Down-ballot research — Stamford, November 3, 2026

Secretary of the State · Treasurer · Comptroller · Attorney General · Judge of Probate · Board of Education

Published

October 27, 2026

How to read this

Governor, Congress, State Senate and State Representative are not covered here. Which of the six offices below appear on a Greenwich ballot is set out in the banner above.

Every factual claim below is sourced. Four things are labelled explicitly and consistently:

  • Own words — the candidate said it. Quoted or closely paraphrased from their own site, questionnaire answers or an interview.
  • Opponent’s characterization — someone running against them said it. Not a finding of fact.
  • Not found / unverified — it was looked for and not found. That is not the same as “there is nothing there.” Grievance records are often confidential, several Hearst articles are paywalled, and campaign-finance databases were only partly searched.
  • Reading — where this page reasons from the evidence instead of reporting it. It happens in a few places, the reasoning is set out in full, and it is always separable: you can reject the reading and keep the facts under it.

Nothing is inferred to fill a gap. Where two sources disagree, both are given.

Roster source. The candidate list is taken from the state’s own printed ballot for Stamford, not from a news summary: Stamford official sample ballot, Nov 3 2026. It was checked across all Stamford voting districts; the statewide and citywide offices are identical in every one.

Your ballot at a glance

# Office Democrat Republican Other lines / notes
5 Secretary of the State Stephanie Thomas Peter Lumaj Thomas: Working Families, Independent
6 Treasurer Erick Russell Fred Wilms Wilms: Independent
7 Comptroller Sean Scanlon Jennifer S. Tooker Scanlon: Working Families, Independent
8 Attorney General William Tong John Bolton Tong: Working Families
9 Judge of Probate Gerald Fox III — Uncontested
12 Board of Education George, Koc, Allan Tejeda — withdrew Oct 27 Vote for up to three; still four names on the ballot

Board of Education is the one race here with a substantiated red flag, and it is the only race on this ballot where you cast more than one vote. Three of the nine seats are up and four names are printed, but the Republican, Jose Tejeda, withdrew on October 27, 2026 after the video described below was reported. His name stays on the ballot because ballots were already printed (Stamford Advocate). In effect three Democrats are running for three seats. Details below.

The Independent Party is cross-endorsing both ways

The Independent Party of Connecticut has given its line to Thomas (D), Scanlon (D), Wilms (R), Fazio (R), Tejeda (R) and Allan (D). It is not a consistent partisan signal, and a vote on that line counts for that candidate the same as a major-party line.

Its party chair, Chip Beckett, told Hearst CT on August 26, 2026 that the party is “not very ideologically based at all.” No reporting gives a reason for any individual endorsement, and neither the party’s endorsements page nor the candidates’ own releases explain them. The party also gave Lumaj a second line in 2014, worth 27,476 votes.

Secretary of the State

Runs elections and business filings. The office implemented early voting, is replacing the state’s tabulators, and is building a new centralized voter registration system.

Stephanie Thomas (D, Working Families, Independent) — incumbent

Who she is. Connecticut’s 75th Secretary of the State, sworn in January 4, 2023; first Black person elected to the office. Lives in Norwalk. State Representative for the 143rd District (Norwalk/Wilton/Westport) 2021–2023. Thirty-plus years as a nonprofit fundraising consultant; owns Stetwin Consulting. B.A. New York University, M.S. nonprofit management, The New School. Executive board member of the National Association of Secretaries of State.

Where she stands — own words.

  • Campaign framing: “Expanding access. Strengthening trust. Inspiring participation.” Her site says that between 2023 and 2026 Connecticut will see more change in election process “than the past fifteen years combined.”
  • On running the office: “My strength is bringing calm to chaos and order to chaos.”
  • On fraud claims, in a July 30, 2026 office release: “A screenshot is not proof. A matching name is not an investigation.”
  • Current priorities as she described them to the New Haven Independent (Sept 30, 2026): new tabulators, post-election audits, election-night reporting, wider rollout of electronic poll books, and replacing retiring poll workers.
  • Federal voter-roll data: Connecticut is not opting in to federal database purge programs.
  • Civics: runs civics101.ct.gov and PowerofCivics.ct.gov, the Voice CT high-school program, and NextGen Elections, which recruits college students as poll workers.
  • Business side: calls the office “the first stop for any business in this state” and says it is streamlining the process. No specific CONCORD modernization commitment was found.

Not found: any 2026 statement from her on voter ID, automatic registration or same-day registration.

Endorsements (from her own site, not independently confirmed): CT AFL-CIO, AFSCME Council 4, CEA, AFT-CT, State Building Trades, Teamsters, Uniformed Professional Fire Fighters, Laborers’ District Council, CT AAUP; EMILY’s List, Planned Parenthood CT, Reproductive Equity Now, CT Citizen Action Group, NOW-CT, CT League of Conservation Voters, Sierra Club; Rep. Jim Himes. No newspaper endorsement found.

Red flags — Thomas

1. Two primary-petition errors, and a legislative oversight hearing. Her office issued revised petition instructions that asked circulators to report the number of signatures required rather than the number collected, and one candidate (Tom Tyler, Enfield) received forms four days early. Thomas called both “human error.” The errors produced litigation that reached the Connecticut Supreme Court and moved one House primary from August 11 to September 1 (CT News Junkie). At a September 11, 2026 hearing of the legislature’s Government Oversight Committee she said “I recognize that a heavy workload does not change the fact that we made mistakes”; her director of elections testified that the petition form had since been corrected, and the office described a new formal clearance procedure requiring important documents to be double-checked (Inside Investigator). Senate and House Republicans, in requesting the hearing, attributed the problem to “administrative errors and inaccurate instructions provided by the Secretary of the State’s Office” (CT News Junkie). This is the substantive knock on her record.

2. The “SS” remark, April 2025. At the Registrars of Voters Association spring conference, criticizing a Trump executive order on elections, she said: “I’m probably going too far, but it sounds little bit like the SS to me.” She apologized by email: “I was NOT likening any person to members of the SS and agree that I should have not said that.” A Woodbury registrar walked out; two registrars, one from each party, called the reference inappropriate; House Minority Leader Vincent Candelora called the apology “half-hearted” (CT Public).

3. SEEC complaint from an outside group, July 1, 2025. Fight Voter Fraud, Inc. filed a complaint against Thomas and local registrars alleging failure to maintain voter rolls — it claimed 524 deceased voters on the rolls across 56 towns as of June 2024, and 4,897 double registrations. Those are the filer’s allegations (Fight Voter Fraud press release). No SEEC finding was found, and no response from her office was found.

4. DOJ lawsuit — she won it. The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division sued Connecticut and Thomas on January 6, 2026 for the full voter registration list including dates of birth, addresses and partial SSNs. Judge Kari Dooley dismissed it on July 17, 2026, holding DOJ had no authority under the Civil Rights Act of 1960. DOJ appealed to the Second Circuit on July 23, 2026 and filed its brief there on October 6, 2026; no appellate ruling had issued as of this page’s date (case docket). Listed here for completeness — the outcome was in her favour.

Searched and not found: audits of her office, criminal matters, ethics findings, campaign-finance violations, residency questions, plagiarism, FOIA fights.

Links: votestephaniethomas.com · Facebook · Instagram · TikTok · X (personal) · LinkedIn

Peter Lumaj (R) — challenger

Who he is. Legal name Pjerin “Peter” Lumaj, as filed with the FEC and the Connecticut SEEC. Born in Albania; lives in Fairfield. Attorney; runs an immigration practice with a Bronx office. B.A. political science, City University of New York; J.D., Yeshiva University’s Cardozo School of Law. His own bio says he worked as a doorman and porter when he arrived in the U.S. while learning English, and describes himself as “a Fairfield father raising three children with my wife Mary.” Nominated by acclamation at the May 2026 state GOP convention.

This is his fifth statewide run, and he has never won one.

  • 2012, U.S. Senate — did not make the primary ballot. Described himself as the only “across-the-board conservative” in the race.
  • 2014, Secretary of the State — lost to Denise Merrill, 46.75% to 51.0% (489,515 to 533,543), across the Republican and Independent lines. He campaigned on voter ID and ending same-day registration.
  • 2018, governor — declared November 2017 after raising nearly $375,000 in an exploratory committee. A claim that he missed the primary ballot at convention could not be verified.
  • 2022, U.S. Senate — third in the Republican primary, 8,665 votes, 9.37%.

The 2014 and 2022 vote totals come from Wikipedia tables citing SOTS results; the SOTS PDFs themselves were not opened.

Where he stands — own words. Thin, and that is a finding in itself. His campaign site’s about page is general: “Reducing taxes and cutting red tape” and “Defending our constitutional rights and conservative principles.” It states no election-administration policy at all. The site’s October 2026 news posts are get-out-the-vote items.

