What Happened	Council exits executive session at 9:54 PM, adds an item not on the agenda, and votes on it (confirmed on the record Sept. 14); adjourns at 10:10 PM. A resident says the chamber doors were locked. The subject of the vote has not been disclosed.
Draft Minutes	Omit the added item and the vote. Go directly from the 9:54 PM exit to the 10:10 PM adjournment.
September 14 Action	Raised by Councilor DeBeatham-Brown; Council voted unanimously to table the minutes to its next meeting so councilors could review edited minutes.

161 Days Late: The April Budget Minutes

The August 24 minutes are not the only minutes problem in tonight’s packet.

The newly published September 28, 2026 Town Council Agenda Packet contains draft minutes of two special budget meetings held more than five months ago:

1. April 20, 2026 Special Meeting (FY27 Budget Deliberation/Action, Part 2)
2. April 21, 2026 Special Meeting (FY27 Budget Deliberation/Action, Part 3)

Under the statute, draft minutes of the April 20 meeting had to be available to the public by April 27, 2026. They first appeared in the September 28 agenda packet, posted on September 25. By tonight’s meeting, 161 days will have passed since April 20—23 times the seven-day limit.

The April 20 draft minutes record that Mayor Harrington opened that meeting by correcting an earlier statement about the Town Attorney’s contract. His written statement is attached to the minutes on page 21 of the September 28 packet:

MAYORAL STATEMENT – APRIL 20, 2026 (ATTACHED TO DRAFT MINUTES POSTED SEPT. 25, 2026)

"During the Town Council Special Meeting for the FY27 Budget Public Hearing and Council Deliberations (Part 1), I incorrectly stated that I did not authorize the Town Attorney contract increase and attributed that action to former Mayor Danielle C. Wong.

In fact, I did authorize the signing of the contract at the start of my administration. I regret this error and any confusion it may have caused. I sincerely apologize to former Mayor Wong for this misstatement."

— Mayor Anthony Harrington

The Mayor made this correction aloud at the April 20 meeting, according to the draft minutes. But the written record of it—like the rest of the April 20 and 21 minutes—was not put before the Council for approval until tonight. For more than five months, residents looking for the official written record of those budget meetings had none.

V. Tonight’s Agenda: Where Are the August 24 Minutes?

On September 14, the Council voted unanimously to table the August 24 minutes "for the next Town Council Meeting," according to its own draft minutes—which are on tonight’s consent agenda. Tonight is that meeting. But the published September 28, 2026 Town Council Agenda Packet does not include them:

• The Published Agenda: Section VI.A (Approval of Minutes) lists draft minutes for September 14, 2026, April 20, 2026, and April 21, 2026.
• What’s Missing: The revised August 24 minutes are completely absent from the agenda and packet attachments.

C.G.S. § 1-225(c) provides:

"The agenda of the regular meetings of every public agency... shall be available to the public and shall be filed, not less than twenty-four hours before the meetings to which they refer... Upon the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of a public agency present and voting, any subsequent business not included in such filed agendas may be considered and acted upon at such meetings."

The Council’s own Rule III.T is stricter: an item missing from the agenda may be taken up as new business only if two-thirds of the full Council—six members—vote to waive the rule “at the beginning of the Council Business portion of the meeting.” If the Council takes up the August 24 minutes tonight without first voting to add them, that would raise questions under both C.G.S. § 1-225(c) and Rule III.T. Any revised draft handed to councilors would also be a public record: residents could ask to see it, and a denial could be appealed to the FOIC under C.G.S. § 1-206.

VI. The Internal-Only Fast Track: Analysis of the Donna Stewart Appointment

The administrative dysfunction paralyzing Council Chambers has migrated directly into the Town's central administration.

Following the departure of former Finance Director Darrell V. Hill on September 15, 2026—whose tenure was marked by an 18-to-21-month delay in filing the FY2024 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) and repeat Material Weaknesses—Town Manager Alvin D. Schwapp, Jr. announced the appointment of Donna Stewart as Director of Finance.

