The $1,500 Bailout

Investigative Legal Analysis

The $1,500 Bailout: Taxpayers Paid Alvin Schwapp's Personal FOIC Fine Without a Council Vote

By Peter C. Frank

Editor-in-Chief, the Bloomfield Community Dispatch

BLOOMFIELD, CT (October 23, 2026) — When the Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC) issues a civil penalty, it imposes that penalty on an individual official, not on the town. In July 2025, the Commission ordered Bloomfield Town Manager Alvin D. Schwapp, Jr. to pay $1,500. It found that he denied a records request "without reasonable grounds" and that parts of his testimony were "not credible."

Bloomfield taxpayers paid the penalty instead.

At a July 14, 2025 Town Council meeting, Schwapp said the fine would be paid by the Town. Then-Mayor Danielle C. Wong said the Town would pay it "per policy per state statute," but did not say which policy or statute. Councilor Cindi Lloyd called it "the custom." Council minutes show no vote to approve the payment. And the Dispatch found no court decision that settles whether state law required the Town to pay, allowed it, or barred it.

The FOIC ordered Town Manager Alvin D. Schwapp, Jr. to pay a $1,500 civil penalty personally. The Town paid it from its General Fund. (Editorial illustration created with AI.)

The Underlying Violation: Docket # FIC 2024-0425

The penalty grew out of a records request filed on July 1, 2024. The request sought records about Town Attorney Andrew Crumbie's contract with the Town and his legal bills. The Town did not begin releasing records until more than five months later, at the first FOIC hearing (Final Decision, ¶¶ 2, 77).

After five hearings, the Commission issued its final decision on July 9, 2025. It found that Schwapp's "conflicting and misleading testimony" was "not reasonable" (¶ 86). It found two parts of his testimony "not credible": his explanation for the five-month delay (¶ 78), and his claim that a settlement agreement with the Town's former purchasing director had "nothing to do" with staff's work on the request (¶ 68). It also found that he used "tactics to avoid complying" with the request (¶ 88). The Commission concluded that Schwapp denied the requester's rights "without reasonable grounds" (¶ 90) and fined him $1,500 under Connecticut General Statutes § 1-206(b)(2).

Crucially, the statutory language of C.G.S. § 1-206(b)(2) does not penalize the municipal entity for institutional delays. It empowers the Commission to:

"...impose against the custodian or other official a civil penalty of not less than twenty dollars nor more than five thousand dollars."

The order named Schwapp personally: "The respondent Town Manager Alvin Schwapp, as the official directly responsible for the denial herein, shall remit to the Commission, within forty-five (45) days of the Notice of Final Decision in this matter, a civil penalty in the amount one thousand, five hundred dollars ($1,500.00)" (Order ¶ 1, p. 14). The Commission found that Town Clerk Anna Posniak also failed to prove a thorough search, but chose not to fine her (¶¶ 91–92).

Statutory Fact Check: Personal Deterrence vs. Public Absorption

Section 1-206(b)(2) lets the FOIC penalize "the custodian or other official" responsible for a violation. It does not penalize the town. The Connecticut Supreme Court has called this civil penalty "the exclusive remedy" for violations of rights under the Freedom of Information Act (Pane v. City of Danbury, 267 Conn. 669, 841 A.2d 684 (2004)). The Appellate Court has upheld penalties imposed on individuals, including $750 against each plaintiff in a Norwich volunteer fire department records case (O'Connell v. Freedom of Information Commission, 54 Conn. App. 373, 735 A.2d 363 (1999)). The statute does not say who may pay a penalty once it is imposed, and Inside Investigator has reported that the Commission does not direct how its fines are paid. But when a town pays, the official the Commission named pays nothing.

The July 14 Dais Defense: "Per State Statute"

The fine came up at the Town Council's July 14, 2025 meeting, five days after the FOIC ruled. During public comment, one speaker said: "I would hope that that fine is not paid by the town, it is paid by the town manager himself" (28:25). Later, a councilor pressed Schwapp: "Who is going to be paying this fine?" (1:25:34). Schwapp answered that "the fine will be paid by the town" (1:25:43).

