Editor’s note: After CFO Dawn Savo challenged GMW’s characterization of remarks made at the Tuesday, Sept. 8 Board of Finance meeting, GMW reviewed the meeting recording and transcript again. That review found that the original Sept. 9 article misquoted BOF Chair Tim Birch as saying consultant Joseph Centofanti “didn’t produce it,” rather than his exact words, “didn’t produce anything.” The article also presented Birch’s conjecture about how continuing FY25 work may have affected FY26 reporting more definitively than the meeting supported. GMW corrected and clarified the original article on Sept. 10.
GOOD Morning Wilton is committed to accurate, fair reporting and to holding itself to the same standards of accountability that it applies to the public officials and institutions it covers. Examining and correcting our own work is part of the same professional obligation that guides our accountability reporting: pursue the facts, distinguish between what is known and what’s uncertain, and correct the record openly when our reporting falls short. In the same way GMW asks our elected officials for accountability, we need to hold ourselves to the same standard.
Savo’s response to our Sept. 9 story is published in full below, together with additional reporting about the timeline, what selectmen understood, and the questions her response inspired that remain unanswered.
Key Points:
- Wilton CFO Dawn Savo says accounting consultant Joseph Centofanti completed his primary assignment and delivered “final reconciled trial balances” on April 15.
- Selectmen David Tatkow and Matt Raimondi say key details about Centofanti’s work and status were not communicated clearly to the BOS, as public discussions in May, June and July continued to describe Centofanti’s reconciliation work as ongoing.
- Savo did not answer GMW’s follow-up questions about the timeline, FY26 financial reports, consulting payments and contract deliverables by Monday’s deadline.
Why It Matters: The Town has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for consulting work while its FY25 audit remains long overdue. Conflicting accounts about who completed Wilton’s FY25 financial work — and when it was done — have raised continuing questions for some elected officials.
One date now sits at the center of conflicting accounts about consultant Joseph Centofanti‘s work for the Town of Wilton: April 15, 2026.
Following remarks from Wilton’s Board of Finance Chair Tim Birch that accounting consultant Centofanti “didn’t produce anything” after the Town engaged him to work on its long-overdue FY25 audit prep, Chief Financial Officer Dawn Savo sent a statement to GOOD Morning Wilton that she disagreed with how events were characterized in an article about what Birch said.
She wrote that Centofanti “completed the primary work he was engaged to perform” and delivered “the final reconciled trial balances” on that date. She said that since then he has remained available to answer questions and provide additional analysis requested by the Town or its auditors.
Her support of Centofanti came after Birch said Savo took on final work involving Wilton’s fiscal year 2025 finances during a BOF review of progress on the long-overdue FY25 annual audit as well as whether work had begun on FY26 financials.
But two members of the Board of Selectmen raised separate concerns with Savo’s statement — one around Centofanti’s April completion date and the other regarding subsequent changes in his role — and said Savo’s account does not align with what they understood from public discussions that continued after April 15.
Selectman David Tatkow said the date surprised him, and that selectmen were informed during public discussions in May and June that Centofanti’s work remained underway.
“We were told that his work was not done,” Tatkow told GMW in an on-the-record interview. “The date of April 15 being thrown out … is surprising to me because that wasn’t the communication that we had heard.”
Selectman Matt Raimondi separately said he had not been informed of any change in Centofanti’s role or status.
“If his work with Wilton has in fact ended, I am surprised that this was not communicated to the Board of Selectmen, particularly given that I specifically asked at our meeting about changes that had occurred within the Finance Department,” Raimondi wrote in response to GMW’s questions.
[Editor’s note: Both officials said they were not speaking on behalf of the BOS and that their comments reflect their own individual views.]
Savo’s statement did not say Centofanti’s engagement had ended, but it said he continued to be available to answer questions and provide analysis as needed. However, her statement did not answer questions GMW had sent to town officials about whether he is still working for the Town, whether his firm continues to bill for his services or whether the Town is paying those invoices.
The selectmen’s reactions and earlier remarks from the BOF members expose a larger question than the completion date of a particular accounting deliverable: What did Town officials consider Centofanti’s assignment to be, when was it completed and what were the BOS and BOF told along the way?
Savo did not answer detailed questions from GMW seeking to reconcile the differing accounts by a 10 a.m. Monday, Sept. 14 deadline, nor did she request additional time.
Public Discussions Continued After April 15
The public record does not provide a straightforward answer.
At the May 18 BOS meeting, more than a month after the date on which Savo said Centofanti delivered “final reconciled trial balances,” Town officials discussed substantial work that apparently remained on Centofanti’s plate, including the reconciliation of pooled cash involving the General Fund.
The selectmen asked Savo whether additional help should be hired and whether paying Centofanti more could accelerate the work.
At that meeting, First Selectwoman Toni Boucher recounted that when Savo was offered the CFO position, “it was a requirement of the job that the outside consultant stay on to complete the job.” Savo confirmed this and described Centofanti’s continued involvement as a “prerequisite” to her accepting Wilton’s job offer.