  • On Thomas (Sept 2026): “That’s a political stunt, not professional administration” and “When you demonstrate repeated incompetence in running elections, federal agencies take notice.” He cites the two primary-petition errors and absentee-ballot fraud allegations in Bridgeport.
  • Facebook posts cover crime and immigration — e.g. July 16, 2025: elected Democrats have “failed to protect our citizens” and “encourage illegal aliens to come to our cities and state.”
  • Historical only (2014 run): his site then called for issuing a voter ID to all qualified electors, ending same-day registration, and opposing online registration and online voting. Secondary source, 2014-era. He has not restated these in 2026.

Not found: any 2026 position from him on voter ID, early voting, absentee rules, registration, audits, or business registration. He also did not appear for two scheduled New Haven Independent interviews.

Endorsements: the GOP nomination. No 2026 endorsements found.

Funding: SEEC determined him eligible for a Citizens’ Election Program grant on June 25, 2026. Candidates for this office must raise $100,700 in small-dollar contributions, $90,600 of it in state, to qualify. Whether he accepted the grant, and the amount, were not confirmed.

Red flag — Lumaj: a D.C. attorney discipline case

This has not been reported by any Connecticut news outlet. The identification evidence is set out below rather than the conclusion asserted. Judge it yourself.

The case. On January 16, 2025 the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, in In re Pjerin Lumaj, No. 24-BG-0640 (Bar Registration No. 984454), imposed a thirty-day suspension, fully stayed in favour of one year of probation, on an attorney named Pjerin Lumaj. He admitted that in three client matters he failed to maintain complete financial records of entrusted funds, and that in two of them he failed to provide clients with a written fee agreement — violations of D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct 1.15(a) and 1.5(b). Probation required three hours of continuing legal education on trust-account maintenance and safeguarding client property. The decision is non-precedential (full order; hearing-committee report).

The three complaints were filed in 2018, 2019 and 2020 by former immigration clients, over representations that began between 2013 and 2016 — disciplinary docket numbers 2018-D256, 2019-D289 and 2020-D130. The hearing-committee report names the clients; their surnames are Smajlaj, Vukaj and Nilaj. The court had rejected an earlier version of the negotiated discipline in October 2023 because the hearing committee had not addressed whether there had also been misappropriation of funds hinted at in the records; a supplemental report followed and the discipline was approved.

What matches the candidate. His legal first name is Pjerin, per his own FEC and SEEC filings. He is an immigration attorney. A 2018 CT Post profile reported that the District of Columbia is his only bar admission — he is not admitted in any state court or federal district court. His practice operates out of the Bronx. He was born in Albania, and the clients in the disciplinary matter have Albanian surnames. His LinkedIn lists membership of the D.C. Court of Appeals and Cardozo for law school.

What is missing. Neither the opinion nor the hearing-committee report states a residence or a firm address, so no single document ties the respondent to Fairfield, Connecticut. A D.C. Bar directory entry for No. 984454 could not be retrieved. One secondary aggregator places the respondent in the Bronx and his D.C. admission in 2008, but it sources the location to Avvo.

Read it as: a unique name, a single shared bar jurisdiction, the same practice area, the same borough and the same national-origin client base. That is a strong match, not a document that says so in one line.

Otherwise: no lawsuits, ethics complaints, criminal matters, campaign-finance violations or residency questions naming him were found. A September 30, 2026 Lloyd’s suit against a “Paul Lumaj” is a different person and is excluded.

Links: peterlumaj.com · Facebook · X · Instagram · TikTok · LinkedIn

What actually separates them

Thomas has a record with two real administrative failures on it and a legislative hearing to show for them. Lumaj has published no election-administration policy this cycle, skipped two press interviews, and has lost four statewide races. The one hard document in this race is the D.C. discipline matter above, and its identification is strong but not closed.

Treasurer

Manages the pension and trust funds, state borrowing and debt, and programs including CHET (the 529 plan), CT Baby Bonds and unclaimed property. This race has the clearest substantive disagreement of the six: whether one elected person should hold sole fiduciary authority over $73.7 billion.

Erick Russell (D, Working Families) — incumbent

Who he is. Treasurer since January 4, 2023, elected in 2022 with 52.4% over Harry Arora. Age 37; lives in New Haven. Formerly a partner at Pullman & Comley in Bridgeport doing public and private finance law; chaired the Connecticut Bar Association’s LGBT section. B.A. criminal justice, University of New Haven, 2009; J.D., UConn Law, 2012. Reported as the first Black openly gay person elected to statewide office in the United States.

The numbers, from his office’s own releases. These are the performance figures the race turns on. The FY2026 figures were checked against the primary source:

Fiscal year Return Assumed rate
FY2026 (to June 30, 2026) 15.1% 6.9%
FY2025 10.14% 6.9%
FY2024 11.5% 6.9%
FY2023 8.5% 6.9%

Total pension assets rose $11.0 billion in FY2026 (Treasurer). Net position of the Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds as of June 30, 2026 was $73.7 billion (Investment Advisory Council materials) — Teachers’ $33.1B, State Employees’ $30.2B, Municipal Employees’ $4.3B, OPEB $4.0B, other $2.1B. CT Mirror said “$76 billion” with no as-of date; the Investment Advisory Council table is the primary source and is what is used here.

Funded ratios as of the December 10, 2025 joint release: State Employees’ Retirement System 59.6%, up from 55.2%; Teachers’ 63.7%. SERS unfunded liability $17.6 billion, down from $19.2 billion (joint release). Extra pension payments from budget surpluses totalled more than $10 billion from FY2020 through FY2025, itemised in that release; CT Mirror put the running total at $11 billion once FY2026 is included. Still outstanding: more than $30 billion in unfunded obligations, with OPM not projecting full payoff until well into the 2040s, against regular contributions of about $3 billion a year — roughly 12% of the General Fund.

Where he stands — own words (Hartford Business Journal Q&A, Oct 27, 2026):

  • Performance: “FY 2026 was not an outlier.” Credits rebalancing, moving “to low-cost index funds where possible,” cutting manager fees, and bipartisan legislation that built an in-house investment team and broadened the Investment Advisory Council.
  • Governance — the central disagreement. He opposes a trustee board, calling it “a mistake to reshape the agency at a time of stability and strong performance” that would “introduce risk and chaos.” Says the IAC already sets asset allocation and reviews strategy and performance.
  • ESG: “Environmental, social and governance factors are one part of how we evaluate risk. They are not a separate investment strategy, and they do not drive investment decisions on their own.” Elsewhere he has called ESG “part and parcel with driving strong returns on long-term investments.” In practice: bans on private prisons and civilian gun manufacturers, defended as financial-risk decisions; a Tesla proxy vote against Musk’s pay package; and his office reportedly persuaded American Pacific to close 12 coal plants and retrain workers.
  • Debt: borrowing for roads, bridges and schools is appropriate but “should never be used to cover day-to-day operating costs.” Says he championed legislation paying down transportation debt and “saving taxpayers more than $1 billion.”
  • Private markets: private equity, private credit and emerging markets are a minority of holdings and selective private-equity picks remain worthwhile. “We’re not day traders. We’re not stock pickers.”
  • Baby Bonds: $3,200 invested per child whose birth is covered by HUSKY, usable between 18 and 30 after a financial-education requirement; says more than 50,000 children are eligible and the state’s initial $398 million has grown to over $566 million (HBJ).
  • CHET: says Forbes ranked it the top 529 program in the country.
  • Also runs the Safe Harbor Fund, privately funded, for people travelling to Connecticut for reproductive or gender-affirming care.
  • Fees: no fee total appears in any official release or article found. That absence is notable given his opponent’s attack.

Endorsements (from the Sway aggregator, a third-party compilation): CT Education Association, CT AFL-CIO, Working Families Party, SEIU 32BJ CT, LGBTQ+ Victory Fund, CT Democrats, and six town committees. No newspaper endorsement found.

Funding: SEEC determined him eligible for a Citizens’ Election Program general election grant at its August 12, 2026 meeting. CEP statewide candidates other than Governor qualify by raising $100,700 in small-dollar contributions, $90,600 of it in state, with a $340 contribution cap and no state-contractor or PAC money; the general election grant is capped at $1,125,750 (SEEC release). The release states eligibility, not an award amount, and the amount actually paid is not confirmed.

Red flags — Russell

Nothing against him personally was found — no ethics complaint, lawsuit, criminal matter, campaign-finance violation, critical audit or residency question. Three pieces of context that are not allegations but bear on the race:

1. The history he inherited. A 2023 Yale study found Connecticut’s pension returns lagged the nation over the prior decade, and that the state repeatedly used poor-performing, high-fee managers. Russell said in 2024 his office was reviewing outside private managers against benchmarks. Yale’s Jeffrey Sonnenfeld on Russell in 2024: “I wouldn’t say mission accomplished yet.” This is the factual basis of Wilms’s central attack, and it is about the decade before Russell took office.

