Investigative Series // Governance & Public Accountability
THE BLOOMFIELD PARADOX (Part 3): Two Explanations, One Missing Referendum — A Councilor Blames a Departed Clerk; Written Records Point to Town Staff
By Peter C. Frank
Editor-in-Chief, the Bloomfield Community Dispatch
Investigation Roadmap: How the 2025 Referendum Vanished
Here is the documented sequence of how an approved ballot question disappeared between Town Hall and the State Capitol:
BLOOMFIELD, CT (Sept. 1, 2026) — For seven months, Bloomfield's account of why the 2024 Charter Revision never reached voters rested on a single memorandum. That memo called the Town Council's unanimous ballot vote a procedural formality that carried no obligation to hold the referendum. No official had explained on the public record how the certified question failed to reach the Secretary of the State, or who was supposed to file it.
That silence ended at the August 24, 2026 Town Council meeting, when two competing explanations were placed on the municipal record.
The first came from the dais. It blamed the missing referendum on an oversight by a departed Town Clerk. The second came from written correspondence out of the Town Manager's office. It said the ballot measure was withheld because municipal staff had decided the Charter needed more review before voters saw it.
The Dais Exchange and the Clerical Explanation
The discussion came during council deliberations on Item 2027-03, a resolution to extend the deadline for the newly reconstituted Charter Revision Commission to submit its draft report. Councilor Joseph Merritt took the floor and offered what he described as the explanation for the missing referendum.
"I have finally officially heard that nobody knows because it was a town clerk that just didn't do it," Merritt stated to the chamber. "And she was departing from that office... that's who I believe it was."
Merritt did not name the clerk. His remarks appeared to refer to the former Town Clerk, who left the office in 2025. But the department had already rejected that account. As reported in Part 1, when Merritt first raised the prospect of a clerical failure, current Town Clerk Andrea DiStephan denied it on the record: "There was not an oversight by the Town Clerk."
Town Manager Alvin D. Schwapp, Jr. has declined to explain how the certified question failed to reach the Secretary of the State. He responded by email on March 29, 2026 to a press inquiry from the Bloomfield Community Dispatch, as reported in Part 1: "I have no comment, please do not stop the presses for me." He did not address the charter question at the August 24 meeting.
The Written Admissions: Executive Memo vs. Official Email
Councilor Shamar Mahon took the floor to contest Merritt's account. He read into the record written correspondence that Deputy Town Manager Sharron Howe (now Tai-Williams) had sent to resident Kate Keefe, and that had been forwarded to the Town Council. Mahon identified her at the meeting by the name she uses on social media. Keefe confirmed her identity to the Bloomfield Community Dispatch and consented to being named.
"Contrary to what my colleague just stated... what he just said is completely untrue," Mahon stated. "We actually received an email—all of us, Joe was on the email as well—from a resident that received an email from our Deputy Town Manager, Sharon Howe, regarding why the Town Charter did not make it on the ballot. And to sum it up, she states that it's because Town staff wanted to provide feedback and contribute to the Charter process, so that's why it wasn't put on. That's exactly the rationale that was given from the Deputy Town Manager... there's written proof of it here."
Howe's explanation was not an isolated statement. It mirrors the doctrine Town Manager Alvin D. Schwapp, Jr. set out in a formal memorandum to the Town Council on January 27, 2026 (Item 2026-38, Page 18):
| Town Manager Alvin D. Schwapp, Jr. Official Council Memorandum (Jan. 27, 2026) |
Deputy Town Manager Sharron Howe Official Administrative Correspondence |
|---|---|
| "As part of the required process, the Council previously voted on whether to place a Charter revision question on the November 2025 ballot." | "As part of the Charter revision process, the Council was required to take a vote on whether to place a question on the ballot..." |
| "This action was a procedural step intended to preserve the option of pursuing Charter revisions..." | "...not necessarily to move forward with the revisions, but to preserve the option to do so." |
| "...it did not obligate the Town to proceed with the revisions as drafted." | "The vote taken was a procedural requirement to keep the possibility of moving forward open." |
The email lays out the administration's view of the August 11, 2025 Council vote. It treats the vote as a placeholder rather than a binding order to put the question on the ballot:
"As part of the Charter revision process, the Council was required to take a vote on whether to place a question on the ballot—not necessarily to move forward with the revisions, but to preserve the option to do so. The vote taken was a procedural requirement to keep the possibility of moving forward open... Now, with the benefit of the Town Manager, Finance Director, and other new Town staff having been in their roles for several months to over a year, all have identified areas of the Charter that could be revisited... In the interest of completeness over expediency, it is best to take this opportunity to revisit the Charter revision process with a fresh and comprehensive view informed by our staff's experiences."
Under C.G.S. § 9-369a(b), the municipal clerk must act once she determines that the necessary action has been taken to put a question to voters. The clerk "shall, at least forty-five days prior to the election, file in the office of the Secretary of the State a statement setting forth the designation of the question as it is to appear on the ballot." The statute assigns that duty to the clerk. It gives administrative staff no power to postpone an approved referendum for further internal review.
