Transparency Check: Wilton Officials Offer Some Answers on Moody’s, but Questions Remain

GOOD Morning Wilton broke the story last week that after Moody’s had placed Wilton’s Aaa ratings under review on June 30, Town Hall officials who knew kept it confidential without formally briefing the Board of Selectmen or Board of Finance members. We sent detailed questions to multiple elected Town officials, and the responses revealed that several of them had not known about the review until GMW brought it to their attention and made the news public.

First Selectwoman Toni Boucher and CFO Dawn Savo have since explained parts of their handling of the review. But their responses have yet to establish a complete account of who knew what, who authorized key financial disclosures and why elected boards and residents were not informed.

The Oct. 5 Board of Selectmen meeting established that Boucher learned of the situation in July after returning from vacation, and that Second Selectman Ross Tartell, who’d been covering some duties in her absence, had discussed Moody’s request for financial information with Savo. Tartell qualified how fully he understood the situation, leaving unclear whether he knew then that Moody’s had formally placed Wilton’s ratings under review. Before the Oct. 5 meeting, he had declined to answer GMW‘s questions about when he learned of the review and what he believed should have been disclosed to other selectmen.

GMW’s questions, emailed to multiple elected officials and various Town advisors on Monday, Sept. 28, concerned the Town’s credit ratings, governance and transparency: When did officials learn of the review? Who did they notify? Why was an unfinished, incorrect FY2025 financial report posted publicly to the municipal bond market? Who decided when elected boards would receive it? And more.

Some officials answered individually. Others declined or have not responded in writing. Boucher acknowledged GMW’s accompanying request for records under the Freedom of Information Act but has not yet provided responsive materials.

Questions preceded Boucher’s statement

GMW sent Boucher and Savo detailed questions and a records request at 1:42 p.m. on Monday, Sept. 28, while preparing its report on Moody’s previously undisclosed review.

The questions asked when each learned of the review, what information had Moody’s requested from the Town, whether they had informed the BOS and BOF, who authorized the Sept. 1 EMMA posting and what commitments the Town had made about completing the audit.

Savo’s account generated an automatic reply saying she was out of the office until Oct. 5.

Boucher acknowledged receipt of the records request at 2:45 p.m., with both the BOS and Board of Finance copied. GMW replied to reiterate that it was also seeking answers to the reporting questions:

“To be clear, we are also asking for answers to questions under a deadline in advance of any FOIA deadline, and which pertain to information released publicly by Moody’s.”

At 7:30 p.m. Wednesday, Sept. 30, Boucher sent a statement confirming the events GMW had reported: Moody’s placed Wilton on its ratings-under-review list, then confirmed its Aaa ratings after receiving draft financial information.

“We thank our CFO for this,” she wrote.

The statement did not answer any of GMW‘s questions — when she knew, whom she informed, whether she approved the public posting or what the Town had promised Moody’s.

“I hope to review other questions you may have as soon as I am able,” she added.

At the Oct. 5 meeting, Boucher was more forthcoming. She said she learned of the situation after returning from vacation in July through a conversation with Tartell. She defended not informing the boards because she said “it was still in process.”

That explanation answered part of GMW’s inquiry. It did not establish the exact notification date, what information she received or her role in approving the EMMA posting.

Savo’s explanation leaves the posting decision unresolved

Savo has not provided a written response to GMW’s Sept. 28 questions. She did provide additional information publicly Oct. 5.

She said Moody’s contacted the Town “confidentially” in early July seeking information, that she notified Tartell in Boucher’s absence and that she contacted the municipal bond advisor. An initial submission to Moody’s proved insufficient, she said, prompting the agency to request a draft with notes, which the Town provided at the end of August.

Her explanation leaves a distinction unresolved: Moody’s request for financial information versus the decision to post the entire unfinished report publicly to EMMA, the municipal bond market’s disclosure system.

Savo had previously said the posting was made on municipal advisor Barry Bernabe’s recommendation “to accommodate Moody’s.”

GMW asked what precisely Bernabe recommended posting, whether Moody’s required an EMMA filing, who reviewed the document and who authorized its release. It also asked whether the draft was sent directly to Moody’s and what the agency received on each date.

Those details remain unanswered.

Also outstanding are questions about who set the Sept. 30 audit-completion target, what the state and Moody’s were told about it and what either agency required in response.

Tartell declined questions before July involvement became public

GMW sent individual questions to BOS members at 3:10 p.m. on Sept. 28. Members were expressly asked to answer for themselves rather than on behalf of the board.

At 10:38 p.m., Tartell declined.

“I will follow town protocol as outlined in Guide to Serving on a Town Board/Commission for members of Boards and Commissions, and therefore, I will not be answering your questions,” he wrote.

The provision he cited states that only a board’s chairperson should speak “on behalf of the Board/Commission.” GMW had requested his individual knowledge and views.

GMW followed up on Sept. 29, pointing out that distinction and his previous willingness to submit an individual statement supporting Savo’s work. It also asked whether the newly disclosed Moody’s events met the standard he had articulated in that statement: “The Town should evaluate this work carefully, fairly, and on the basis of accurate and complete information.”

He has not answered that follow-up.

The Oct. 5 meeting subsequently established that Tartell’s involvement dated to July. Savo said she notified him after receiving Moody’s request, and Boucher identified him as the person who discussed the situation with her upon her return.