At the June 15 BOS meeting, Savo said Centofanti was continuing to perform work for the Town. She described reconciliation of the General Fund and pooled cash as “in progress” and said the Town would miss the June 30 extension deadline for completing the audit.
Savo also said the Town was withholding payments from PKF O’Connor Davies, Centofanti’s firm, because of the delay.
Then, at the July 6 BOS meeting, Savo presented selectmen with what she called a “draft final reconciliation” prepared by Centofanti. She said she had received his permission to distributed it but declined to answer detailed questions about the figures because she had not prepared or closely reviewed the document herself.
“Since I did not put these together, and I have not really … delved into them, I can’t answer any specific questions,” Savo said.
Later, she added, “I don’t really want to take any questions on that. I’m just making a statement on that.”
Those statements do not necessarily establish that Centofanti did not deliver trial balances April 15. “Primary work,” “final reconciled trial balances,” “pooled-cash reconciliation,” “audit preparation” and a “draft final reconciliation” may refer to different stages or components of the overall engagement.
But neither Savo nor Town Hall has explained those distinctions, leaving selectmen and the public unclear about what Centofanti completed April 15, what work remained afterward and when his primary assignment ended.
The FY25 audit remained unfinished as additional projected completion dates passed. By Sept. 8, Town officials said it was expected by Sept. 30.
Savo Defends Centofanti’s Work
Savo submitted a written response after GMW reported comments Birch made during the Sept. 8 BOF meeting about Centofanti’s work and the continued absence of detailed FY26 financial reports.
BOF members had understood that Savo was concentrating on FY26 while Centofanti handled the remaining FY25 work. During the Sept. 8 meeting, BOF member Kari Roberts said she believed Town officials had made clear “that [FY]’25 is all” Centofanti and that Savo was “doing nothing but [FY]’26.”
“Well, our new CFO ended up doing the end of ’25 as well,” Birch responded.
When Roberts asked whether that was because the Town had stopped paying Centofanti, Birch said, “Because he didn’t produce anything.”
At nearly the same moment, BOF Vice Chair Rudy Escalante said, “He didn’t do a good job.”
Roberts then asked whether the Town could recover some of the money paid for Centofanti’s services.
Neither Birch nor Escalante specified what work Centofanti had failed to produce or perform adequately. Birch also described as “conjecture” his later suggestion that Finance Department staff may have gone “all hands on” FY25 while doing enough work on FY26 to “keep the ship afloat.”
GMW corrected Birch’s quotation and clarified those points in the original article.
In her statement to GMW, Savo strongly disputed the characterization of Centofanti’s work. Her response is published in full below:
Dear Editor:
I would like to clarify a point from the September 9th Good Morning Wilton article regarding the FY25 audit and the discussion at the Board of Finance meeting referenced in the article. In your paper’s Key Points box at the top of the article, it states that I “…took over FY25 reconciliation work…” from Joe Centofanti because, according to Board of Finance Chair, Tim Birch, he “…didn’t produce it [the audit].” This is in no way my characterization of what occurred.
Joe’s contract with the Town identified “assistance with audit request/preparation” as part of his services. Before the audit could move forward, significant foundational work was necessary. The Munis ERP implementation was incomplete, funds and accounts needed to be properly established and organized, and FY25 accounting records needed to be completed and reconciled. Joe completed the primary work he was engaged to perform and provided the final reconciled trial balances on April 15, 2026. Since then, he has continued to be available to answer questions asked by the Town and auditors and to provide additional analysis as necessary, or when it is requested by the auditors. This ongoing support is helping to facilitate the completion of the audit.
As CFO, I have direct access to Town records and personnel, and it therefore makes all practical sense for me to be actively involved in closing out the FY25 audit process. This was always an expectation of mine and of Town leaders. Completing an audit is a team effort, and PKF, the Finance Department and the auditors are working together to bring the FY25 audit across the finish line.
Dawn Savo
Chief Financial Officer
Town of Wilton
Although Savo’s letter interpreted GMW‘s original article as attributing to Birch the claim that Centofanti did not produce “[the audit],” Birch did not use those words and did not identify a particular deliverable. His precise reference remains unclear.
Savo’s response does not fully resolve the timeline of Centofanti’s work.
Tatkow: “The Transparency … Has Not Been Great”
Tatkow said Savo’s response initially eased some of the concern he felt after reading the GMW article and Birch’s comments.
If Centofanti completed the background reconciliations he was hired to perform and Savo was handling only closing steps that required access to Town personnel and records, Tatkow said, that would be more consistent with what he believed the arrangement to be.
But he said Savo’s April 15 date was new to him and did not match what selectmen heard from Boucher and Savo during the public meetings that followed. Tatkow said he did not recall being told that final reconciled trial balances had been delivered April 15.
“We were having those pretty difficult discussions with Dawn and Toni,” he said. “We were told that his work was not done.”
Tatkow said the boundary among Centofanti’s reconciliation work, his assistance to the outside auditors and work that had to be completed by Town employees remained a “gray area.”