That structure sharpens the central question rather than settling it. Town Clerk Andrea DiStephan has stated on the record that there was no oversight by her office. If the clerk's office did not fail to act, the remaining possibility is that no one told it the necessary action had been taken. the Bloomfield Community Dispatch has asked Town Hall who contacted the Town Clerk's office about the August 11, 2025 vote, and when.
Administrative Power and Democratic Norms
The Council's vote was binding. Treating it as optional breaks with how towns normally operate, according to a political scientist who assessed the governance questions raised by the case for the Dispatch. Associate Professor James Newman, Ph.D., answered written questions from the Dispatch by email on March 27, 2026.
Asked how political science describes an administration that concentrates control of the charter process in the executive branch, Newman pointed to classic historical models. "With this one, the term 'machine politics' comes to mind," he wrote, citing the Daley organization in Chicago, Boss Tweed in New York, Crump in Memphis, and Long in Louisiana. "By concentrating power in the executive branch, you also move toward the illiberal democracy."
Fareed Zakaria popularized that term. In the passage Newman quoted, it describes regimes that win office democratically, then ignore the constitutional limits on their power. Officials usually justify such moves as efficiency, Newman wrote, but the effect is to bypass the checks and balances built into American government. He added that officials often press ahead knowing the conduct is improper, "until they are forced to change."
On an executive redefining a completed legislative vote, Newman warned of lasting damage: "This opens a Pandora's box [of] activity... that ignores accepted norms or law. In doing so, trust erodes with local government."
State Election Officials Confirm Non-Receipt and SEEC Review
State election officials have documented the breakdown. In an official communication to the Bloomfield Community Dispatch, the Office of the Secretary of the State confirmed the statutory timeline and the Town's failure to file.
Matthew Clyburn, Assistant Director of Communications for Secretary of the State Stephanie Thomas, laid out the deadlines:
- September 5, 2025 (C.G.S. § 9-370): The deadline for the Town Council to approve a measure for the ballot. The Bloomfield Town Council met it with its unanimous vote on August 11, 2025.
- September 19, 2025 (C.G.S. § 9-369a): The deadline for the municipal clerk to file a certified statement with the Secretary of the State, setting out the question as it would appear on voting machines.
"We did not receive the ballot question from the Town of Bloomfield," Clyburn confirmed in writing. He noted that formal complaints about compliance with election filing law fall to the State Elections Enforcement Commission (SEEC).
State Regulatory Tracking: SEEC Complaint (Docket #2026-012)
Bloomfield resident Mark Sanderson told the Bloomfield Community Dispatch that he filed a formal complaint with the State Elections Enforcement Commission (SEEC) over the missing referendum question, and that the Commission acknowledged receipt under Docket #2026-012.
An SEEC representative told the Dispatch that state confidentiality law bars agency staff from disclosing preliminary investigative steps, target notifications, or cross-agency filings while a matter is under review.
Council Approves Draft Extension to January 2027
At the August 24 meeting, the Council also took up the timeline for future charter proposals, voting to extend the reporting schedule for the newly appointed Charter Revision Commission.
The Council voted 6–2–1 to move the deadline for the Commission's draft report to January 30, 2027. Councilors Todd Cooper, Michael Oliver, Joseph Merritt, Elizabeth Waterhouse, Deputy Mayor Cindy Lloyd, and Mayor Anthony Harrington voted in favor. Councilors Suzette DeBeatham-Brown and Shamar Mahon voted against. Councilor Darrell Goodwin abstained.
C.G.S. § 7-191 requires public hearings, council recommendations, and final revisions after a draft report is submitted. Under those timelines, a January 30, 2027 draft deadline means no charter referendum can reach Bloomfield voters before the November 2027 municipal election. That is three years after the first Commission began its work.
Deputy Mayor Cindy Lloyd supported the change, calling the added time a chance for fuller staff input. "I think it's an unfortunate miss, but it's also an amazing opportunity that we now have the time to go back," Lloyd stated, adding that the additional time allows the town to incorporate "input from the staff specifically based on things that have transpired over the last year."
Inquiries and the Public Record
The Office of the Town Manager, the Mayor, and members of the Town Council were contacted Tuesday morning, September 1, 2026, with specific questions about the C.G.S. § 9-369a non-receipt and the administrative correspondence. No response or clarification had come by the 1:00 PM publication deadline. Under Dispatch editorial policy, any later on-the-record statements from town officials will be published in full as an addendum.
The public record is still defined by primary documents. The Secretary of the State's confirmation, the SEEC filing under Docket #2026-012, and the Deputy Town Manager's written explanation together establish that the 2025 referendum was left off the ballot because administrators chose to delay it for further internal staff review. The result is a process that defers voter consideration of the Town Charter until at least late 2027.
Isn't it odd that Joe Merritt now blames the departed Town Clerk for this disaster? A long time ago, Joe blamed himself for the "oversight". So, which is it, Joe? Here's a fact, Joe. This was on the Town Manager. The buck stops at his desk. He did not do his job and deliberately kept this off the ballot. He is guilty of a civil crime. He needs to be held accountable. But this Council does not know how to control its own Town Manager. He is a loose cannon.
ReplyDelete