2. Baby Bonds — he was the target, not the actor. CT Mirror reported, citing emails and texts, that Lamont’s former chief of staff and incoming general counsel discussed persuading Russell to drop his Baby Bonds push, and that then-Comptroller Natalie Braswell texted “Lol @ baby bonds we’ll fix that.” Resolved in May 2023 with $381 million from cash reserves and no new bonding. Retrieved via secondary summaries; the CT Mirror original was not opened.

3. One outside outlet has questioned a specific manager. Inside Investigator questioned pension investments with the local firm Fairview; Fairview said its fees have only gone down, and the piece noted Russell was new to the job. Headline and summary only; not retrieved in full. No no-bid contract allegation was found.

Links: erickforct.com · X · Facebook · Instagram

Fred Wilms (R, Independent) — challenger

Who he is. Age 66; lives in Norwalk. MBA in finance, University of Michigan; B.A. economics, Northwestern. About twenty years in global finance on Wall Street, then twenty-three years at Webster Bank, where he is currently a senior vice president. His site claims he has helped more than 700 Connecticut small and mid-sized businesses. State Representative for the 142nd District 2015–2019 (two terms); lost the seat to Lucy Dathan in 2018 and did not win it back in 2020. Chaired Norwalk’s Board of Estimate and Taxation, which his campaign says was eight years spanning the Great Recession.

On the guardrails claim. He says he helped write the 2017 fiscal guardrails and the volatility cap as a legislator. That is his own characterization. The CGA roll calls that could be checked show he voted Yea on both September 2017 votes on HB-7501 and on SB-1502 (126–23, Public Act 17-2) — so he voted for them, but nothing retrievable shows a drafting role. His full voting record and sponsored bills could not be pulled, because the CGA member page only returns the current holder of a seat. Vote Smart lists former Appropriations, Legislative Management, Public Health and Transportation committee service.

Where he stands — own words (Hartford Business Journal, Oct 27, 2026, and New Haven Independent, July 17, 2026):

  • Top priority, and his whole campaign: “transfer fiduciary authority power from the Treasurer personally to a formal trustee board.” He claims “Connecticut is now the only state with this structure — the other 49 states have a trustee board.” That claim is his and was not verified. He proposes nine members with the treasurer as chair, including union representatives and appointees of the governor and legislative leaders, all with investment backgrounds, and cites Senate Bill 1557 from last session.
  • Returns: “We have improved from horrific to OK. However, OK is not good enough. We should rank in the Top 10.” Says that if the state had simply bought an S&P index fund, “our pensions would be $14 billion higher.” His figure, unverified.
  • Portfolio: would scale back illiquid private equity and private credit — moving 50 to 75 percent of private equity (15% of investments), private credit (5%) and emerging markets (5%) into broad-based ETFs — and concentrate on developed-world equities, short-duration bonds, and real estate and infrastructure via index funds and tradable securities.
  • Fees: would “dramatically cut back” fees “which seem to be in the $150 million range” and report all fees together. His estimate, unverified — and note that no official fee total is published, which is part of his point.
  • ESG: opposes it. Would avoid coal on financial grounds rather than ESG grounds, and would not join the Republican treasurers’ campaign pressuring banks over fossil-fuel lending. Would not put state money in cryptocurrency — “not real money.”
  • Debt: says Connecticut’s bonded debt is over $25 billion; would vote for needed infrastructure and against “legislative pet projects” on the Bond Commission; would “vigorously defend the fiscal guardrails.”
  • Unclaimed property: says over $1.8 billion has accumulated and about $100 million more is taken in than returned each year; would expand automatic payments.
  • Transparency: an outside accounting firm to opine annually on the treasury’s financial position, plus quarterly reports “similar to what corporations do with their 10Q,” and quarterly scorecards against peers and benchmarks.
  • CHET: strong supporter.
  • He also said he has heard no specific cronyism allegations against Russell.
Wilms contradicts himself on Baby Bonds

July 17, 2026 (New Haven Independent, paraphrasing him — not a direct quote): he “would not abandon” the Safe Harbor fund or the $3,200 Baby Bonds.

October 27, 2026 (Hartford Business Journal): “While Baby Bonds sounds great in theory, its promised results are meager. Borrowing upfront $300 million to produce individual payouts in 18 years near $18,000 seems disappointing. That $300 million would have been better used for social programs now.” (HBJ)

The two statements are three months apart and are not reconciled in any source. If this program matters to you, it is worth asking him directly which position holds.

Endorsements: Connecticut Republican Party, four Republican town committees, and the Independent Party cross-endorsement. No newspaper endorsement found.

Funding: SEEC determined him eligible for a CEP grant on September 10, 2026. Amount paid: not confirmed.

Red flags — Wilms

None found. No ethics complaint, lawsuit, SEEC violation, criminal matter or reported Webster Bank conflict of interest surfaced.

One thing no outlet has raised, listed because of the job and not because anyone alleged anything: he is a sitting senior vice president at Webster Bank while seeking an office that selects financial counterparties and issues state debt. No source treats this as an issue, and this page does not assert it is one — but it is the obvious question to ask him.

A Norwalk headline about minority parties threatening an ethics complaint over a reapportionment plan has Wilms, then the Norwalk GOP chair, co-signing a joint statement. It is not a complaint against him. Not retrieved in full.

Links: fredforconnecticut.com · LinkedIn — no X, Facebook or Instagram found, which for a statewide candidate in 2026 is itself unusual.

What actually separates them

Not ideology — a structural question. Russell points at four straight years of beating the 6.9% assumption, capped by 15.1% in FY2026, and says do not rebuild the agency mid-success. Wilms says one person holding sole fiduciary authority over the pension funds — “Putting $70 billion in the hands of any one person”, his figure (HBJ) — is the risk regardless of this year’s number, points at the decade before Russell as evidence, and wants a nine-member board, fewer illiquid holdings and published fees.

Russell’s numbers are real and officially sourced. Wilms’s two headline figures — $14 billion forgone and $150 million in fees — are his own estimates and neither is verifiable, partly because the state does not publish a consolidated fee total.

Comptroller

The state’s chief fiscal officer: pays the bills, reports on state finances, and runs health benefits for roughly 250,000 state employees and retirees plus the Partnership Plan that municipalities can buy into.

Sean Scanlon (D, Working Families, Independent) — incumbent

Who he is. Comptroller since January 2023, elected 2022 with 55.1% over Mary Fay. Age 39; lives in Guilford. Four terms in the state House for the 98th District (2015–2023), chairing the Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee, and known for “P-Card Cop” work tightening state credit-card rules. He was treated as a possible 2026 gubernatorial candidate until Lamont sought a third term.

Where he stands — own words (Hartford Business Journal Q&A, Oct 20, 2026):

  • Priorities: pass the “Connecticut Option” to lower health costs; reform what he calls the “broken property tax system”; expand workforce development.
  • The guardrails: “The guardrails were created to end our fiscal crisis, and they have.” Cites eight years of surpluses and a $4.5 billion Rainy Day Fund (HBJ, Oct 20 2026) — a figure lower than the official projection. The May 20, 2026 budget letter (from OPM Secretary Jeffrey Beckham to Scanlon, not Scanlon’s own) puts the Budget Reserve Fund at $4.83 billion after $1.49 billion of FY2025 close-out transfers into the pension systems, and projects $5.61 billion — 23.3% of General Fund appropriations — at FY2026 year end (letter). He says there is bipartisan sense that the state “is sitting on too much money,” and that he worked with Pew on a proposal he will take to the legislature. “The question really isn’t will they be changed, it’s how.” He is the one proposing to change them.
  • Health costs — his concrete claims: a FlyteHealth GLP-1 weight program saving about $10.6 million a year; a TruDataRx partnership projected at $29.7 million this year; a dependent-eligibility audit covering about 1,400 individuals worth $14.5 million a year. Says GLP-1 spending was growing 54% annually when he took office.
  • CT Option: a plan he and Lamont promote, administered by a private insurer, to be submitted to the legislature in 2027, estimated to cover 100,000–200,000 people. “The votes are there for this. The governor supports it. I support it.” He supports federal single-payer, and in a Reddit AMA said he is “fine” with a New England joint single-payer plan but not near-term.
  • Pensions: credits $11 billion of surplus deposits and Russell’s returns; says the main fund went “from being 30% funded in 2018 to over 60% today.” Says he reformed the municipal pension system to save taxpayers in 107 of 169 towns “an estimated $800 million over the next three decades.”
  • MyCTSavings: from 700 companies to 7,600; 50,000 employees have saved $80 million.
  • Independence: points out he audited the governor’s own agencies and “exposed serious problems,” called out both the administration and the legislature over an underfunded healthcare budget, and notes he is “one of only two Democrats to be on the Independent Party’s statewide line.”