Then-Mayor Danielle C. Wong ended the discussion: "This is not a matter of who's going to pay the penalty. The municipality will be paying the penalty per policy per state statute" (1:31:45).

The official minutes of the meeting summarize Schwapp's report this way: "The town will pay the fine, as is standard practice for municipalities."

Earlier in the discussion, Councilor Cindi Lloyd, now Deputy Mayor and Chair of the Finance, Budget, Audit & Bonding Subcommittee, cited her experience as a former Bloomfield police officer: "the actions of an employee are the responsibility of the employer. And so that is why the fine will be paid by the town." She added that she didn't "know that Connecticut General Statutes allows it to be addressed in any other way, but that is the custom" (1:28:05).

The Town followed through. The Town's online finance portal, reviewed by the Dispatch in 2025, listed check #308 for $1,500, dated August 14, 2025. It was paid from the General Fund and charged to "Other Contractual Services" under the Town Manager's miscellaneous account (Org #9506200). In a November 20, 2025 phone call, FOIC staff confirmed to the Dispatch that the Commission had received the Town's payment. Minutes of the Council's July 14, July 29, July 31, August 11 and August 25, 2025 meetings show no motion or vote to approve the payment.

No one at the July 14 meeting said which statute required the payment. The next section looks at the two statutes named in Schwapp's own employment contract.

The Legal Anatomy: What C.G.S. §§ 7-101a and 7-465 Actually Cover

Schwapp's own employment contract names the two state laws that set the limits of the Town's duty to protect him: C.G.S. § 7-101a and § 7-465. Here is what each one covers.

C.G.S. § 7-101a protects town officials and employees from the costs of legal claims made against them. Three points matter here:

1. It covers negligence and civil-rights claims. Section 7-101a(a) requires a town to protect an employee from "financial loss and expense, including legal fees and costs," arising out of "any claim, demand, suit or judgment by reason of alleged negligence, or for alleged infringement of any person's civil rights." The words "penalty" and "fine" do not appear anywhere in the statute.
2. Its "wilful" rule depends on a court judgment. Section 7-101a(b) extends protection even to claims of a "malicious, wanton or wilful act." An employee must repay the town's defense costs only if he "has a judgment entered against him for a malicious, wanton or wilful act in a court of law." The FOIC is not a court, and it made no finding of malicious, wanton or wilful conduct. So subsection (b) does not settle this question either way.
3. Defense costs are not the penalty. The Town's attorneys at the Crumbie Law Firm represented Schwapp before the Commission (Final Decision, p. 16). Paying for a defense is the kind of cost § 7-101a describes. Paying the penalty itself is not mentioned.

Similarly, C.G.S. § 7-465, the second statute, requires a town to pay what an employee owes "for damages awarded for infringement of any person's civil rights or for physical damages to person or property." A civil penalty is not damages awarded to an injured person. It is a penalty paid to the state. Section 7-465 also excludes harm that was "the result of any wilful or wanton act of such employee."

Neither statute mentions FOIC civil penalties.

That does not mean the Town had no legal footing. As the Dispatch reported in March, Hartford employment attorney Peter Goselin said an FOIC finding alone would not be enough to bar the Town from paying, because the § 7-101a(b) exception requires a judgment from a court. In his view, the Town was legally required to pay. The Dispatch found no court decision on the question.

State lawmakers know how to forbid this kind of payment when they choose to. When the Connecticut Supreme Court quoted it in 1999, the state's election-spending law said that, "[n]otwithstanding the provisions of sections 5-141d, 7-101a and 7-465," no state or municipal officer or employee "shall be indemnified or reimbursed by the state or a municipality for a civil penalty" under that law (Sweetman v. State Elections Enforcement Commission, 249 Conn. 296 (1999), quoting C.G.S. § 9-369b). The Dispatch found no similar ban in the FOIC penalty law, § 1-206.

Contractual Limits: Section 14

Schwapp's employment contract, signed March 15, 2024, has its own indemnification clause. Section 14 reads in full:

"To the extent provided for by the Connecticut General Statutes Section 7-101a and Section 7-465, the Employer agrees to defend, save harmless and indemnify the Employee against any tort, or professional liability claim or demand or other legal action arising out of an alleged act or omission occurring in the scope and performance of the Employee's duties."