“The transparency around the whole thing has not been great,” Tatkow said. “We’ve asked a lot of questions.”
Both the BOS and BOF asked multiple times for Centofanti to attend a public meeting and answer questions about his work. He did not appear.
Tatkow called that “really unacceptable,” noting that Wilton was paying for Centofanti’s services. He said he had told Boucher that he wanted Town leadership to apply more pressure to require Centofanti to appear.
“It seemed that they were more resigned to allow that to happen — that he wouldn’t come before the boards — and I, to this day, still don’t fully understand that,” Tatkow said.
Asked whether Birch’s and Escalante’s statements about Centofanti could have been wrong, Tatkow said he did not have enough information to reach that conclusion.
“Maybe they’re right,” he said. “Maybe there are things that we weren’t aware of and would be problematic.”
Raimondi Says Change Was Not Communicated
Raimondi said he had not been informed of a change in Centofanti’s role or status, despite recently asking about changes within the Finance Department.
“I was not aware of any change in Mr. Centofanti’s role or status with the Town,” Raimondi wrote in response to GMW. “If his work with Wilton has in fact ended, I am surprised that this was not communicated to the Board of Selectmen, particularly given that I specifically asked at our meeting about changes that had occurred within the Finance Department.”
In response to GMW’s broader questions about BOS oversight, accountability and the Town’s failure to provide timely and complete financial information, Raimondi said his comments and questions during the Sept. 8 BOS meeting “speak for themselves.”
Those comments at the Sept. 8 BOS meeting were pointed.
After receiving preliminary financial figures at the meeting rather than in advance, Raimondi connected the late reporting to FY25 overages the BOS did not learn about until after the fiscal year had ended.
“We just came from a very real experience where we were penalized for not doing that in the past,” Raimondi said. “The point of it is to make sure this board fully understands what is going on.”
When Boucher urged selectmen to be patient because Savo was consumed with the overdue audit, Raimondi pushed back.
“You keep saying that,” he told Boucher. “What makes this different times? This is financial management.”
“People can multitask, right? You can do an audit and also produce your monthly financials to download on a dashboard,” he added.
GMW reported separately on the late and incomplete financial reports presented to the BOS.
Tatkow: “The Buck Has to Stop” with Town Management
Tatkow said Savo inherited an understaffed Finance Department with incomplete systems and processes. He cautioned against placing responsibility for every problem on her.
But he also said the BOS and BOF have the right and obligation to ask rigorous questions and expect complete answers.
“There have been times where those questions have not come back adequately answered, and I sense the frustration from the Board of Finance, and I’m very sympathetic to that,” Tatkow said.
He said the BOS has repeatedly asked about the audit since the winter and spring, but “it feels like we just get stonewalled often, over and over.”
Tatkow said the selectmen must exercise oversight even though the first selectman is responsible for daily Town’s operations.
“Ultimately, the buck has to stop with the person who manages the Town,” Tatkow said.
The selectmen expect a detailed financial discussion at their Sept. 21 meeting, he added, and he remained hopeful the audit would be completed.
FY26 Reports and Other Questions Remain Unanswered
Last week, GMW sent detailed follow-up questions to Savo and copied all five selectmen and Birch. The email requested answers by 10 a.m. Monday, Sept. 14 and invited Savo to request additional time if necessary.
Several of the follow-up questions sought to reconcile Savo’s April 15 account with statements made at the May, June and July meetings, asking her to clarify:
- What the April 15 “final reconciled trial balances” included and whether they covered a fully reconciled General Fund and pooled cash
- Why General Fund and pooled-cash reconciliation remained “in progress” in June
- What work Centofanti and Savo each performed after April 15
- Whether Centofanti remains engaged, whether PKF continues to submit invoices and whether the Town is paying those invoices or withholding any amounts
- How much PKF has billed for Centofanti’s services, how much the Town has paid and how much remains unpaid or withheld
- Whether the FY26 budget-to-actual reports requested by Birch exist, why the BOF has not received them and when they will be provided
- Whether the Town will review whether Centofanti and PKF fulfilled the applicable contract terms and deliverables
The concerns extend beyond the FY25 audit.
At the Sept. 8 BOF meeting, Birch said he had been asking for FY26 budget-to-actual reports for two months but still had not received them.
“We don’t have that,” Birch said. “We’ve asked for it. We don’t have it. I’ll continue to ask for it every week like I do until we get it.”
GMW asked Savo whether she had received Birch’s requests, whether the reports currently exist, why they have not been provided and when the BOF should expect them.
GMW also asked whether any preliminary or partial FY26 budget-to-actual figures had been provided and who is responsible for preparing and delivering the reports.
Savo did not answer any of those questions by GMW’s deadline.
Aside from Tatkow’s earlier on-the-record interview and Raimondi’s brief written response to GMW‘s earlier questions, no other recipient of that email provided additional answers before publication.
GMW will update this report if Savo or another Town official responds.