A systematic review of primary municipal documents—including the internal job posting (08-17-2026 Director of Finance Job Posting & Description.pdf), Stewart’s employment application and resume (Donna Stewart Application_20_26_20Resume.pdf_Redacted.pdf), the Town Manager's offer letter (Donna Stewart Offer letter_Redacted.pdf), and the Town’s Management Classification Schedule—raises serious questions about how the Town filled its top finance job.

DONNA STEWART APPOINTMENT: WHAT THE DOCUMENTS SHOW
Category	What the Town’s Rules Say	What Happened
1. Internal-Only Posting	Charter § 502(d): the Town Manager appoints directors “on the basis of technical and administrative qualifications, character and experience.”	The posting was marked “Internal Posting” and open Aug. 17–31, 2026; the application form reads “Internal Positions Only.” Stewart applied on Aug. 19. The Town Manager signed her promotion letter on Sept. 10 and told the Council on Sept. 14 that he had hired her “through an internal selection process.”
2. Qualifications	The posting requires a bachelor’s degree plus 10 years of “senior level finance experience” (8 with a master’s) “or any equivalent combination of education, training and finance experience,” plus 5 years of supervisory experience.	Stewart’s résumé lists a B.S. in Accounting and an “085” certification, the state credential required to serve as a school district business manager. Her municipal and school-district finance leadership roles—Canton Board of Education business manager (from August 2021) and Bloomfield deputy finance manager/town accountant (from July 2024)—total about five years. Before that, she spent 11 years as an accounts payable administrative assistant (2010–2021) and, earlier, worked as a finance manager at Uniprise (1999–2003), a finance lead at Accenture (1994–1999), and a federal credit union examiner (1990–1994). Her signed application lists her as Canton’s business manager from August 2011 to June 2024; her résumé says she took that job in August 2021. The two documents do not agree. In the Dispatch’s assessment, only her roles since 2021 are senior-level, leaving her about five years short of the ten-year minimum. Asked whether it relied on the “equivalent combination” clause, the Town declined to comment.
3. Pay Grade Mismatch	Charter § 701: salary ranges for directors are “determined by the town council.” The Management Classification Schedule (effective 7-1-25) lists Finance Director at Grade M-13 ($116,403–$197,636), and the posting advertises that range. But the attached job description (rev. 2-2023) lists the job at Grade M-12.	The offer letter places Stewart at M-12 with a salary of $172,499. That is inside both ranges—about $25,100 above the M-12 midpoint and about $15,500 above the M-13 midpoint. The Town’s own documents disagree on which grade the job belongs to.

To her credit, Director Stewart has been unusually forthcoming. In the Dispatch’s experience, she put more substantive information on the public record in two meetings than her predecessor did during his tenure. She said she inherited "about 75" FOIA requests that she intends to fulfill, even though, in her words, "We're short-staffed again."

Her account of the department she inherited is striking. She told the Council on September 14 that when she arrived in 2024, FY2024 work was "nowhere complete," bank reconciliations were "over 14 months behind," and the Board of Education and fixed-asset accounts did not balance—and that "those deficiencies are all now resolved." She said the FY2024 audit is done, FY2025 is close to completion, and FY2026 could be finished early next year: "to have three audits done in one year is phenomenal." The Town Manager, for his part, credited Hill with navigating "challenging moments" with "exceptional poise." Readers can weigh those accounts. In the Dispatch’s view, Stewart’s own description of what she found speaks for itself.

While the Dispatch questions the internal-only hiring process and the gap between her experience and the posted minimum, we welcome her efforts to put the department in order. We look forward to her answering Dispatch inquiries in a timely way, so that basic municipal financial data no longer requires a formal FOIA request.

However, Stewart was not a passive observer during the audit breakdown. In the Town's official submission to the State Office of Policy and Management (OPM) regarding the FY2024 Audit Material Weaknesses, Donna Stewart signed the Corrective Action Plan as co-responsible official alongside Darrell Hill, according to the excerpt of the FY2024 audit report linked above. For the Town Administration to fast-track an internal promotion within 14 days without opening the search to outside candidates raises profound concerns about administrative accountability.