The clause covers "other legal action," and the Town could argue that an FOIC case is one. But the clause begins with a limit: the Town's duty applies only "to the extent provided for by" §§ 7-101a and 7-465. As shown above, neither statute mentions FOIC penalties. Section 14 gives Schwapp no more protection than those two statutes do. If § 7-101a covers this penalty, as Goselin believes, Section 14 covers it too. If it does not, Section 14 adds nothing.

The "Custom" Defense: Legal Limitations

Lloyd's point, that an employer answers for its employee's actions, is a real rule in lawsuits over harm an employee causes on the job. But the FOIC did not fine the Town. It fined Schwapp, by name. And the Connecticut Supreme Court has held that a municipality, as a creature of the state, "can exercise only such powers as are expressly granted to it, or such powers as are necessary to enable it to discharge the duties and carry into effect the objects and purposes of its creation" (Perretta v. City of New Britain, 185 Conn. 88 (1981)). This limit is often called Dillon's Rule. A local "custom" is not a grant of power, and it cannot authorize spending that no statute or Charter provision allows.

Questions Under the Town Charter's Fiscal Controls

The Bloomfield Town Charter sets two checks before any Town check goes out. The Dispatch has not seen the voucher or the check for this payment, so it is not known who approved or signed it. Schwapp himself announced on July 14, 2025 that the Town would pay. Whether he approved payment of his own penalty has not been made public.

• Charter Section 504 (the Treasurer's countersignature): "No money shall be drawn from any town account except by check countersigned by the town treasurer who shall not affix his or her signature to any such check unless the town treasurer is satisfied that the expenditure represented thereby has been legally incurred." Under the Charter, this $1,500 check could not go out unless the Treasurer was satisfied the payment was legal. On what basis has not been made public.
• Charter Section 603(d) (the Finance Director's approval): "No voucher, claim or charge against the town shall be paid until the same has been audited by the director of finance and approved by the director for correctness and legality." Here too, the legal basis for approving this payment has not been made public.

Editorial Transparency and Requests for Comment

Many residents in Bloomfield do not have the luxury of attending every Town Council meeting in person to hold their government accountable—particularly those who are disabled or largely homebound. They rely on documentary journalism to bridge the gap and ensure transparency. As a matter of strict editorial policy, the Bloomfield Community Dispatch provides the Town a fair chance to comment every time an article directly concerns municipal administration.

On October 23, 2026, the Dispatch asked Town Manager Alvin Schwapp, Mayor Anthony Harrington, Deputy Mayor Cindi Lloyd, and the Town's communications office who authorized the $1,500 payment, what legal authority supported it, and whether the Town Council voted on it. Eighteen minutes later, Schwapp replied: "Per our previous communications, please address all requests for comments from my office and staff to our Town Attorney's office." He copied Town Attorney Andrew Crumbie's office on that reply. The "previous communications" date to April 21, 2026, when Schwapp wrote to the Dispatch that "per the advice of our Town Attorney, Mr. Andrew R. Crumbie, I nor any of the staff of The Town of Bloomfield, will be responding to any of your inquiries." As of publication, no response had come from the Town Attorney's office, Mayor Harrington, Deputy Mayor Lloyd, or the Town's communications office.

What Comes Next

The legal question may be unsettled, but the process is not. The FOIC imposed the penalty on Schwapp personally. Schwapp announced that the Town would pay it. No Town official has publicly named the statute or policy behind the payment, and Council minutes show no vote approving it.

Connecticut law lets a taxpayer challenge a town's spending in court, but only a taxpayer who can show that the spending caused "some pecuniary or other great injury" (Alarm Applications Co. v. Simsbury Volunteer Fire Co., 179 Conn. 541 (1980)). Whether a $1,500 payment meets that test would be up to a court.

The more direct remedy belongs to the Town Council. The Council could ask Schwapp to repay the $1,500. Or it could vote in public on whether the Town should cover the penalty, and state the legal basis for doing so.

The FOIC named Schwapp as "the official directly responsible" and ordered him to pay. When the Town pays instead, citing "custom" and an unnamed "state statute," taxpayers cover a penalty the Commission imposed on one person.