Not found: any 2026 statement on OpenCT or fiscal transparency by name.

Endorsements: none found for him in any search — no union and no newspaper endorsement surfaced, which is unusual for an incumbent Democrat. He holds the Democratic, Working Families and Independent lines.

Funding: SEEC determined him eligible for a CEP general election grant on August 5, 2026. Amount paid: not confirmed. No campaign website or campaign social accounts were found at all — only the official Office of the Comptroller accounts.

Red flags — Scanlon

The Partnership Plan is running a deficit, and it is the real criticism. In FY2025 the plan paid about $22.6 million more in medical and pharmacy claims than it collected in premiums — $731.4M in claims against $708.8M in premiums, a medical loss ratio of 103.5% (Comptroller’s FY2025 Partnership Plan report; CT Mirror). The same report puts the Partnership account balance at approximately −$18 million as of June 30, 2025. Hartford Business Journal’s question to both candidates used −$18.6 million; that figure does not appear in the Comptroller’s report, and the report’s own premium total is internally inconsistent by about $2M. As of July 2026 the plan covered more than 74,700 municipal employees, retirees and family members across 207 groups (Comptroller) — CT Mirror put FY2025 enrolment nearer 60,000, so the two figures are different years, not the same population.

His answer: “Like all health plans nationwide, we’ve faced rising hospitalization and prescription drug costs, resulting in a slightly higher 2025 Medical Loss Ratio. But aside from the 2021 post-COVID return to healthcare, that is the only shortfall in seven years.” He says 50 new groups have joined, 17 this year, and he opposes charging different premiums based on an individual employer’s claims cost (HBJ, Oct 20 2026). The Comptroller’s own report agrees it was “only the second time in seven years” that claims exceeded premiums.

Note the window. He says one shortfall in seven years. Tooker says a deficit in four of the past nine. Those are different periods and the sources do not reconcile them, and which framing is right was not established.

Nothing against him personally was found — no ethics complaint, lawsuit, criminal matter or campaign-finance violation. The audits associated with his name are ones his office issued about other people: a December 2024 special examination of CSCU found “troubling gaps in oversight and questionable spending practices,” including purchasing-card misuse by the Chancellor, an interim university president and a college president, with no criminal referral and a separate Office of State Ethics review; a Social Equity Council audit found nothing warranting a criminal referral.

Links: official office only — osc.ct.gov · Facebook · X · Instagram

Jennifer S. Tooker (R) — challenger

Who she is. Age 56; lives in Westport. Retired reinsurance executive with about twenty-five years in the industry, including Gen Re as Global Manager for Marketing and Communications, 2001–2013. B.A. economics and international studies, Notre Dame, 1991. In Westport: Board of Education 2011–2013, Board of Finance, Conservation Commission, then Second Selectwoman and First Selectwoman for one term, 2021–2025, not seeking re-election. Co-created StartUp Westport.

She ran for governor first. Entered in March 2025 and suspended on September 26, 2025, saying “it has become clear to me that the voters need more time to get to know me, and I need more time to get to know them” (CT Mirror). She had raised $81,252 since declaring. She announced for Comptroller on January 30, 2026.

Where she stands — own words (Hartford Business Journal, Oct 20, 2026, and New Haven Independent, June 26, 2026):

  • The pitch: “bringing independent oversight to our state finances, controlling healthcare costs and confronting Connecticut’s long-term liabilities,” and “The Comptroller’s responsibility is to taxpayers, not a political party.” Calls herself “the pro-business comptroller candidate.”
  • The guardrails — the direct clash with Scanlon: “I would not weaken them simply to make more money available for immediate spending.” Wants a public multi-year analysis, a stress test and an annual “Guardrail Scorecard.”
  • Long-term liabilities, her figures: roughly $80 billion in liabilities, “the highest per capita in the nation,” about three-quarters of it state employee pension debt, and a retiree health trust fund “only 18 percent funded.” Her numbers; they were not verified against official sources, and the official OPEB funded ratio was not retrievable. She acknowledges the state paid down $10 billion in pension debt, but says a labor contract raised wages enough to offset it.
  • Retiree health: “Drawing current expenses from an already underfunded trust while contributions decline shifts today’s costs to future taxpayers.” She notes the comptroller “cannot make those changes alone.”
  • Partnership Plan: an independent actuarial review and a published scorecard. Premiums “must reflect actual costs” but she would not price abruptly municipality-by-municipality. Westport did not join the Partnership Plan while she led it, and she says Westport’s own retiree health program is “more than 100 percent funded.”
  • Health costs: a comprehensive review of claims, contracts and administrative expenses, with published per-member cost benchmarks and five-year projections.
  • MyCTSavings: an independent review of fees, participation and administrative burden; keep access, simplify for small businesses.
  • She stated she was not questioning Scanlon’s honesty or character.

Endorsements: the Republican nomination. Supportive quotes in her announcement from Cliff Sirlin of StartUp Westport and State Rep. Tom O’Dea. No union, newspaper or organization endorsement found, and her site lists none.

Funding: SEEC determined her eligible for a CEP grant on September 10, 2026. Amount paid: not confirmed; her site does not mention public financing.

Red flags — Tooker

None found. No ethics complaint, lawsuit, criminal matter, campaign-finance violation or audit against her surfaced.

Minor and non-substantive, listed so you are not surprised by it: her campaign site still refers once to “Connecticut’s next governor” and gives her marriage length two different ways. A 2023 dispute over the makeup of Westport’s TEAM committee drew a lawsuit threat from two residents aimed at the committee, not at her (search-summary only). A March 2025 opinion piece faulted her for not stating views on national issues. One anonymous New Haven Independent commenter called her the “worst” Westport selectman, with no supporting detail — a comment, not reporting.

Links: jentooker.com · Facebook · X · Instagram · LinkedIn

What actually separates them

The fiscal guardrails, and they are honest about it. Scanlon says the guardrails did their job, the state is now sitting on too much money, and the question is how they change — he has a Pew-developed proposal ready for the legislature. Tooker says she would not weaken them to free up spending, and wants a stress test and an annual scorecard instead.

Second real difference: Scanlon’s record is a set of specific health-cost savings plus the CT Option he wants to finish. Tooker’s is an outsider-audit posture — review the claims, publish the benchmarks, commission an independent actuarial review of the Partnership Plan, which is genuinely running a deficit.

Her large liability figures are unverified. His “one shortfall in seven years” and her “four of nine” cannot both be describing the same window, and that was not settled.

Attorney General

William Tong (D, Working Families) — incumbent

Who he is. Attorney General since January 9, 2019, seeking a third term; the state’s 25th AG. Before that, State Representative for the 147th District (Stamford) 2007–2019, chairing Banking 2011–15 and Judiciary 2015–19. Eighteen years litigating, at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett in New York and then Finn Dixon & Herling in Stamford. Phillips Academy Andover; B.A. classics, Brown, 1995; J.D., University of Chicago, 2000. Lives in Stamford. Currently president of the National Association of Attorneys General. He sought the 2012 Democratic Senate nomination and withdrew, and lost the 2013 Stamford mayoral primary to David Martin by fewer than 200 votes.

Where he stands — own words. “I don’t care how big or bad you are. If you hurt Connecticut, I’m going to fight back.” His office claims it has “generated and protected more than $5.2 billion for the state,” about 22 times its own budget, with 220 attorneys.

Suits against the federal administration. The count depends on who is counting and when: 39 as of Dec 1, 2025 (CT Examiner), “more than 40” (CT Mirror, Oct 19, 2026), “more than 50” (New Haven Independent, July 2026), “more than 60” (NHI, Sept 2026, citing his campaign). No authoritative current total, and no per-case win/loss table, exists in anything retrieved. Most are multistate suits he joined rather than led — which is CT GOP chair Ben Proto’s criticism, and also what CT Examiner’s reporting says. 2026 filings include USDA grant conditions (March, 21 AGs), federal-contractor mandates under EO 14398 (June 10, 20 AGs, D. Md.), commercial driver data (Aug 13), and TANF data. All filed or pending; outcomes not confirmed.

Money recovered — the concrete part of the record.

Matter Amount Status
Purdue Pharma / Sackler $7.4B national; ~$64M to CT over 8 years Announced Jan 2025
Eight generic opioid makers ~$720M multistate; up to $8.4M to CT July 2025
Meta / social media $17.1B across 51 AGs; up to $265.4M to CT Announced Aug 26, 2026 — not final
Frontier Communications data breach $625,000 ~Oct 2026
TaxAct data sharing $275,000 Aug 19, 2026
Google location tracking $391.5M multistate (his site; undated) Self-reported

On the opioid figure: the WTNH headline reads “Connecticut to receive $720 million,” but its own text says the state “will receive a portion of approximately $720 million” and that “as much as $8.4 million could be sent to Connecticut” (WTNH). The $720M is the multistate total. The separate Purdue/Sackler figure of about $64M to Connecticut over eight years is Connecticut’s own share (WSHU).