VII. Regional Comparative Analysis: Municipal Finance Directors

Here is who holds the top finance job in several nearby towns, according to the state Office of Policy and Management’s Chief Financial Officer list (June 5, 2026) and the towns’ own records:

Municipality	Chief Financial Officer	What Public Records Show
Bloomfield	Donna J. Stewart, Director of Finance (promoted effective Sept. 16, 2026; the June OPM list still shows Darrell Hill)	Internal-only, 14-day posting; promoted from the Town’s deputy finance role at $172,499. B.S. in Accounting; about 5 years in municipal and school-district finance leadership; earlier roles in corporate finance and as a federal examiner. No CPA or MBA listed.
West Hartford	Pattie Lewis, Interim Director of Financial Services	A Town staff member since at least 2021, when committee minutes list her as Budget and Grants Manager; now serving on an interim basis, according to the Town’s FY2025 audit report. Her predecessor, Peter Privitera, was hired in 2013 after a search in which "several candidates were considered," Patch reported.
East Hartford	Melissa McCaw, Director of Finance (since March 14, 2022)	B.A., Wesleyan; M.P.A., UConn. Former Secretary of Connecticut’s Office of Policy and Management (2019–2022), according to her Town biography. Appointed by then-Mayor Michael Walsh, according to the Town’s announcement.
Windsor	James Bourke, Finance Director	Listed in the Town’s staff directory and the OPM list.
Wethersfield, Rocky Hill, Enfield, Granby, Vernon, Windsor Locks	Michael J. O'Neil (Wethersfield); Mona McKim (Rocky Hill); John Wilcox (Enfield); Kimi Cheng (Granby); Frank Zitkus (Vernon); Yana Abramovich (Windsor Locks)	Per the OPM list. The Dispatch did not review these towns’ hiring processes.

The comparison cuts both ways. East Hartford’s finance director came in by mayoral appointment, and West Hartford’s top finance post is filled, for now, by an interim staff member. What sets Bloomfield apart is the combination: a permanent promotion made through a 14-day, employees-only posting, at a time when—by the new director’s own account—the Town’s audits are behind schedule, and its finance office is short-staffed.

VIII. "We Don’t Have a Quorum, Guys": The September 22 Subcommittee Meeting

The culmination of Bloomfield’s procedural breakdown occurred on Tuesday evening, September 22, 2026, during the regularly scheduled meeting of the Town Council's Finance, Budget, Audit & Bonding Subcommittee.

The meeting transcript (September 22 2026 Finance Budget Audit & Bonding Subcommittee Meeting) records an extraordinary departure from parliamentary order:

• The Call to Order (6:03 PM): Committee Chair and Deputy Mayor Cindi Lloyd convened the meeting at (Timestamp 06:20). Present in the Council Chambers were only Deputy Mayor Lloyd and Mayor Anthony Harrington. Committee members Joseph Merritt, Elizabeth Waterhouse, and Todd Cooper were absent. At roll call, Lloyd said Cooper or Waterhouse "may" join; at 26:57, a speaker noted, "No one else has joined."
• The Quorum Rule: The Finance, Budget, Audit & Bonding Subcommittee is one of the Council’s permanent standing committees (Rules of Procedure, Rule III.I). The Town’s website lists five members: Lloyd (Chair), Mayor Harrington, and Councilors Joseph Merritt, Elizabeth Waterhouse, and Todd Cooper. The Council’s rules adopt Robert’s Rules of Order as their parliamentary authority (Rule III.R), and under Robert’s Rules, a committee’s quorum is a majority of its members. Two members present is not a majority—whether or not the Mayor is counted, since Rule III.F makes him a non-voting ex officio member of subcommittees unless appointed.