Tartell qualified how fully he understood the inquiry. He also said he had been told to keep the later ratings confirmation confidential.

His individual notification timeline, what he understood in July and who requested confidentiality remain unresolved. Moody’s review and subsequent ratings confirmation were publicly announced by the agency.

A separate dispute over withholding the draft from Town officials

Tartell did respond to another inquiry: GMW’s request for his reaction to BOF Chair Timothy Birch and Vice Chair Rudy Escalante, who disputed an account of their discussions with Savo about distributing the audit draft to the BOS and BOF.

At the Sept. 22 BOS meeting, Tartell read Savo’s statement that she had consulted Birch and Escalante and that they agreed the draft should not be distributed to the boards until the audit was complete. He also said Savo had “followed direction on that.”

In his response to GMW, Tartell took issue with Escalante’s characterization that he had said BOF leadership requested “no more reports.”

“I accurately read the written response. My subsequent comments relied on it, rather than independent knowledge of the conversations it described,” Tartell wrote.

GMW then asked whether his “followed direction” statement meant he believed Birch and Escalante had directed Savo to withhold the draft, whether he stood by that interpretation after both disputed it and whether he believed they had authority to decide for the full BOF.

That follow-up remains unanswered.

Birch distinguishes a more complete draft from a final audit

GMW sent questions to BOF members Sept. 28. Birch responded at 11:44 a.m. Friday, Oct. 2, expressly as an individual member rather than as chair.

He said he had not been told of Moody’s review before BOF member Kim Healy’s Sept. 9 email about the EMMA posting. He identified Sept. 9 as the date he learned of the posting.

Birch acknowledged a discussion about waiting for a more complete draft.

“Yes, it was explained to me that the preliminary draft was materially incomplete and it was suggested BOF should wait for a more complete draft before its review,” he wrote.

He denied suggesting that review should wait until the audit was final.

Birch said the BOF had not had conversations with Moody’s. Asked about Savo seeking guidance on changing the Sept. 30 target, he said he did not recall the conversation.

His response also confirmed that the BOF expected to review the report before finalization and that some required information remained missing at the time of his reply.

What other board members said

Healy responded at 5:25 p.m. Sept. 28. She said she learned of Moody’s review from GMW’s questions that day.

She said she discovered the EMMA draft Sept. 9 and immediately shared it with the BOF. Reviewing it revealed the $9.58 million correction to FY2024 financial figures and other incorrect information.

At the time of her response, she said no updated draft had been shared with the BOF since Sept. 23 and her proposed corrections had not been confirmed as incorporated.

“I expect to review the final version before it is formally finalized,” she wrote.

Selectman David Tatkow responded at 12:28 p.m. Sept. 29.

“I do not ever recall being told that Moody’s had placed Wilton under review on June 30th. I read this in GMW last night,” he wrote.

He recalled receiving an email from a BOF member mentioning the EMMA report around Sept. 9 or 10, although he would need to check the date. He wanted Boucher’s explanation before reaching conclusions about what the BOS should have been told.

Selectman Rich McCarty replied at 12:55 p.m. Sept. 29, invoking the protocol cited by Tartell rather than answering individually. He directed GMW to June board meetings without identifying particular meetings or statements.

No other BOS or BOF members provided written responses to this set of questions.

Selectman Matt Raimondi led much of the questioning at the Oct. 5 meeting. Tatkow and McCarty joined him in pressing Boucher publicly Oct. 5 about disclosure and accountability.

The advisor, auditors and requested records

GMW sent Bernabe questions at 1:52 p.m. Sept. 28. He has not responded.

The questions sought his account of Moody’s requests, his notifications to Town officials, his advice concerning EMMA and his June 9 explanation of December as the point at which Moody’s would withdraw Wilton’s ratings.

GMW sent questions to Leslie Zoll, the audit engagement principal at CliftonLarsonAllen, at 3:21 p.m. Sept. 28. She has not responded to questions about whether CLA reviewed or approved the Sept. 1 draft for posting, when it identified the FY2024 capital asset error or whom it notified.

The FY25 audit also remains unfinished (and almost 10 months overdue from the first reporting deadline) while the Town addresses a disputed accounting change. At the Oct. 5 meeting, the BOS rejected, 4-1, Boucher’s request to retroactively approve Fund 02, which consultant Joseph Centofanti had created during his reconciliation work. Other selectmen cited unanswered questions about its authorization and operation, and directed Savo to reverse Centofanti’s work on Fund 02 and restore the prior accounting treatment.

Boucher warned that rejecting approval could delay the audit further, and that it would be “up to the board to take responsibility for that.” Raimondi rejected that suggestion, saying members received the request by email only 40 minutes before the meeting. He said any resulting delay rested with Town Hall, specifically Boucher, for not bringing the matter forward sooner.

Separately, Boucher has not responded to GMW’s request for her account of a Sept. 23 phone call that Escalante described at the Sept. 29 BOF meeting. He said the call involving Boucher and Savo concerned Healy’s request to offer comments on the draft and involved “a full-on panic.”

The records requested Sept. 28 — including communications that could establish the notification timeline, posting instructions and commitments to Moody’s — have not been provided.

Wilton retained its Aaa ratings. What remains unresolved is the full account of how officials handled the review, why information was withheld from elected boards and residents, and what changes will ensure they are informed when financial risks arise.