On the Meta figure: the settlement was announced on August 26, 2026 but is not yet court-approved, and Connecticut’s share is contingent on TikTok, YouTube and Snapchat agreeing to comparable terms. At least half of whatever Connecticut receives is earmarked for youth-harm remediation. Treat it as announced, not banked.

Utilities. Tong says Eversource has asked for a $727M annual increase that would raise the average residential electric bill by about 18% — roughly $32 a month; Eversource’s own filing states an operating revenue deficiency of about $451M and puts the rise at 11% excluding storm costs. Tong called the request a “tone-deaf insult” (WFSB; CT Public).

PURA had already approved $933M in storm-related costs while rejecting more than $300M in interest charges Eversource sought to pass through (WFSB). Eversource says its own proposed increase would begin July 1, 2027. He also criticized PURA’s March 11, 2026 Yankee Gas decision, which added $4M to the $82M awarded in November (statement).

Other positions: defending the CT TRUST Act against a federal suit, and arguing states need not follow every federal directive; co-signed a letter opposing the SAVE America Act’s voter-ID provisions; says he is defending the assault-weapons ban and reproductive rights, without specifics on his site. Housing and antitrust: nothing substantive found.

Red flags — Tong

1. The PURA deleted-texts case, and a grievance referral touching his office. This is the one worth your attention. His office defended PURA in the utilities’ suit over former chair Marissa Gillett’s auto-deleting texts. On November 19, 2025 Judge Matthew Budzik wrote that PURA “actively sought to conceal the fact of the auto-delete function from opposing counsel and from the court,” found PURA General Counsel Scott Muska “intended to mislead,” and referred both Muska and Assistant Attorney General Seth Hollander to the Statewide Grievance Committee. The judge said he had no reason to believe Hollander personally knew of the deletions, but that Hollander “ought to have made more reasonable and diligent inquiry of his client.”

Muska’s account is that after “much discussion,” Tong’s office decided not to disclose the auto-delete function. That is Muska’s characterization. Tong’s office declined to comment on the order and pointed to a letter from Tong calling Hollander “a dedicated public servant.” The outcome of any grievance was not found. In May 2026 the utilities and PURA jointly moved to dismiss the underlying suit.

2. Chinese consulate questions — raised by his opponent, no finding. Bolton asked on October 9, 2026 whether Tong would release all communications with the Chinese consulate since 2019, citing the consulate’s account of a 2019 meeting with Consul General Huang Ping, a 2020 letter about pandemic supplies co-signed by Gov. Lamont and Tong, and a 2023 consulate reception at which Tong spoke. Bolton stated: “I’m not accusing anyone of wrongdoing.” News reports identified Huang as the official described but not named in the Linda Sun indictment (Radio Free Asia); he is not a defendant in that case. Whether he has been charged anywhere is not established here. No investigation, complaint or finding against Tong was found, and no response from Tong was found.

3. Scope-and-cost criticism. House Republican Leader Vincent Candelora says he believes Tong acts in good faith but asks whether resources are “being spread too thin.” Proto calls the federal suits political. Opponents’ characterizations.

Searched and not found: campaign-finance violations, bar discipline, criminal matters, audit findings, residency questions.

Links: williamtong.com · Instagram · Facebook · YouTube

John Bolton (R) — challenger

Not that John Bolton

The Republican nominee is John Bolton of Westport, Connecticut, 60, born in New Haven and raised in West Hartford. He is not the former U.S. national security adviser of the same name, and nothing from that person’s record appears here. The New Haven Independent puts it as “not the John Bolton with the bushy mustache.” No middle initial appears in any source; his committee is JB4AG26.

Who he is. Solo practitioner in Westport, admitted to the Connecticut bar in 1990, and general counsel to various corporate entities; earlier in-house counsel for companies in upstate New York and Alabama. B.A. Clark University; J.D., University of Connecticut School of Law. Started out with civil-rights lawyer Burton Weinstein on excessive-force and domestic-violence cases. Westport Planning & Zoning: alternate from 2021, full member from 2023, resigned May 27, 2026 to campaign. Lost the 2024 race for the 136th House district to Jonathan Steinberg. In 2022 he represented more than 40 teachers challenging the governor’s vaccine-mandate order, and lost. His father was a career investigator at the state Auditors of Public Accounts (New Haven Independent; Westport Journal).

Where he stands — own words.

  • The core of his campaign: the AG is “the People’s Lawyer” and should put state problems ahead of national litigation. “It’s all political advocacy and I have a real problem about that.”
  • Federal suits: he would stop the Trump-related ones but continue others “based on his reading of the law.” On tariffs: “I’m not sure that a state should be opining about tariffs” — he says that is federal authority, not a state’s.
  • Utilities: rate cases before PURA would be a top priority; would challenge policies driving up energy costs and oppose “unreasonable rate hikes”; proposes opening energy-access discussions with New York. Says Tong should have moved aggressively on the Gillett deleted texts and that he would order “an immediate internal review.”
  • Immigration: states cannot limit federal agents’ investigations and arrests; opposes some provisions of the TRUST Act; defends ICE courthouse arrests.
  • Guns: opposes the state’s new ban on sales of Glock-style convertible pistols, on Second Amendment grounds.
  • Abortion: would defend Connecticut’s abortion statute if challenged “because it’s lawfully enacted.”
  • Elections: supports photo ID to vote and would focus on “election integrity.” “There’s a loss of confidence right now in our electoral system and you have to restore it.”
  • Consumer and antitrust: investigate AI-driven pricing, deceptive practices, senior exploitation and price gouging; scrutinize hospital mergers and private-equity takeovers; hold drug makers accountable.
  • Also: opposes mandatory vaccination; calls current licence-plate-reader use “illegal surveillance”; parental rights including homeschooling; would pursue neighbouring states over pollution, citing a July 2026 Connecticut River sewage discharge.
  • Where he agrees with Tong, in his own words: the legislature rather than the executive should decide gender-affirming-care reimbursement, and a president cannot order changes to state elections by executive order.

Not found: positions on data privacy, housing, or the opioid and social-media settlements.

Endorsements: none listed on his own site, and he is not on the CT AFL-CIO list. His nomination was uncontested.

Funding: SEEC lists him as participating in the Citizens’ Election Program with the grant field blank. Whether he qualified or applied was not confirmed.

Red flags — Bolton

None found. No bar discipline, grievance, sanctions, suits against him, campaign-finance violations or residency questions surfaced. Grievance records can be confidential, and the Judicial Branch attorney lookup and SEEC enforcement database were not searched directly, so this is a clean search rather than a clean bill.

Two things that are not conduct issues but are worth knowing: he lost the 2022 teacher vaccine-mandate case he brought, and several claims in his own attacks on Tong are unsourced in the statements themselves — that the Supreme Court told Tong’s coalition it had sued too early, that his office was silent on a Waterbury water outage, and that $22M in state loans went uncollected. None of those three was verified.

Links: johnbolton4ag.com · X · Facebook · YouTube

What actually separates them

A genuine disagreement about what the office is for. Tong has built the job around multistate litigation against the federal government, and claims a large dollar recovery; the per-case record behind the suit count is not public in any form retrieved. Bolton would largely stop that and redirect to utility rates, consumer cases and in-state problems, and he supports voter photo ID. The sharpest documented mark against Tong is not a campaign attack — it is a judge’s November 2025 finding that PURA concealed the auto-delete function from the court, with a grievance referral that reached one of his assistant attorneys general.

Judge of Probate

This race has one name on it

Stamford is its own probate district, PD-53 — not merged with Greenwich (PD-54) or Darien–New Canaan (PD-52). The court sits on the 8th floor of the Government Center, 888 Washington Blvd.

Gerald Fox III (D) is the only candidate on the ballot. No Republican, no minor party, no petitioning candidate. Your options are to vote for him, write someone in, or skip the race.

Gerald M. Fox III (D) — incumbent, unopposed

Who he is. Probate judge since January 2015, elected November 4, 2014 with 88.2% against Thaddeus Hanset. Attorney at Fox & Fox LLP in Stamford since 1992, practising wills and trusts, real estate, and civil and criminal litigation. J.D. John Marshall Law School, 1992; B.A. Providence College, 1988; Westhill High School, 1984. His father, Gerald Fox Jr., held the same probate judgeship before him.

Before the bench: State Representative for the 146th District — his own bio says 2004–2014, Ballotpedia says 2005–2015 — where he chaired the House Judiciary Committee; Stamford Board of Finance 1999–2003, as chair and vice chair; Board of Representatives, 1st District, 1995–1999.