Nevertheless, for one hour and three minutes, Lloyd and Harrington ran the full agenda:

1. Director Stewart’s Report: At (Timestamp 07:01 - 07:09), Deputy Mayor Lloyd welcomed Stewart: "I will call and welcome to our new director of finance, Miss Stewart." Stewart then reported on the delay in the FY2025 audit. (The Town Manager appointed Stewart; her promotion took effect September 16. The subcommittee played no part in that appointment.)
2. Substantive Deliberations: The two officials received detailed staff briefings and conducted extensive public deliberations regarding a major commercial tax abatement agreement under C.G.S. § 12-65b. At (Timestamp 1:01:37), Deputy Mayor Lloyd acknowledged there was not "enough of a quorum to even speak of to say let's move this forward at this point to council."
3. Public Comment: The Chair opened the floor for public comment, and residents spoke (Timestamp 1:05:17).

The meeting wound down at (Timestamp 1:09:16) when the committee reached Item 7: Approval of the August 17, 2026 minutes. Lloyd said, "We are unable to take a vote on that," and tabled the item to next month.

A motion to adjourn was made, seconded, and approved. Lloyd then closed the meeting with this on-the-record admission (Timestamp 1:09:41):

Deputy Mayor Cindi Lloyd: "Okay. We don't have a quorum, guys, but we do bid you adieu and good night and thank you for tuning in."

PARLIAMENTARY RULES OF ORDER (RONR § 40) VS. BLOOMFIELD FINANCE SUBCOMMITTEE
Parliamentary Law Mandate	What Happened (Sept. 22, 2026)
Under Robert’s Rules (RONR § 40), when a quorum is absent, the only actions allowed are to fix the time to which to adjourn, adjourn, recess, or take measures to obtain a quorum.	1. Called to order by Deputy Mayor Lloyd (06:20) 2. Received Director Stewart’s audit report (07:01) 3. Discussed a proposed C.G.S. § 12-65b tax abatement (took no action, citing the lack of a quorum) 4. Entertained public comment from residents 5. Deferred the August 17 minutes: "We are unable to take a vote on that" (1:09:16) 6. Adjourned at 1:09:41 with Lloyd's live admission: "We don't have a quorum, guys..."
NO BINDING ACTION WAS TAKEN — BUT THE COMMITTEE HELD A FULL 63-MINUTE MEETING WITHOUT THE QUORUM ITS OWN CHAIR SAID IT LACKED.

The two officials did not try to approve anything; they held off on both the tax abatement and the minutes because they lacked a quorum. But they knew at roll call that a quorum was missing and ran the full agenda anyway—a staff report, a policy discussion, and public comment—under the committee’s name. Under Robert’s Rules, which the Council follows, a committee without a quorum is not supposed to conduct business at all. In the Dispatch’s view, the proper course was to adjourn at roll call and reschedule.

Plain English Translation

A quorum is the minimum number of members who must be present for a committee to do business. The Finance Subcommittee lists five members, so it needs at least three. Only two came on September 22. They voted on nothing except adjourning, and they held off on the tax abatement and the minutes because they lacked a quorum. But under Robert’s Rules, which the Council follows, a committee without a quorum should adjourn rather than hold a meeting. Anything presented that night should be presented again at a meeting that has a quorum.

IX. Master Audit Matrix: The Record at a Glance

The following table summarizes the events documented in this report and the laws and rules they involve:

Date of Action	Event	Law or Rule Involved	What the Record Shows
April 20, 2026	Mayor’s correction; budget meeting minutes	C.G.S. § 1-225(a) (seven-day rule)	Minutes 161 Days Late: Draft minutes—recording the Mayor’s April 20 correction about the Town Attorney contract—first placed on a Council agenda Sept. 28, 2026.
June 30, 2026	$416,000 legal transfer	Town Charter § 908 (year-end transfers)	154.9% Budget Expansion: Department 0160 grew from $268,538 to $684,538 for referendum defense, FOI, tax appeals, investigations, and abatement. Spent or committed: $683,874.
July 22, 2026	FOIC Final Decision (FIC 2025-0655)	C.G.S. §§ 1-225(a), 1-231(b)	FOIA Training Order: FOIC found that the Council violated the open-meeting law, ordered Council members to attend FOIA training, and strongly encouraged the Town Attorney to attend.
August 17, 2026	Finance Director posting	Town Charter § 502(d)	Internal-Only Posting: Open to Town employees only, for 14 days.
August 18, 2026	Superior Court appeal served	Town Charter § 505	Appeal Without a Public Vote: Hinckley Allen serves Wong v. FOIC; filed Aug. 22. No prior public Council approval found.
August 24, 2026	Vote after executive session	C.G.S. § 1-225(a); Council Rules III.D, III.T	Unannounced Vote: Council added an unlisted item and voted on it; subject undisclosed. A resident says the doors were locked; the broadcast never resumed.
Sept 10, 2026	Stewart promotion letter	Town Charter §§ 502(d), 701; pay schedule	Pay Grade Mismatch: Promoted at $172,499 on grade M-12; pay schedule lists M-13, job description lists M-12.
Sept 14, 2026	August 24 minutes pulled	C.G.S. § 1-225(a); Council Rules III.N, III.S	Incomplete Minutes: Draft Aug. 24 minutes omit the vote; the Council tables them to its next meeting.
Sept 22, 2026	Finance Subcommittee meeting	Council Rule III.R; RONR § 40	No Quorum: Two of five listed members hold a 63-minute meeting; the chair acknowledges there is no quorum. No binding action taken.
Sept 28, 2026	Tonight’s agenda	C.G.S. § 1-225(c); Council Rule III.T	Missing Item: The agenda omits the Aug. 24 minutes, which the Council tabled on Sept. 14. Acting on them without first adding them to the agenda would raise legal questions.

Conclusion & Editorial Call to Accountability

Taken together, the record compiled across these proceedings shows a pattern the Dispatch calls constructive obscurity: an appeal started with no public authorization vote, a vote taken after a closed session and left out of the minutes, budget minutes that waited five months for a Council agenda, a top finance job filled through an employees-only posting, and a committee meeting held without a quorum.

When the Town Council convenes on Monday evening, September 28, 2026, the attending public and watching taxpayers must demand direct answers to four foundational questions:

1. Where are the corrected minutes from August 24? The Council tabled them to tonight’s meeting; any revised draft should be properly added to the agenda and made available to the public.
2. Who authorized the appeal served on August 18? If no Council vote approved it beforehand, the Town should withdraw the appeal.
3. What is the legal validity of the September 22 Finance Subcommittee meeting? A committee without a quorum cannot act; the subcommittee should re-notice the agenda and take it up again with a quorum present.
4. Why was the appointment of the Town's chief fiscal officer shielded from competition? Taxpayers deserve an open, competitive search that follows the Town’s own pay grades and posted minimum qualifications.

The doors of Town Hall belong to the public. Tonight, they must remain unlocked.

Editor's Note: The Bloomfield Community Dispatch sent a formal request for comment on these findings on September 28, 2026, at 11:34 AM EDT, to Director Donna Stewart, Town Manager Alvin D. Schwapp, Jr., Mayor Anthony Harrington, all members of the Town Council, Town Clerk Andrea DiStephan, Town Attorney Andrew R. Crumbie, Attorneys Alexa T. Millinger and William S. Fish, Jr. of Hinckley, Allen & Snyder LLP, Clerk of Council Latonia Tabb, and former Finance Director Darrell V. Hill, with a response deadline of Wednesday, September 30, 2026, at 3:00 PM EDT. This article was published before that deadline. Responses are noted in the Updates & Corrections box at the top of this article and will be included in our follow-up report.

Disclosure: Peter C. Frank, the author of this article and Editor-in-Chief of the Dispatch, served as the authorized non-attorney representative for complainant Rickford Kirton before the Freedom of Information Commission in Docket #FIC 2025-0655 (Kirton v. Wong), the decision the Town has appealed in Superior Court.