Convicted By Feds Of Stealing $39K From Preschool Program, Catherine Finkle Has Pension Reduced: AG

EAST HAVEN, CT — In February 2018, a forensic audit conducted by the East Haven Board of Education found serious irregularities related to the Litttle Jackets Program. Catherine Finkle ran the preschool program where auditors found sloppy records for tuition collection, incomplete expense reports and the need for an operating budget. Finkle was fired. In 2021, then 58, Finkle pleaded guilty to a federal charge of wire fraud related to the theft of $39,000 from the child care program and got three years probation, and agreed to pay restitution and fine.

Her husband, John T. Finkle III, a East Haven board of education member in 2018 who voted against referring forensic audit findings to law enforcement, pleaded guilty in a $3 million fraud scheme in 2019 and was sentenced to serve two years in federal prison.

Now, state Attorney General William Tong noted said that a Hartford Superior Court judge has ordered a partial reduction in municipal pension payments for Finkle.

As noted by Tong in a news release, for approximately eight years, from January 2011 until November 2018, as director of the Little Jackets childcare program, Finkle diverted more than $30,000 in tuition and cash payments intended for the program to her own bank account for her personal use. She was terminated after her failure to account for the missing tuition payments.

Tong said she subsequently filed a grievance contesting her termination and was unsuccessful. She later filed for unemployment benefits even though she was fired for cause, requiring the Board of Education to contest her claim. In addition to the money she stole, her actions caused the town to incur more than $52,000 in legal expenses.

"Catherine Finkle stole thousands of dollars intended for the education and care of East Haven kids. When she was caught, her inability to accept her termination and resulting loss of benefits cost the town tens of thousands of dollars more in legal fees. She was convicted on federal criminal charges and forced to repay the town all that she stole. This decision ensures that taxpayers will be made whole for the full cost of Finkle’s misdeeds," Tong said. "State law requires that my office take action to revoke or reduce the pension of state or municipal officials convicted of corruption-related charges. Those who abuse their positions for personal gain must be held accountable."

Tong said that under state statute, the AG is required to initiate a civil action seeking reduction or revocation of the pension of any state or municipal official or employee who, in state or federal court, is convicted of or pleads guilty to a crime related to their state or municipal office.

Tong filed a civil action to reduce Finkle’s pension in December 2021. The case was tried in Hartford Superior Court before Judge Amir Shaikh on May 5, 2025, his news release reads

In a decision issued on Aug. 28, Judge Shaikh reduced Finkle’s pension by $500 per month for eight years and nine months, after which she will receive her full pension. The amount of the reduction equals the amount of the town’s un-reimbursed legal fees, Tong said.

In addition to the pension revocation, Finkle has paid the town $38,544.50 in restitution as part of her criminal plea, he noted. She was further ordered to pay a $20,000 fine, required to perform 50 hours of community service, and sentenced to three years of probation, the first six months of which Finkle spent in home confinement, the AG said.

Per state law, Tong said, that "Any state or municipal official convicted on corruption-related charges – defined specifically in the law as embezzling public funds; committing felony theft from the state; bribery in connection with one's service as a state or municipal employee; or committing a felony with intent to defraud in order to obtain a profit, gain or advantage for themselves or someone else – could face court action to reduce or revoke their pension."

The process works like this: "In determining whether to revoke or reduce a pension, the court is required to consider the following factors: (1) the severity of the crime; (2) the amount of monetary loss; (3) the degree of public trust reposed in the defendant; (4) if the crime was part of a fraudulent scheme, the role of the defendant in the scheme; and (5) any such other factors as, in the judgment of the court, justice may require."