Listed volunteer boards: Fairfield County Community Foundation, Stamford Museum & Nature Center, Stamford Public Education Foundation, Bartlett Arboretum, CTE, St. Joseph’s Parenting Center.

Where he stands. Nothing. He gave no answers to any of the four League of Women Voters questions — qualifications, top two priorities, key issues, and safeguards in conservatorship and guardianship cases all show “No candidate response.” He has no campaign site and no social accounts. There is no statement from him on estate backlogs, conservatorships or children’s matters.

Endorsement: Stamford Democratic City Committee.

Red flags — Fox

None found, and the search was shallower than it should be. Searches for complaints, lawsuits, grievances and Council on Probate Judicial Conduct actions returned nothing, but the Judicial Branch attorney-discipline lookup and the Council’s published decisions were not queried directly. Treat this as “nothing surfaced,” not as a clearance.

Not a red flag, but the relevant structural fact: an unopposed judgeship held in succession by father and son, with no public answers to a voter questionnaire, is a race with no accountability mechanism in it this year.

Board of Education

The arithmetic matters here

Three seats are up, each for three years. Four candidates. You may vote for up to three. Stamford elects three Board of Education seats every year — 2024, 2025 and now 2026 — not only in even years. Incumbent Antonia Better-Wirz (D) is not running.

The minority-representation rule does not reserve a seat for the Republican. It is a cap on one party, not a guarantee for another. Reading the statute directly — CGS 9-167a, with the same conclusion in a 2005 CGA Office of Legislative Research report:

  • §9-167a(a)(1): a nine-member body may have at most 6 members of one party.
  • §9-167a(b): a party’s maximum for a given election is that cap minus its members whose terms continue.
  • §9-167a(c): if a party would exceed its maximum, only its top vote-getters up to the maximum are elected, and the next-highest candidates of other parties take the rest.

The arithmetic for this ballot. Democrats hold 6 of 9 seats. Three Democrats continue past this election, so the Democratic maximum for the three open seats is 6 − 3 = 3. Three Democrats are running for three seats, so the cap displaces nobody. Jose Tejeda could only have won by finishing in the top three on votes, pushing a Democrat out on the count — and he withdrew on October 27, so the three Democrats are now unopposed for the three seats. Winners seat on December 1.

Caveat on the continuing members: the 2025 cohort is Werely (D), Vandervoort (D) and O’Brien (R); the 2024 cohort is Foy (D), Hamman (R) and Tunga (R). Only Werely and O’Brien are confirmed from the 2025 results page — the other four parties come from search summaries. Stamford charter section C1-80-5 and CGS 9-204, which the statute’s annotation points to for boards of education, could neither be opened, so whether the city charter grants more minority representation than the state cap is unverified.

The Democratic slate runs together as “BOE Dems 2026” on boedems2026.com — “TRUST. TEAMWORK. TRANSPARENCY.” — with Facebook and Instagram.

Context you need to read the candidates

  • Superintendent turnover. Tamu Lucero was replaced; the board unanimously approved Adrian B. Talley in April 2026. As of late October 2026 he is roughly four months into the job. Rebuilding board–superintendent relations is the theme every candidate campaigns on.
  • The high school schedule, January 7, 2026. The board voted 8–1 to scrap the “flexible” high school schedule for the following year. The Advocate put the cost of reversal at over $3 million, needing 30-plus added teachers — the figures given by Chief Academic Officer Amy Beldotti. The board reverted to the eight-block A/B schedule by an 8–1 vote on January 7, 2026 (Stamford Advocate). A surprise May 2025 attempt had failed 4–4–1; the two Advocate write-ups describe that motion as aimed in opposite directions, so only the failed 4–4–1 tally is stated here.
  • School construction. The Westhill High School replacement broke ground in June 2026 at about $446M, with the state covering 80% of it (CT Public). A July 2024 revised estimate had put the project at $461M — up 53% from the $301M budget presented in 2022 — and the city’s own estimate of its non-grant-eligible share at $114M against that figure. The same 2024 report put a new K-8 school at the Roxbury site at $130M, after earlier estimates of $86M and $120M, and described the whole schools programme as a multi-year $1.5 billion plan with the city expecting to pay roughly half (Stamford Advocate). The $461M, $301M, $114M, $130M and $1.5B figures are 2024 estimates and may have moved since.
  • Transparency friction. Board Democrats considered returning to closed-door caucuses after a memo leak (CT Examiner, June 2026 — body paywalled). On April 7, 2026 the board voted unanimously for a resolution barring the superintendent from involuntarily transferring principals without the support of its Labor Committee (Stamford Advocate), drawing an administrators’ union grievance. In August 2026 the board rejected a teacher grievance.

Andy George (D) — incumbent, board president

Who he is. Eleven years on the board, the longest-serving member, and president for three terms. A retired chief financial officer. CABE-certified; involved in collective bargaining negotiations.

Where he stands — own words.

  • Top priority: rebuild trust with the school community, especially employees, under the new superintendent, and keep legislators informed about how state law lands locally.
  • On the former superintendent: “There was certainly a breakdown, I believe, in the relationship between the board and the previous superintendent.”
  • Budget: says this depends more on the superintendent’s administration than on the board; attends Board of Finance meetings; acknowledges budget requests often exceed what taxpayers can support, and that disagreement is normal.
  • Costs: points to rising special education, health care and transportation costs as what squeezes everything else.
  • Defends arts, music and drama, arguing some students learn better through them.
  • On gifted programming he asked, “What is ‘gifted’?”, and favours differentiated instruction.
  • Data: cautions that averages mislead and that linking programs to results is hard. Names no specific datasets — the weakest answer of the four on accountability.

The vote that defines him: he was the lone “no” on the 8–1 January 2026 vote to scrap the flexible high school schedule, saying “I’m not going to call it successful, but I think to call it unsuccessful or to call it a failure is incorrect.”

Red flags: none found. No ethics finding, lawsuit, criminal or campaign-finance matter. A former board vice president, Versha Munshi-South, published a letter quoting a sitting member’s emails that characterized George and Koc’s role as “merely a political role” — that is a partisan letter quoting a third party, not a finding, the emails were not verified, and the member quoted is not on your ballot. The same letter characterizes him as having no children in the schools; that is someone else’s characterization, not his statement.

Links: andygeorgeforboe.weebly.com · Facebook · X · LinkedIn

Gabriela Koc (D) — incumbent, vice president

Who she is. Three years on the board; vice president; chairs the Policy Committee. Seeking a second term.

Worth knowing before you vote for her

Koc works in external affairs for the Office of the State Treasurer — Erick Russell’s office, which is race 6 on this same ballot — and is treasurer of Gov. Ned Lamont’s re-election campaign, which is race 1. Reported by CT Examiner, October 25, 2026. Her own questionnaire lists her occupation only as “state employee.”

This is not an allegation of anything. It is a set of connections you would reasonably want to know about before voting, given who else is on the ballot, and no source found has raised it as an issue.

Where she stands — own words.

  • Priorities: school climate — social-emotional learning, mental health, restorative practices — and getting students actual representation on the board. She says every student should have a trusted adult in their school.
  • Governance: align the policy book with CABE; advocate for local and state funding. She organized a Hartford lobbying day.
  • Funding formula: wants changes to the state’s Education Cost Sharing formula to relieve districts like Stamford.
  • Data: wants it school-by-school and by student group — chronic absenteeism, discipline, advanced course access, climate surveys. The most specific data answer of the four.
  • Facilities: health and safety first; keep working with the city through “nearly $1 billion” of school construction.
  • Claims credit for helping establish a welcome center; received a 2026 Mujeres Destacadas award from grassroots Latino organizations.

Votes: the board passed its tentative $372M 2026–27 operating budget 7–2 on February 10, 2026, reinstating 53 positions; the only two votes against were Republicans Becky Hamman and Prasad Tunga (Stamford Advocate). Koc is not named in that report, so her yes vote is inferred from the other seven members voting for it. The final approved budget was lower — $360M, adopted in May 2026 (Stamford Advocate). Abstained on the May 2025 schedule motion, saying she was uncomfortable with comments made by supporters.

Red flags: none found.

Links: Instagram · LinkedIn — no separate campaign site or Facebook page found.

Regan Allan (D, also Independent line) — newcomer

Who she is. Deputy Executive Director of The Sharing Shelf, a Port Chester, NY charity. Master’s in elementary education, Teachers College, Columbia. Started as a K–1 teacher; thirteen years at the Stamford Public Education Foundation as Director of Education and Engagement; project manager on Stamford Public Schools’ strategic planning; former Executive Director of Starfish Connection. PTO leader at three schools and co-president of the Parent Teacher Council; co-founder of the Alliance for Black Achievement; CT Parent Cabinet for early childhood. Chair of the Stamford Appointments Commission and a member of the Democratic City Committee. Lives in Stamford nearly 30 years; says all four of her children graduated from Stamford Public Schools.

