A new Hartford court filing is reviving scrutiny of City Council President Thomas “TJ” Clarke II and the city’s handling of a sexual harassment controversy that ended in a taxpayer-funded settlement, while raising a separate question about why Connecticut’s largest public-sector union later hired him for a senior leadership role.
The filing, a bill of discovery submitted May 27 by Hartford resident Alyssa Peterson, seeks depositions, phone records and other materials she says are necessary before she can file an accurate legal complaint.
A bill of discovery is not a lawsuit and is not a finding of wrongdoing; it is a procedural tool used to gather information before deciding whether to pursue legal claims. The petition alleges Hartford officials failed to investigate misconduct, follow city policies and exercise oversight authority available under the Hartford City Charter. Those allegations have not been proven.
What is not in dispute is the underlying controversy.
In 2020, Hartford approved a $140,000 settlement tied to allegations brought by former council aide Kristen Squillante, who accused Clarke of sexually inappropriate messages while he served as council president. The Hartford Courant reported in 2019 that hundreds of text messages between Clarke and Squillante had not been produced during litigation and were turned over only after a city attorney said they had been “misplaced.”
Publicly reported messages included “Wearing bikini emoji or no?”, “With your good looks,” “Don’t slip up and send me any see thru bikini pics,” and “Am I the first person you think about in the morning?” Clarke acknowledged during deposition testimony that several messages were inappropriate for someone serving as council president.
Former Mayor Luke Bronin publicly called Clarke’s conduct “inexcusable” and said the messages disqualified him from leadership. Multiple council members called on Clarke to step down as council president. He later no longer held the position, though he remained on the council.
Peterson’s filing alleges that council members were asked to approve the $140,000 settlement without being shown approximately 250 text messages, many of them sexually suggestive, that were later produced in discovery. The petition further alleges members were not informed that additional messages had allegedly been lost or destroyed.
The central questions raised by the filing are institutional: whether city officials investigated the allegations as city policy required, whether council members had access to key evidence before approving the settlement, and whether officials used the oversight authority available to them under the city charter.
Peterson points to charter language granting the council authority to investigate “the official conduct of any Department of the City government or of any officer or employee thereof” and argues that a formal removal proceeding was not required before the council could open an investigation.
Hartford’s sexual harassment policies, under both the Segarra and Bronin administrations, required reporting and investigation of misconduct allegations and contemplated discipline for violations. Whether those policies were followed is among the questions Peterson’s filing is designed to answer.
The filing arrives with added context. In late 2024, AFSCME Council 4, one of Connecticut’s most influential public-sector unions, hired Clarke as chief of staff, placing him in a senior management role overseeing staff and day-to-day operations. Then in December 2025, the Hartford City Council unanimously elected Clarke council president again. He now holds both positions simultaneously.
Public-sector unions routinely advocate for workplace anti-harassment protections and employee rights. Clarke’s role at AFSCME raises questions about whether those standards factored into the union’s decision to place him in senior leadership.
For Hartford taxpayers, who funded the settlement, and for AFSCME members, whose union employs Clarke in a position of authority over staff, the questions Peterson is seeking to answer remain unresolved.