Where she stands — own words. The sharpest critic of the current board among the Democrats, which is notable given she is running on their slate.

  • Special education and accountability: wants regular per-school reporting on evaluation timelines, IEP and 504 compliance, interventions and growth.
  • Budget: reinstate the Citizens’ Budget Advisory Committee, budget year-round, publish plain-language budgets, tie requests to the strategic plan, offer summer budget classes. On the current process: “That’s a problem.”
  • On the superintendent’s “Coffee and Conversation” sessions: “It’s too one-way and too much of Dr. Talley answering back.”
  • On the strategic plan: “I think it’s moving too quickly.”
  • Says existing policy is not consistently enforced — the middle school cell-phone rule is routinely violated, and some counsellors discourage students from taking AP courses.
  • Raised disproportionately high suspension rates for Black male students and wants a review of discipline data.
  • Facilities: supports the current building plan including Westhill and Roxbury, with board oversight of schedule and budget, plus a simple way for staff to report building problems.

Red flags: none found.

Links: boedems2026.com/regan · LinkedIn

Jose B. Tejeda (R, also Independent line) — newcomer

Withdrew on October 27, 2026 — but is still on the ballot

The Stamford Advocate reported on October 27, 2026 that Tejeda is withdrawing his candidacy after the video described below. He told the paper he stood by his comments, and said he withdrew to disassociate himself and his comments from those who had endorsed him, including the Stamford Republican Town Committee. He said he was on his way to the Stamford Town Clerk’s office to withdraw that afternoon. His name will still appear on the ballot, because ballots for November 3 had already been printed (Stamford Advocate).

A vote for him is still a legal vote and is still counted. It can no longer seat him. The practical effect is that three Democrats are running for three seats.

The section below was written before the withdrawal and is left as it stands, because the record is what it is and the newspaper’s account of the video matches it independently.

Two things about the record on him

Spelling. The official ballot prints Tejeda. CT Examiner spells it “Tejada.” Same person.

Employment — now settled. On October 27, 2026 he told the Stamford Advocate directly that he is a special education teacher in the New York City Public Schools system (Stamford Advocate). That matches CT Examiner, which also reports he works in the juvenile justice system in Queens, and his own X biography, “Christian Orthodox married man, teacher, & admin in court.” His candidate profile named no employer. The individual school or district office is still not named anywhere. He is the only candidate of the four who is a classroom teacher by trade.

Who he is. Bachelor’s degree in criminal justice; working toward a master’s in special education. No campaign website, Facebook, Instagram or LinkedIn was found. His only listed handle is x.com/J_CTejeda, and he also has a Rumble channel, Jose_T95, which holds five items: three videos — Birth of a podcast (4:54, the one discussed below), Ramblings (10:53) and Respond to birth of a podcast (4:22) — and two shorts, “Ceegar break” and “Introductions Gentleman”.

Where he stands — own words. He runs explicitly against spending as the answer.

  • “Positive change occurs not through an emphasis of money but an emphasis of genuine care towards the children.”
  • Enrollment and school closures. Says enrollment has dropped by nearly 2,000 students since 2024 and proposes asking which schools should be closed. No other candidate raises this.
  • The construction program. Questions the roughly $1 billion appropriated for three new schools and says the return on that investment has been poor.
  • Specific academic numbers he cites: Class of 2025 results at 50.6% meeting the ELA benchmark and 23.2% in math, against 55.3% and 37.7% for the Class of 2019; and only 3 of 9 teachers in grades 6–8 being certified remedial reading specialists. These figures are his; they were not checked against a primary source. He also says the 23 Strategic School Profiles have not produced improvement and should be refocused on academics, and questions whether principals function as instructional leaders.
  • Facilities: would start by asking why the problems exist and what has already been tried, consulting community leaders, administrators, the superintendent and contractors, rather than spending more.
  • Praised Talley for community engagement and classroom visits.
  • The weak spot, in his own words at the candidate forum: “I can’t give you a policy that will help students in the near future. The question is how to create a policy.” He could not name a specific policy without first consulting students, parents and teachers.

Endorsements: the Republican and Independent lines. No Stamford Republican Town Committee announcement, union or newspaper endorsement was found.

Red flags — the most serious in this document

A video he posted 26 days before the election

On 8 October 2026 he posted a 4-minute 54-second self-recorded video to a Rumble channel in his own name (Jose_T95, “Birth of a podcast”) and linked it from his X account. It was his second video there, not his first — see the block below. It opens and closes with the sign of the cross spoken aloud and he names himself at the end. In it he announces a podcast whose premise is that invited guests will be shamed on air, and then states three positions of his own.

Own words, verbatim, at 2:13–2:21:

“I’m against LGBTQ plus A123.”

“I’m against women’s voting rights.”

“I’m against, what else, mass migration of Muslims in the country.”

Own words, at 1:40, on who the guests would be — after naming sex workers, OnlyFans performers, prostitutes and “degenerates in general”:

“It could be guys and gals, I’m focusing on the women, because I want this channel to be hated.”

Why those three are read as his own positions, and not his guests’

This was tested, because the guest list sits immediately before the three positions and a careless reading joins them.

  • The guest list is closed before the positions begin, and it is behavioural, not political — sex workers, OnlyFans performers, prostitutes, people who “go out to the clubs every weekend.” No political position appears in it. He also places himself inside that category: “I was a damn degenerate. Probably still am.”
  • The sentence immediately preceding the three is explicitly about his own framework: “based on my Christian Orthodox framework or basis, I want to just speak the reality of things, what I observe, the truth of it.”
  • All three are first person singular — “I’m against.”
  • He then claims them twice more. “I’m against a lot of topics that are very unpopular” — which is how a person describes their own minority view — and “One would consider me a conservative, but I’m a bit, not radical, but my ideals would be considered radical to the person that doesn’t give thought to it first.”

Transcription check. The recording was transcribed twice, using two different speech-recognition systems. Both render that passage word for word identically, and both report high confidence on it. The wording is not a transcription artefact.

Independently corroborated since. The Stamford Advocate, reporting the video on October 27, 2026, read it the same way: that Tejeda “lists some of his beliefs,” that he “says he opposes women’s voting rights and the ‘mass migration of Muslims in the country,’” and separately that his proposed guests were to be “shamed.” The paper reached that reading independently of this page, and Tejeda told it he stood by his comments (Stamford Advocate).

His X account, in his own words. @J_CTejeda, opened October 2025, 1,519 posts, 218 following, roughly 58 followers as of August 2026. Biography: “Christian Orthodox married man, teacher, & admin in court. Salvation isn’t guaranteed, do your duty.” The 96 top-level posts on the account, back to February 2026, were read.

  • The post announcing his own candidacy, 5 October 2026, in full: “I’m running for board of education in my city and that shit is hard and I sucked completely at this; this is not an accomplishment. To juggle different priorities is very stressful, but worth it for whomever decides to take the mantle. Also, feminism sucks.”
  • 4 February 2026: “The real answer to our problems long term is to change the educational system in our country. Every year we create future lunatics that will end up running our government, large businesses, and international relationships. Prevent more idiots and retards from being created!”
  • 6 October 2026: “I have no prior knowledge, or understanding of the Cornell seven case, but I’ll say this I still do not trust women.”
  • 7 October 2026, sharing a debate video: “Great video that showcases how insufferable a broad with a degree can be and their take on society.”
  • 18 October 2026: “…sad to see how easy it is for a husband to be accused of rape.”
  • 7 April 2026, on principal licensure: “I just learned that anyone who is trying to be a principal of a school must go to a 1 year leadership course. How the hell is that[?] People create successful million dollar businesses without doing a stupid leadership course.”

:::

The earlier video, and the one more directly about this job

The October 8 video was not his first. Six days earlier, on 2 October 2026, he posted “Ramblings” — 10 minutes 53 seconds, 68 views — and its subject is access to knowledge. He states a position three times:

“I thought to myself, yeah, not everyone should have knowledge. Not everyone. And I’m repeating that again. Not everyone should have knowledge or the accessibility to have knowledge.”

He develops it through an analogy with a craft trade — knowledge should pass only to someone the master has vetted — and then applies it to teaching and to children:

“There’s always a teacher to anything that one is being taught. If you’re a kid, you don’t know everything. If you’re 10 years old, you’re starting to learn. The teacher that’s teaching you, like a craftsman or a trade, they should be a person or you should be the person that is passing on values. It should be earned. It shouldn’t be something available or accessible to anyone. That’s the point that I’m trying to make… Observations I made even as a school teacher.”

He then contradicts himself, in the next breath: “It shouldn’t be earned. It should not at all. Because it could be corrupted.” Both transcription models render that line identically, so it is what he said, not an artefact. Which way he meant it is not resolved here.

He also says in this video what he is doing it for: “Usually these videos that I’m trying to make to try to get some notoriety or fame. That’s what I’m trying to do.”

Two shorts on the same channel. In “Introductions Gentleman” he names himself and sets out the channel’s purpose. In “Ceegar break” he speaks about the students he teaches:

“As a teacher, the students, they’re pretty much indoctrinated with the way society runs and the way society is. There’s no sense of honor. There’s no sense of having to work to get what you want or what you need. And that’s a sad thing when you try to instill discipline for students, not like a son or a daughter, they’re your own, but for other people’s children. The concept of hard work and accountability is very lost.”

All three, plus the two shorts, were downloaded from the channel and transcribed on 27 October 2026.

What bears on this seat, and what does not

Directly on point. A Board of Education member votes on curriculum, instructional and library materials, student clubs, discipline policy, Title IX matters and personnel. Three items above fall inside that scope.

The closest to the job is the October 2 position that access to knowledge should not be available to everyone, which he grounds in his own classroom observations. A board member votes on curriculum and on library materials; that is a position about who gets taught what. A stated position against “LGBTQ” is, in this seat, a position about students and staff he would hold authority over. And the February 2026 post — “Prevent more idiots and retards from being created!” — was written by a candidate whose trade is special education.

Not directly on point. Opposition to Muslim immigration and to women’s suffrage are national positions a school board does not touch. They bear on judgment rather than on any vote he would cast in this seat.

Nothing found names Stamford students, Stamford schools, or any identifiable individual. The “Ceegar break” short is about students he teaches, but names no school and no child. The shaming podcast does not exist — it is an announced intention with no name and no guest.

What the withdrawal video actually says

“Respond to birth of a podcast” — 4 minutes 22 seconds, 49 views, dated 27 October 2026 on Rumble; the Stamford Advocate reports he posted it Monday night, 26 October (Advocate).

He draws a line between opinions and values and says the endorsements attach to neither: “my opinions do not represent anyone endorsing me, and from here on forward I’m dropping out of everything, everything I’m involved in, and I do apologize deeply for whomever wanted to support me in my campaign, because they had no idea of my own opinions.”

He refuses to delete anything: “I’m not taking my videos down… I will not, because these are my opinions.” He calls the reporting of his channel doxing — “it’s very disingenuous to dox a person’s channel, especially on Rumble, where there’s creative liberty” — and ends that thought “whomever doxed my channel, which is nothing, fuck you, that’s what I have to say,” then characterises it as the emotional 5–10% of the video.

He is not dropping the podcast. The same video closes: “I’m going to move forward with this podcast, or this show, or whatever I have planned, and stay tuned.” “Dropping out of everything” and continuing the show appear in the same four minutes, and are not reconciled.

Audience, and a motive this document does not assign

The video has 261 views and 1 like. The Rumble channel has 2 followers and five items (channel). He referred to “my 58 followers” on X in August 2026. No monetisation link, membership tier, merchandise or donation request was found on either account.

Two things follow, and they cut in opposite directions. These positions were not shaped for a constituency, because there was no constituency — which makes them a better guide to what he actually thinks than anything he said at the candidate forum. And almost nobody in Stamford had seen any of it — until it was reported.

Both endorsers have now responded. Stamford RTC chair Joe Andreana Jr. gave the Advocate a statement on October 26: “Those statements are his and his alone. The statements do not represent the values or beliefs of the Stamford RTC or of the state party.” Chip Beckett, chair of the Independent Party of Connecticut, did not respond to the paper’s request for comment (the Advocate spells it “Becket”; the party and other reporting spell it Beckett) (Stamford Advocate). Whether either knew about the video before giving him their lines is still not established — the RTC’s statement disclaims the views, it does not say when the committee learned of them.

On motive, he has said one thing himself. In “Ramblings” he says: “Usually these videos that I’m trying to make to try to get some notoriety or fame. That’s what I’m trying to do.” That is a stated aim for the videos, in his own words, and an earlier version of this page was wrong to say no motive was established. It is not evidence of a financial motive: no monetisation link, membership tier, merchandise or donation request was found on either account, and the audience was 68 views, then 261, then 49. This document does not assign him any motive beyond the one he states.

The choice in this race

What actually separates the four

Two incumbents asking to finish what they started with a new superintendent (George, Koc), one slate Democrat running on the current board’s failures (Allan), and the only classroom teacher in the field, running against the construction program and raising school closures (Tejeda).

On the forum answers alone Tejeda was a credible fourth. The separating fact was never in the forum answers: it was the October 8 video and the X account above, which no other candidate in this race has anything comparable to — and which ended his candidacy on October 27. The live choice is now among the three Democrats.

On the specific question of holding the district to numbers, the detailed answers came from Koc, Allan and Tejeda. George’s data answer was the vaguest of the four. You have three votes and four candidates, and you can split them across party lines.

What was not verified

Stated plainly, because the gaps are part of the answer.

  • Lumaj’s D.C. discipline identification. Strong circumstantial match, no single document tying the respondent to Fairfield. The D.C. Bar directory entry for No. 984454 could not be retrieved.
  • Tong’s federal-suit record. No authoritative total and no per-case win/loss breakdown exists in anything retrievable. Every number in circulation comes from a campaign or a news summary at a different date.
  • Wilms’s two headline numbers — $14 billion in forgone returns and $150 million in annual fees. Both are his estimates. The state publishes no consolidated fee total, so the second cannot be checked against anything.
  • Wilms’s claim that Connecticut is the only state without a pension trustee board. Not verified either way.
  • Tooker’s liability figures — roughly $80 billion, highest per capita in the nation, and an 18%-funded retiree health trust. Not verified; the official OPEB funded ratio could not be retrieved.
  • The Partnership Plan window. Scanlon says one shortfall in seven years; Tooker says a deficit in four of nine. Both cannot describe the same period and which framing is right was not settled.
  • Exact CEP grant amounts and 2026 fundraising totals for every statewide candidate. The SEEC eCRIS database was not queried directly.
  • No campaign-finance check at all was run on the Board of Education or probate candidates.
  • Tejeda’s X replies — roughly 1,400 of them. Only the 96 top-level posts were read. On an account with a 15:1 reply ratio, most of it is unread.
  • Tejeda’s account before February 2026. The Posts tab bottoms out there, although the account opened in October 2025.
  • Three debate videos linked from his X account, including one billed under his own name, were not watched. In one of his shorts he refers to “Word War Debate, or the Second Word War Debate, where I made… my introduction into the arena of debating,” which is probably the same material. His 218 X follows were not enumerated.
  • Tejeda’s individual school or district office. He has confirmed to a reporter that he teaches special education in the New York City Public Schools system, but no source names where.
  • Whether the Stamford Republican Town Committee or the Independent Party knew about the October 8 video before endorsing him. The RTC has since disclaimed the views, and the Independent Party’s chair declined to comment, but neither says when they learned of the video.
  • Stamford charter section C1-80-5 (“Election of Board of Education”) and CGS 9-204, the statute the minority-representation annotation points to for boards of education. Neither could be opened, so whether the charter adds minority representation beyond the state cap is unknown.
  • Four of the six continuing Board of Education members’ party affiliations. Only Werely (D) and O’Brien (R) are confirmed from a results page.
  • Party enrollment of Allan and Tejeda, which determines how their Independent-line votes are counted under CGS 9-167a(g).
  • Probate: the Judicial Branch attorney-discipline lookup and the Council on Probate Judicial Conduct decisions were not queried directly for Fox.
  • Paywalled: two CT Examiner pieces (June 25 and August 24, 2026). For the August 24 teacher-grievance story only the headline is visible, so the rejection is confirmed but the vote date is not. The Stamford Advocate articles on the budget tallies, principal transfers and Westhill costs were retrieved on the second pass and are now cited directly.
  • Gabriela Koc’s budget vote. The report of the 7–2 tally names only the two members who voted against. Her yes vote is inferred from that, not stated.
  • The Stamford schools construction total. The only programme-wide figure found is a 2024 estimate of $1.5 billion. The “roughly $1 billion” Tejeda questions is his figure, and the two do not match.
  • No systematic social-media content analysis was done for any candidate except Tejeda, whose X account was read in full at the top level, and whose Rumble channel — all three videos and both shorts — was downloaded and transcribed in full, both on 27 October 2026. For everyone else, where this document describes what someone “talks about most,” it is based on their own site and the interviews cited, not a feed review. The other candidates’ feeds have not been given the same scrutiny Tejeda’s has, and that asymmetry is a property of this document, not a finding about them.
  • No newspaper endorsements were found in any of the six races.
  • “None found” is never a clearance. Grievance records are confidential in Connecticut until discipline issues.

Sources

Compiled 27 October 2026.

The ballot itself

Primary documents

Reporting

Candidate questionnaires and official pages